CCAMP Working Group R. Douville D. Papadimitriou L. Ciavaglia M. Vigoureux E.Dotaro Category: Internet Draft Alcatel Expires: May 2002 November 2001 Extensions to GMPLS for Waveband Switching draft-douville-ccamp-gmpls-waveband-extensions-00.txt Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026 [1]. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 1. Abstract Generalized-MPLS (GMPLS) extends the MPLS control plane to encompass time-division, wavelength and spatial switching. A functional description of the extensions to MPLS signaling needed to support the new types of switching is provided in [GMPLS-SIG]. Along with the current development of IP over optical switching, there are considerable developments in optical transport systems based on the multiple optical switching granularities. [GMPLS-SIG] currently defines two layers of optical granularity (wavelength and fiber). As described in [IPO-MG], a revisited definition of waveband switching must be introduced. This document presents a functional description of the extensions, to the GMPLS protocol suite, to integrate the additional requirements of optical multi-granularity and to further benefit from the features of those switching layers. 2. Conventions used in this document R.Douville et al. - Internet Draft û Expiration May 2002 1 draft-douville-ccamp-gmpls-waveband-extension-00.txt November 2001 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [2]. 3. Summary for Sub-IP Area 3.1. Summary See the abstract above. 3.2. Where does it fit in the Picture of the Sub-IP Work This work fits the CCAMP box. 3.3. Why is it Targeted at this WG This draft is targeted at the CCAMP WG, because it specifies the extensions to the GMPLS signaling. GMPLS is itself addressed in the CCAMP WG. 3.4. Justification of Work The WG should consider this document as it specifies the extensions to the GMPLS signaling. These extensions concern the new definition of waveband switching and the introduction of optical multi- granularity based on [IPO-MG]. 4. Terminology Conventions, acronyms and abbreviations used in this document. Terminology is based on the definitions from [GMPLS-ARCH] and [GMPLS-SIG] plus specific addition for Multi-Granularity vocabulary. L-LSP = Lambda-LSP WB-LSP = WaveBand-LSP F-LSP = Fiber-LSP WXC = Wavelength Cross-Connect WBXC = WaveBand Cross-Connect FXC = Fiber Cross-Connect LSC = Lambda Switch Capabale WBSC = WaveBand Switch Capable FSC = Fiber Switch Capable MG-OXC = Multi-Granularity Cross Connect 5. Introduction In optical networks, the multi-granularity concept described in [IPO-MG] provides the ability to simultaneously switch different levels of granularity inside a given optical network. The granularities we considered inside optical networks are single R.Douville et al. - Internet Draft û Expiration May 2002 2 draft-douville-ccamp-gmpls-waveband-extension-00.txt November 2001 wavelengths (L-LSP), bundles of wavelengths that we call wavebands (WB-LSP), and whole fibers (F-LSP). Optical multi-granularity relies on technologies working at the different switching levels (e.g. wavelength, band and fiber). One of the key benefits in optical backbone networks is to simplify the switching procedures of numerous lower granularity LSPs (Lambda- LSPs, for instance) by switching these LSPs as a single entity or LSP of higher granularity order (e.g. WB-LSP or F-LSP). To enable such grouping of LSPs, grooming strategies can be employed. We propose to extend GMPLS previous set of switching capabilities in the optical domain, by identifying uncovered characteristics of the optical transport, taking into account interest for optical components working at the band level and its impact on the control of the optical networks. In the efforts of describing the requirements and set of capabilities for optical multi-granularity, three approaches to waveband switching have been identified: - Inverse Multiplexing - Wavelength Concatenation - Waveband The common availability of optical/photonic switching equipment capable to work at the band level motivates the redefinition of waveband switching as defined in the GMPLS architecture. Current definition of waveband switching (see [GMPLS-ARCH] and [GMPLS-SIG]) refers to inverse multiplexing mechanism or wavelength concatenation (ôcontiguousö lambdas in a trunk defining a logical waveband). While this definition is still valid and applicable, it does not consider the approach where band has a physical significance, i.e. where the interface is WaveBand Switch Capable (WBSC). Physical waveband has the ability to switch directly a portion of the frequency spectrum without the need to distinguish between the inner components (e.g. wavelengths). The following document regroups the extensions to the GMPLS protocol suite required to support the introduction of the optical multi- granularity and particularly the new definition and features of waveband switching. 6. Integration in the GMPLS Protocol Suite Extensions 6.1. Hierarchy Overview The integration of optical multi-granularity in the GMPLS architecture requires modifications and extensions to current definitions. For this purpose, we first introduces a new type of switching capable interface: the Waveband Switching Capable Interface (WBSC). The WBSC interface materializes the physical reality of optical waveband as an atomic entity or granularity. As with the introduction of the waveband switch capable interface, a new class of LSP is defined: the WaveBand LSP (WB-LSP). R.Douville et al. - Internet Draft û Expiration May 2002 3 draft-douville-ccamp-gmpls-waveband-extension-00.txt November 2001 LSP Hierarchy Interfaces Network Element P-LSP <---> PSC <----> Router L2-LSP <---> L2SC <----> Bridge,Switch TDM-LSP <---> TDM <----> DXC L-LSP (1) <---> LSC <----> WXC -\ | WB-LSP (1)<---> WBSC <----> WBXC > Optical | MG F-LSP <---> FSC <----> FXC -/ (1) WB-LSPs can be supported on both Lambda and WaveBand Switch Capable interfaces depending on the nature of the waveband being requested (inverse multiplexing, wavelength concatenation, physical waveband). Note that WXC, BXC and FXC can be part of the same entity referred to as MG-OXC or MG-PXC. The above figure illustrates the hierarchy of the switching layers and highlights the optical multi-granularity part. The network element column shows typical equipment that supports such interfaces. Note that this representation does not aim at restricting interfaces that network elements can support. The [GMPLS-ARCH] document considers waveband switching a particular case of lambda switching. As specified, a waveband represents a set of contiguous wavelengths, which can be switched together to a new waveband. However, definition does not introduce a new LSP Encoding Type. The current definition of the waveband is too restrictive at least on two key aspects. The first one is that current definition of waveband implies a wavelength composition of the waveband, due to waveband switching by wavelength cross-connects (WXC). This definition provides support to inverse multiplexing mechanism and wavelength concatenation. This approach limits the use of waveband to the wavelength switch capable technologies. With waveband switching technologies, the WBSC interface doesn't distinguish between the component lambdas, channels or packets on the waveband which is switch as a single unit (wide frequency spectrum) like it could be done with the fibers (the penultimate frequency spectrum) on photonic cross-connect (PXC). The second restrictive point is that the current definition of the waveband does not enable intermediate grooming strategy as described in [IPO-MG]. For this purpose, we introduce an additional optical granularity representing the waveband. This definition is more general and R.Douville et al. - Internet Draft û Expiration May 2002 4 draft-douville-ccamp-gmpls-waveband-extension-00.txt November 2001 always allows to request a set of contiguous wavelengths (i.e. inverse multiplexing mechanism and wavelength concatenation) but also address the "real" waveband switching and following the set of capabilities introduced in the document [IPO-MG]. This definition better fits into the GMPLS architecture. It would be noted that "Waveband/Set of wavelength", as it is today defined, form a contiguous optical granularity concatenation/set i.e. nesting of wavelengths in waveband. This general scheme which request contiguous optical granularity concatenation/set could be applied with other optical granularities. 6.2. General Label Request [GMPLS-SIG] The Generalized Label Request must support the Waveband LSP request. For this purpose, we propose to extend field values of the LSP Encoding for the Generalized Label Request by an adjunction of a new LSP Encoding Type, a specific Switching Type and also some enhancement of the already defined Generalized PID (G-PID) values. The information carried in a Generalized Label Request is: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | LSP Enc. Type |Switching Type | G-PID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ LSP Encoding Type: 8 bits Indicates the encoding of the LSP being requested. The following value 11 is added to the existing LSP Encoding Type values to provide Waveband LSP support: Value Type ----- ---- 1 Packet 2 Ethernet V2/DIX 3 ANSI PDH 4 ETSI PDH 5 SDH ITU-T G.707 6 SONET ANSI T1.105 7 Digital Wrapper, G.709 8 Lambda (photonic) 9 Fiber 10 Ethernet 802.3 11 WaveBand (Photonic) Therefore, we have the following LSP encoding: - The Lambda encoding type refers to an LSP that encompasses a whole wavelength. - The Waveband encoding type refers to an LSP that encompasses a whole waveband. R.Douville et al. - Internet Draft û Expiration May 2002 5 draft-douville-ccamp-gmpls-waveband-extension-00.txt November 2001 - The Fiber encoding type refers to an LSP that encompasses a whole fiber port. For example, consider an LSP signaled with "WaveBand" encoding. It is expected that such an LSP would be supported with no electrical conversion and no knowledge of the frequency cutting, modulation and speed by the transit nodes. Other formats normally require framing knowledge, and field parameters are broken into the framing type and speed. Switching Type: 8 bits Indicates the type of switching that should be performed on a particular link. This field is needed for links that advertise more than one type of switching capability. For OXC or PXC enabling Waveband switching, the WBSC value is used to refer to such switching capability. Other values of this field are as the Switching Capability field defined in [GMPLS-ROUTING] Generalized PID (G-PID): 16 bits An identifier of the payload carried by an LSP, i.e. an identifier of the client layer of that LSP. This is used by the nodes at the endpoints of the LSP, and in some cases by the penultimate hop. Standard Ethertype values are used for packet and Ethernet LSPs; other values are defined in [GMPLS-SIG]. As described in [IPO-MG] since a waveband can carry a Lambda LSP while a Waveband LSP can be transported on a Fiber LSP, the following additional G-PID values must be considered: see [GMPLS- SIG] section 3.1.1 û Required Information, paragraph on Generalized- PID 37 Lambda Waveband, Fiber ... 40 Waveband Fiber In addition the following existing values must be updated in order to reflect the transport of Ethernet and SDH/SONET payload over a waveband LSP: 33 Ethernet SDH, Lambda, Fiber 34 SDH Lambda, Waveband, Fiber 35 SONET Lambda, Waveband, Fiber 36 Digital Wrapper Lambda, Waveband, Fiber 6.3. Generalized Label [GMPLS-SIG] As currently defined in [GMPLS-SIG], the waveband label space extension is well suited to cover the waveband granularity. In the context of waveband switching, the generalized label has the following format: R.Douville et al. - Internet Draft û Expiration May 2002 6 draft-douville-ccamp-gmpls-waveband-extension-00.txt November 2001 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Waveband Id | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Start Label | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | End Label | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Waveband Id: 32 bits A waveband identifier. The value is selected by the sender and reused in all subsequent related messages. Start Label: 32 bits Indicates the channel identifier, from the sender's perspective, of the lowest value wavelength making up the spectral frequency of the waveband. End Label: 32 bits Indicates the channel identifier, from the sender's perspective, of the highest value wavelength making up the spectral frequency of the waveband. Channel identifiers are established either by configuration or by means of a protocol such as LMP [LMP]. They are normally used in the label parameter of the Generalized Label on PSC and LSC. Waveband switching naturally introduces another level of label hierarchy and as such the waveband is treated the same way all other upper layer labels are treated in [GMPLS-SIG] and [GMPLS-ARCH]. 6.4. Link Multiplex Capability [MPLS-HIER] û [GMPLS-ROUTING] A new WaveBand-Switch-Capable(WBSC) Link Multiplex Capability value shall be defined to identify and distinguish the associated multiplexing/demultiplexing capability of a link [MPLS-HIER]. If a link switching is of type WBSC, it means that the node receiving data over this link (fiber) can recognize and switch individual WaveBands within the link (without distinguishing lambdas, channels or packets). [GMPLS-ROUTING] and the new value define the following Interface Switching Capabilities: Packet-Switch Capable-1 (PSC-1) Packet-Switch Capable-2 (PSC-2) R.Douville et al. - Internet Draft û Expiration May 2002 7 draft-douville-ccamp-gmpls-waveband-extension-00.txt November 2001 Packet-Switch Capable-3 (PSC-3) Packet-Switch Capable-4 (PSC-4) Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC) Time-Division-Multiplex Capable (TDM) Lambda-Switch Capable (LSC) Waveband-Switch Capable (WBSC) Fiber-Switch Capable (FSC) Note that the node that is advertising a given link (i.e., the node that is transmitting) has to know the "multiplexing/demultiplexing" capabilities at the other end of the link (i.e., the receiving end of the link). One way to accomplish this is through configuration. Other options to accomplish this are outside the scope of this document. 6.4.1. Waveband Switch Capable [GMPLS-ROUTING] If an interface is of type WBSC, it means that the node receiving data over this interface can recognize and switch wavebands (sets of contiguous lambdas) within the interface as a unit (without distinguishing lambdas, channels or packets). An interface that allows only one waveband per interface belongs to the WBSC type. 6.4.2. Interface Switching Capability Descriptor [GMPLS-ROUTING] For ISIS, the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor is a sub-TLV (of type 21) of the extended IS reachability TLV. The length is the length of value field in octets. For OSPF, the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor is a sub-TLV of the Link TLV with type 15. The length is the length of value field in octets. The common format of the value field is as shown below: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Switching Cap | Encoding | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 0 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 2 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 3 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 5 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 6 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ R.Douville et al. - Internet Draft û Expiration May 2002 8 draft-douville-ccamp-gmpls-waveband-extension-00.txt November 2001 | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 7 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Switching Capability-specific information | | (variable) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ A new value for the Switching Capability (Switching Cap) field shall be defined to identify the Waveband-Switch Capable (WBSC). In an Interface Switching Capability Descriptor, when the Switching Capability (Switching Cap) field contains the value for WBSC, the specific information field includes the Minimum LSP Bandwidth, which is the number of contiguous wavelength constituting a WaveBand entity. Traffic-Engineering (TE) to IGP Routing protocols extensions are defined in [OSPF-TE] and [ISIS-TE] which have been extended for GMPLS in [GMPLS-OSPF-TE] and [GMPLS-ISIS-TE]. It also refers to the notion of Forwarding Adjacency (FA) defined in [MPLS-LH] and supports Link Bundling as defined in [MPLS-BUNDLE]. Routing information is transported by OSPF in Link State Advertisements (LSAs) grouped in OSPF PDUs, and is transported by IS-IS in Link State PDUs (LSPs). Two particular sets of information must be transported by a routing protocol to enable Optical MultiGranularity TE Routing. A ôstaticö set of information describes the capabilities of an Optical LSR and its optical links independently of their usage. A dynamic set of information describes the resources (signals) that are used at each link, i.e. the operational status of a link. As currently defined in [OSPF-TE- GMPLS] and [ISIS-TE-GMPLS], the corresponding TLV includes the basic link capabilities needed to encompass basic waveband switching TE. 6.5. LSP Regions [MPLS-HIER] The information carried in the Link Multiplex Capabilities is used to construct LSP regions, and determine regions' boundaries as defined in [MPLS-HIER]. The introduction of the new Link Multiplex Capability WBSC define a new ordering among link multiplexing capabilities as follows: PSC-1 < PSC-2 < PSC-3 < PSC-4 < TDM < LSC < WBSC < FSC. 6.5.1. Cascading of Forwarding Adjacencies [MPLS-HIER] Path computation may take into account this region boundary when computing a path for an LSP. When an LSP need to cross a region boundary, it can trigger the establishment of a Forwarding Adjacency (FA) at the underlying layer. The new cascading of FAs can be triggered between layers with the new following obvious order: L2SC, then TDM, then LSC, then WBSC and then finally FSC. R.Douville et al. - Internet Draft û Expiration May 2002 9 draft-douville-ccamp-gmpls-waveband-extension-00.txt November 2001 6.6. Signaling & Link Management Protocol Extensions Extensions to signaling protocols (RSVP-TE and CR-LDP) and Link Management Protocol (LMP) are for further study. These extensions are currently under definition and will follow the above proposal. 7. Security Considerations No additional security considerations beyond the one covered in [RSVP-TE] and [CR-LDP]. 8. References [GMPLS-ARCH] E.Mannie et al., 'Generalized MPLS Architecture', Internet Draft, Work in progress, June 2001, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-01.txt. [GMPLS-SIG] P.Ashwood-Smith, L.Berger et al., 'Generalized MPLS û Signaling Functional Description', Internet Draft, Work in progress, October 2001, draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signalling-06.txt. [IPO-MG] E.Dotaro et al., 'Optical Multi-Granularity û An Architectural Framework', Internet Draft, Work in progress, November 2001, draft-dotaro-ipo-optical-multi-granularity-01.txt. [MPLS-HIER] K.Kompella et al., 'LSP Hierarchy with MPLS TE', Internet Draft, Work in progress, February 2001, draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-02.txt. [GMPLS-ROUTING] K. Kompella et al.,'Routing Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS', Internet Draft, Work in progress, September 2001, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-00.txt. [OSPF-TE] D. Katz et al., 'Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF', Internet Draft, Work in progress, June 2001, draft-katz-yeung-ospf-traffic-05.txt. [ISIS-TE] T. Li et al.,'IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering', Internet Draft, Work in progress txt, June 2001, draft-ietf-isis-traffic-03.txt. [GMPLS-OSPF-TE] K. Kompella et al., 'OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS', Internet Draft, Work in progress, September 2001, draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-00.txt. [GMPLS-ISIS-TE] K. Kompella et al., 'IS-IS Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS' R.Douville et al. - Internet Draft û Expiration May 2002 10 draft-douville-ccamp-gmpls-waveband-extension-00.txt November 2001 Internet Draft, Work in progress, September 2001, draft-ietf-isis-gmpls-extensions-04.txt. [GMPLS-CRLDP]P.Ashwood-Smith, L.Berger et al., 'Generalized MPLS - Signaling Functional Description', Internet Draft, Work in progress, July 2001, draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-04.txt. [GMPLS-RSVP] P.Ashwood-Smith, L.Berger et al., 'Generalized MPLS - Signaling Functional Description', Internet Draft, Work in progress, October 2001, draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-05.txt. [MPLS-BUNDLE]K. Kompella et al., 'Link Bundling in MPLS Traffic Engineering', Internet Draft, March 2001, draft-kompella-mpls-bundle- 05.txt. [LMP] Lang, et al. "Link Management Protocol", Internet Draft, March, 2001, draft-ietf-mpls-lmp- 02.txt. 9. Author's Addresses Richard Douville Alcatel Route de Nozay 91460 Marcoussis, France Phone: +33 1 6963-4431 Email: richard.douville@alcatel.fr Dimitri Papadimitriou Alcatel Francis Wellesplein 1, B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium Phone: +32 3 240-8491 Email: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be Martin Vigoureux Alcatel Route de Nozay 91460 Marcoussis, France Phone: +33 1 6963-1852 Email: martin.vigoureux@alcatel.fr Emmanuel Dotaro Alcatel Route de Nozay 91460 Marcoussis, France Phone: +33 1 6963-4723 Email: emmanuel.dotaro@alcatel.fr Laurent Ciavaglia R.Douville et al. - Internet Draft û Expiration May 2002 11 draft-douville-ccamp-gmpls-waveband-extension-00.txt November 2001 Alcatel Route de Nozay 91460 Marcoussis, France Phone: +33 1 6963-4429 Email: laurent.ciavaglia@alcatel.fr R.Douville et al. - Internet Draft û Expiration May 2002 12 draft-douville-ccamp-gmpls-waveband-extension-00.txt November 2001 Full Copyright Statement "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (date). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implmentation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into R.Douville et al. - Internet Draft û Expiration May 2002 13 draft-douville-ccamp-gmpls-waveband-extension-00.txt November 2001 mailto:mikega@microsoft.co m R.Douville et al. - Internet Draft û Expiration May 2002 14