Network Working Group D. Papadimitriou (Alcatel) Internet Draft M. Vigoureux (Alcatel) Expiration Date: April 2007 K. Shiomoto (NTT) D. Brungard (ATT) J.L. Le Roux (France Telecom) October 2006 Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Protocol Extensions for Multi-Layer and Multi-Region Networks (MLN/MRN) draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-extensions-03.txt Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 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. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). Abstract There are requirements for the support of networks ccomprising LSRs with different data plane switching layers controlled by a single Generalized Multi Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) control plane instance, referred to as GMPLS Multi-Layer Networks/Multi-Region Networks (MLN/MRN). This document defines extensions to GMPLS routing D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires April 2007 [Page 1] draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-extensions-03.txt Oct. 2006 and signaling protocols so as to support the operation of GMPLS Multi-Layer/Multi-Region Networks. Conventions used in this document 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. In addition the reader is assumed to be familiar with the concepts developed in [RFC3945], [RFC3471], and [RFC4202] as well as [RFC4206] and [RFC4201]. 1. Introduction Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) [RFC 3945] extends MPLS to handle multiple switching technologies: packet switching (PSC), layer-two switching (L2SC), TDM switching (TDM), wavelength switching (LSC) and fiber switching (FSC). A GMPLS switching type (PSC, TDM, etc.) describes the ability of a node to forward data of a particular data plane technology, and uniquely identifies a control plane region. LSP Regions are defined in [RFC4206]. A network comprised of multiple switching types (e.g. PSC and TDM) controlled by a single GMPLS control plane instance is called a Multi-Region Network (MRN). A data plane layer is a collection of network resources capable of terminating and/or switching data traffic of a particular format. For example, LSC, TDM VC-11 and TDM VC-4-64c represent three different layers. A network comprising transport nodes with different data plane switching layers controlled either by a single GMPLS control plane instance is called a Multi-Layer Network (MLN). The applicability of GMPLS to multiple switching technologies provides the unified control management approach for both LSP provisioning and recovery. Indeed one of the main motivations for unifying the capabilities and operations GMPLS control plane is the desire to support multi LSP-region [RFC4206] routing and Traffic Engineering (TE) capability. For instance, this enables effective network resource utilization of both the Packet/Layer2 LSP regions and the Time Division Multiplexing (TDM) or Lambda LSP regions in high capacity networks. The rationales for investigating GMPLS controlled multi-layer/multi- region networks context are detailed in [MRN-REQ]. The corresponding motivations in terms of the GMPLS protocol suite are summarized here below: - The maintenance of multiple instances of the control plane on devices hosting more than one switching capability not only (and D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires April 2007 [Page 2] draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-extensions-03.txt Oct. 2006 obviously) increases the complexity of their interactions but also increases the total amount of processing individual instances would handle. - The merge of both data and control plane addressing spaces helps in avoiding multiple identification for the same object (a link for instance or more generally any network resource), on the other hand such aggregation does not impact the separation between the control and the data plane. - The collaboration between associated control planes (packet/framed data planes) and non-associated control planes (SONET/SDH, G.709, etc.) is facilitated due to the capability of hooking the associated in-band signaling to the IP terminating interfaces of the control plane. - Resource management and policies to be applied at the edges of such environment is facilitated (less control to management interactions) and more scalable (through the use of aggregated information). - Multi-region/multi-layer traffic engineering is facilitated as TE- links from distinct regions/layers are stored within the same TE Database Detailed requirements for Multi-Layer/Region Networks are spelt out in [MLN-REQ]. An evaluation of existing GMPLS protocols against these requirements is discussed in [MLN-EVAL], which identifies several areas where protocol extensions are required and provides guidelines for such extensions. The next sections provide the operational aspects in terms of routing and signaling for such environments as well as the extensions required to instrument GMPLS to control such environments. In this context, this document defines GMPLS routing and signaling extensions that follow the requirements detailed in [MRN-REQ]. These extensions are proposed in-line with the analysis of the GMPLS capabilities to accommodate multiple switching capable networks as evaluated in [MRN- EVAL]. 2. Summary of the Requirements and Evaluation As identified in [MRN-EVAL] most of MLN/MRN requirements rely on mechanisms and procedures that are out of the scope of the GMPLS protocols, and thus do not require any GMPLS protocol extensions. They rely on local procedures and policies, and on specific TE mechanisms and algorithms. Virtual Network Topology (VNT) computation and reconfiguration, specific TE mechanisms that may for instance rely on PCE based mechanisms and protocols. These mechanisms are outside the scope of GMPLS protocols. D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires April 2007 [Page 3] draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-extensions-03.txt Oct. 2006 Four areas for extensions of GMPLS protocols and procedures have been identified: - GMPLS routing extension for the advertisement of the internal adaptation capability of hybrid nodes. - GMPLS signaling extension for constrained multi-region signaling (SC inclusion/exclusion) - GMPLS signaling extension for the setup/deletion of the virtual TE-links (as well as exact trigger for its actual provisioning) - GMPLS routing and signaling extension for graceful TE-link deletion (covered in [GR-TELINK]). The first three are addressed in Sections 3, 4 and 5, respectively, of this document. The fourth is addressed in [GR-TELINK]. 3. Interface adaptation capability descriptor (IACD) In the MRN context, nodes supporting more than one switching capability on at least one interface are called Hybrid nodes. Hybrid nodes contain at least two distinct switching elements that are interconnected by internal links to provide adaptation between the supported switching capabilities. These internal links have finite capacities and must be taken into account when computing the path of a multi-region TE-LSP. The advertisement of the internal adaptation capability is required as it provides critical information when performing multi-region path computation. 3.1 Overview In an MRN environment, some LSRs could contain, under the control of a single GMPLS instance, multiple switching capabilities such as PSC and TDM or PSC and Lambda Switching Capability (LSC). These nodes, hosting multiple Interface Switching Capabilities (ISC), just like other nodes (hosting a single Interface Switching Capability) are required to hold and advertise resource information on link states and topology. They also may have to consider certain portions of internal node resources to terminate hierarchical label switched paths (LSPs), since circuit switch capable units such as TDMs, LSCs, and FSCs require rigid resources. For example, a node with PSC+LSC hierarchical switching capability can switch a Lambda LSP but may not be able to can never terminate the Lambda LSP if D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires April 2007 [Page 4] draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-extensions-03.txt Oct. 2006 there is no unused adaptation capability between the LSC and the PSC switching capabilities. Another example occurs when L2SC (Ethernet) switching can be adapted in LAPS X.86 and GFP for instance before reaching the TDM switching matrix. Similar circumstances can occur, if a switching fabric that supports both PSC and L2SC functionalities is assembled with LSC interfaces enabling "lambda" encoding. In the switching fabric, some interfaces can terminate Lambda LSPs and perform frame (or cell) switching whilst other interfaces can terminate Lambda LSPs and perform packet switching. Therefore, within multi-region networks, the advertisement of the so-called adaptation capability to terminate LSPs (not the interface capability since the latter can be inferred from the bandwidth available for each switching capability) provides critical information to take into account when performing multi-region path computation. This concept enables a node to discriminate the remote nodes (and thus allows their selection during path computation) with respect to their adaptation capability e.g. to terminate LSPs at the PSC or LSC level. Hence, we introduce the idea of discriminating the (internal) adaptation capability from the (interface) switching capability by considering an interface adaptation capability descriptor. 3.2 Interface Adaptation Capability Descriptor (IACD) Format The interface switching capability descriptor (IACD) provides the information for the forwarding/switching) capability only. The IACD sub-TLV format is as follows. In IS-IS, this is a sub-TLV of the Extended IS Reachability TLV (see [RFC 3784]) with type TBD. In OSPF, it is defined as a sub-TLV of the Link TLV (see [RFC 3630]), with type TBD. 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 | Switching Cap | Encoding | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 0 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 2 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 3 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires April 2007 [Page 5] draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-extensions-03.txt Oct. 2006 | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 5 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 6 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 7 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Adaptation Capability-specific information | | (variable) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ where: - first Switching Capability (SC) field (byte 1): lower switching capability (as defined for the existing ISC sub-TLV) - first Encoding field (byte 2): as defined for the existing ISC sub-TLV - second SC value (byte 3): upper switching capability (new) - second encoding value (byte 4): set to the encoding of the available adaptation pool and to 0xFF when the corresponding SC value has no access to the wire (i.e. there is no ISC sub-TLV for this upper switching capability) Multiple sub-TLVs may be present within a given TE Link TLV / extended IS reachability TLV and the bandwidth simply provides an indication of resources still available to perform insertion/ extraction for a given adaptation (pool concept). 4. Multi-Region Signaling Section 8.2 of [RFC4206] specifies that when a region boundary node receives a Path message, the node determines whether it is at the edge of an LSP region with respect to the ERO carried in the message. If the node is at the edge of a region, it must then determine the other edge of the region with respect to the ERO, using the IGP database. The node then extracts from the ERO the subsequence of hops from itself to the other end of the region. The node then compares the subsequence of hops with all existing FA- LSPs originated by the node: - if a match is found, that FA-LSP has enough unreserved bandwidth for the LSP being signaled, and the PID of the FA-LSP is compatible with the PID of the LSP being signaled, the node uses that FA-LSP as follows. The Path message for the original LSP is sent to the egress of the FA-LSP. The PHOP in the message is the address of the node at the head-end of the FA-LSP. Before sending the Path message, the ERO in that message is adjusted by removing the subsequence of the ERO that lies in the FA-LSP, and replacing D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires April 2007 [Page 6] draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-extensions-03.txt Oct. 2006 it with just the end point of the FA-LSP. - if no existing FA-LSP is found, the node sets up a new FA-LSP. That is, it initiates a new LSP setup just for the FA-LSP. Applying this procedure, in a MRN environment MAY lead to setup one- hop FA-LSPs between each node. Therefore, considering that the path computation is able to take into account richness of information with regard to the SC available on given nodes belonging to the path, it is consistent to provide enough signaling information to indicate the SC to be used and on over which link. Particularly, in case a TE link has multiple SC advertised as part of its ISCD sub-TLVs, an ERO does not allow selecting a particular SC. Limiting modifications to existing RSVP-TE procedures [RFC3473] and referenced, this document defines a new Switching Capability sub- object of the eXclude Route Object [XRO]. This sub-object enables (when desired) the explicit identification of (at least one) switching capability to be excluded from the resource selection process described here above. Including this sub-object as part of the XRO that explicitly indicates which SCs have to be excluded (before initiating the procedure described here above) solves the ambiguous choice among SCs that are potentially used along a given path and give the possibility to optimize resource usage on a multi-region basis. Note that implicit SC inclusion is easily supported by explicitly excluding other SCs (e.g. to include LSC, it is required to exclude PSC, L2SC, TDM and FSC). Note: usage of the EXRS is under investigation. 4.1 SC Subobject Encoding The contents of an EXCLUDE_ROUTE object defined in [XRO] are a series of variable-length data items called subobjects. This document defines the SC subobject of the XRO (Type TBD), its encoding and processing. Subobject Type TBD: Switching Capability 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |L| Type | Length | Attribute | Switching Cap | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ L 0 indicates that the attribute specified MUST be excluded 1 indicates that the attribute specified SHOULD be avoided D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires April 2007 [Page 7] draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-extensions-03.txt Oct. 2006 Attribute 0 reserved value 1 indicates that the specified SC should be excluded or avoided with respect to the preceding numbered (Type 1 or Type 2) or unnumbered interface (Type) subobject This sub-object must follow the set of numbered or unnumbered interface sub-objects to which this sub-object refers. In case, of loose hop ERO subobject, this sub-object must precede the loose-hop sub-object identifying the tail-end node/interface of the traversed region(s). Furthermore, it is expected, when label sub-object are following numbered or unnumbered interface sub-objects, that the label value is compliant with the SC capability to be explicitly excluded. 5. Virtual TE link Two techniques can be used for the setup operation and maintenance of Virtual TE links. The corresponding GMPLS protocols extensions are described in this section. 5.1 Edge-to-edge Association This approach that does not require state maintenance on transit LSRs rely on extensions to the GMPLS RSVP-TE Call procedure ([GMPLS- CALL]). This technique consists of exchanging identification and TE attributes information directly between TE link end points. These TE link end-points correspond to the LSP head and tail-end points of of the LSPs that will be established. The end-points MUST belong to the same region through the establishment of a call between terminating LSRs. Once the call is established the resulting association populates the local TEDB and the resulting TE link is advertized as any other TE link. The latter can then be used to attract traffic. Once an upper layer/lower region LSP makes use of this TE link. A set of one or more LSPs must be initially established before the FA LSP can be used for nesting the incoming LSP. In order to distinguish usage of such call from a classical call (as defined e.g. in [RFC4139]), a CALL ATTRIBUTE object is introduced. 5.1.1 CALL_ATTRIBUTES Object D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires April 2007 [Page 8] draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-extensions-03.txt Oct. 2006 The CALL_ATTRIBUTES object is used to signal attributes required in support of a call, or to indicate the nature or use of a call. It is built on the LSP-ATTRIBUTES object defined in [RFC4420]. The CALL_ATTRIBUTES object class is 201 of the form 11bbbbbb. This C-Num value (see [RFC2205], Section 3.10) ensures that LSRs that do not recognize the object pass it on transparently. One C-Type is defined, C-Type = 1 for CALL Attributes. This object is optional and may be placed on Notify messages to convey additional information about the desired attributes of the call. 5.1.2 Processing Specifically, if an egress (or intermediate) LSR does not support the object, it forwards it unexamined and unchanged. This facilitates the exchange of attributes across legacy networks that do not support this new object. The CALL_ATTRIBUTES object may be used to report call operational state on a Notify message. CALL_ATTRIBUTES class = 201, C-Type = 1 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | // Attributes TLVs // | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The Attributes TLVs are encoded as described in Section 3. 5.1.3 Attributes TLVs Attributes carried by the CALL_ATTRIBUTE object are encoded within TLVs. One or more TLVs may be present in each object. There are no ordering rules for TLVs, and no interpretation should be placed on the order in which TLVs are received. Each TLV is encoded as follows. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires April 2007 [Page 9] draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-extensions-03.txt Oct. 2006 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | // Value // | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Type The identifier of the TLV. Length The length of the Value field in bytes. Thus, if no Value field is present the Length field contains the value zero. Each Value field must be zero padded at the end to take it up to a four byte boundary -- the padding is not included in the length so that a one byte value would be encoded in an eight byte TLV with Length field set to one. Value The data for the TLV padded as described above. TLV Type 1 indicates the Attributes Flags TLV. Other TLV types may be defined in the future with type values assigned by IANA (see Section 11.2). The Attributes Flags TLV may be present in a CALL_ATTRIBUTES object. The Attribute Flags TLV value field is an array of units of 32 flags numbered from the most significant bit as bit zero. The Length field for this TLV is therefore always a multiple of 4 bytes, regardless of the number of bits carried and no padding is required. Unassigned bits are considered as reserved and MUST be set to zero on transmission by the originator of the object. Bits not contained in the TLV MUST be assumed to be set to zero. If the TLV is absent either because it is not contained in the CALL_ATTRIBUTES object or because those objects are themselves absent, all processing MUST be performed as though the bits were present and set to zero. That is to say, assigned bits that are not present either because the TLV is deliberately foreshortened or because the TLV is not included MUST be treated as though they are present and are set to zero. 5.1.4 Call inheritance Flag This document introduces a specific flag (MSB position bit 0) of the Attributes Flags TLV, to indicate that the association initiated between the end-points belonging to as call is to be mapped into a TE link advertisement. D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires April 2007 [Page 10] draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-extensions-03.txt Oct. 2006 The notify message is defined as per [GMPLS-CALL]. Additionally, the notify message must carry an LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID Object, that allows identifying unnumbered FA-LSPs ([RFC3477], [RFC4206], [RFC4206-bis]) and numbered FA-LSPs ([RFC4206], [RFC4206-bis]). 5.2. Soft-FA approach The Soft FA approach consists of setting up the FA LSP at the control plane level without actually committing resources in the data plane. This means that the corresponding LSP exists only in the control plane domain. Once such FA is established the corresponding TE link can be advertized following the procedures described in [RFC 4206]. 5.2.1 LSP_REQUIRED ATTRIBUTES object The LSP ATTRIBUTES object is defined in [RFC4420]. The present document defines a new flag in the existing Attributes Flags TLV numbered as Type 1. The latter is defined as the pre-planned LSP Flag. The position of this flag is TBD in accordance with IANA assignment. This flag is defined to be part of the LSP_REQUIRED ATTRIBUTE object and follows processing of [RFC4420] for that object. That is, LSRs that do not recognize the object reject the LSP setup effectively saying that they do not support the attributes requested. Indeed, the newly defined attribute requires examination at all transit LSRs. The pre-planned LSP Flag can take one of the following values: o) When set to 0 this means that the LSP should be fully provisioned. Absence of this flag (hence corresponding TLV) is therefore compliant with the signaling message processing per [RFC3473]) o) When set to 1 this means that the LSP should be provisioned in the control plane only. If an LSP is established with the pre-planned Flag set to 1, no resources are committed at the data plane level. The operation of committing data plane resources occurs by re-signaling the same LSP with the pre-planned Flag set to 0. It is RECOMMENDED that no other modifications are made to other RSVP objects during this operation. That is each intermediate node, processing a Flag transiting from 1 to 0 shall only be concerned with the commitment of data plane D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires April 2007 [Page 11] draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-extensions-03.txt Oct. 2006 resources and no other modification of the LSP properties and/or attributes. If an LSP is established with the pre-planned Flag set to 0, it MAY be re-signaled by setting the Flag to 1. 5.2.2 Path Provisioned LSPs There is a difference in between an LSP that is established with 0 bandwidth (path provisioning) and an LSP that is established with a certain bandwidth value not committed at the data plane level (i.e. pre-planned LSP). However, the former is currently not possible using the GMPLS protocol suite (following technology specific SENDER_TSPEC/FLOWSPEC definition). Indeed, Traffic Parameters such as those defined in [RFC 4606] do not support setup of 0 bandwidth LSPs. Mechanisms for provisioning (pre-planned or not) LSP with 0 bandwidth will be described in next release of this document. 6. Backward compatibility TBD 7. Security Considerations In its current version, this memo does not introduce new security consideration from the ones already detailed in the GMPLS protocol suite. 8. References 8.1 Normative References [GMPLS-CALL]D.Papadimitriou and A.Farrel, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions in support of Calls," Work in progress, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-call-01.txt, August 2006. [L2SC-LSP] D.Papadimitriou, et al., "Generalized MPLS Signaling for Layer-2 Label Switched Paths (LSP)", Work in Progress, draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-gmpls-l2sc-lsp-03.txt. [MRN-EVAL] J.-L. Leroux et al., "Evaluation of existing GMPLS Protocols against Multi Region and Multi Layer Networks (MRN/MLN)", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln- eval-02.txt. D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires April 2007 [Page 12] draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-extensions-03.txt Oct. 2006 [MRN-REQ] K.Shiomoto et al., "Requirements for GMPLS-based multi- region and multi-layer networks (MRN/MLN)", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-reqs-02.txt. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to indicate requirements levels", RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC2370] R.Coltun, "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 2370, July 1998. [RFC3471] L.Berger et al., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) - Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, January 2003. [RFC3630] D.Katz et al., "Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2," RFC 3630, September 2003. [RFC3667] Bradner, S., "IETF Rights in Contributions", BCP 78, RFC 3667, February 2004. [RFC3668] Bradner, S., Ed., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology", BCP 79, RFC 3668, February 2004. [RFC4201] K.Kompella, et al., "Link Bundling in MPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC 4201, October 2005. [RFC4202] K.Kompella (Editor), Y. Rekhter (Editor) et al. "Routing Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS", RFC 4202, October 2005. [RFC4206] K.Kompella and Y.Rekhter, "LSP Hierarchy with Generalized MPLS TE", RFC 4206, October 2005. [RFC4206-bis] Shimoto et al. "Procedures for Dynamically Signaled Hierarchical Label Switched Paths ", draft-ietf-ccamp- lsp-hierarchy-bis, work in progress. [RFC4420] A.Farrel et al., "Encoding of Attributes for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Establishment Using Resource ReserVation Protocol- Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 4420, February 2006. [RFC4428] D.Papadimitriou et al. "Analysis of Generalized Multi- Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)-based Recovery Mechanisms (including Protection and Restoration)", RFC 4428, March 2006. [XRO] C.Y.Lee et al. "Exclude Routes - Extension to RSVP-TE," D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires April 2007 [Page 13] draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-extensions-03.txt Oct. 2006 Work in progress, draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-exclude- route-05.txt, August 2005. 8.2 Informative References [MAMLTE] K.Shiomoto et al., "Multi-area multi-layer traffic engineering using hierarchical LSPs in GMPLS networks", Work in Progress, draft-shiomoto-multiarea-te-01.txt. [MLRT] W.Imajuku et al., "Multilayer routing using multilayer switch capable LSRs", Work in Progress, draft-imajuku-ml- routing-02.txt. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Mr. Wataru Imajuku for the discussions on adaptation between regions [MLRT]. Author's Addresses Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel) Francis Wellensplein 1, B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium Phone : +32 3 240 8491 E-mail: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be Martin Vigoureux (Alcatel) Route de Nozay, 91461 Marcoussis cedex, France Phone: +33 (0)1 69 63 18 52 E-mail: martin.vigoureux@alcatel.fr Kohei Shiomoto (NTT Network Service Systems Laboratories) 3-9-11 Midori-cho Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180-8585, Japan Phone: +81 422 59 4402 E-mail: shiomoto.kohei@lab.ntt.co.jp Deborah Brungard (AT&T) Rm. D1-3C22 - 200 S. Laurel Ave. Middletown, NJ 07748, USA Phone: +1 732 420 1573 E-mail: dbrungard@att.com Jean-Louis Le Roux (FTRD/DAC/LAN) Avenue Pierre Marzin 22300 Lannion, France Phone: +33 (0)2 96 05 30 20 E-mail:jean-louis.leroux@rd.francetelecom.com D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires April 2007 [Page 14] draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-extensions-03.txt Oct. 2006 Contributors Eiji Oki (NTT Network Service Systems Laboratories) 3-9-11 Midori-cho Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180-8585, Japan Phone : +81 422 59 3441 Email: oki.eiji@lab.ntt.co.jp Ichiro Inoue(NTT Network Service Systems Laboratories) 3-9-11 Midori-cho Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180-8585, Japan Phone : +81 422 59 6076 Email: ichiro.inoue@lab.ntt.co.jp Emmanuel Dotaro (Alcatel) Route de Nozay, 91461 Marcoussis cedex, France Phone : +33 1 6963 4723 Email: emmanuel.dotaro@alcatel.fr Gert Grammel (Alcatel) Lorenzstrasse, 10 70435 Stuttgart, Germany Email: gert.grammel@alcatel.de D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires April 2007 [Page 15] draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-extensions-03.txt Oct. 2006 Intellectual Property Statement The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Disclaimer of Validity This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires April 2007 [Page 16]