OSPF Working Group JP Vasseur Internet Draft Peter Psenak Cisco System Inc. Seisho Yasukawa NTT Jean-Louis Le Roux France Telecom Category: Standard Track Expires: January 2005 July 2004 OSPF MPLS Traffic Engineering capabilities draft-vasseur-ospf-te-caps-00.txt Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable patent or IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668. This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 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. Abstract This document specifies OSPF traffic engineering capability TLVs related to various MPLS Traffic Engineering capabilities. These OSPF TE capability TLVs are carried within the OSPF router information LSA (opaque type of 4, opaque ID of 0). Vasseur et al. [Page 1] Internet Draft draft-vasseur-ospf-te-caps-00 July 2004 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. Table of Contents 1. Terminology.....................................................2 2. Introduction....................................................3 3. TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV format........................4 3.1. The DATA-PLANE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV.............................4 3.2. The CONTROL-PLANE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV..........................5 4. PCED TLV format.................................................5 4.1. PCE-ADDRESS sub-TLV...........................................6 4.2. PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV........................................6 4.3. AS-DOMAIN sub-TLV.............................................8 5. TE-Mesh-Group TLV format........................................8 6. Element of procedure............................................9 6.1. TE-NODE-CAP TLV...............................................9 6.2. PCED TLV.....................................................10 6.3. TE-MESH-GROUP TLV............................................12 7. Interoperability with routers non supporting this capability...12 8. Security considerations........................................12 9. Intellectual Property Statement................................12 9.1. IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement...............................13 10. References....................................................13 11. Authors' Address:.............................................14 1. Terminology Terminology used in this document LSR: Label Switch Router. PCE: Path Computation Element whose function is to compute the path of a TE LSP it is not the head-end for. The PCE may be an LSR or an offline tool not forwarding packet. PCC: Path Computation Client (any head-end LSR) requesting a TE LSP path computation to the Path Computation Element. TE LSP: Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path. TE LSP head-end: head/source of the TE LSP. TE LSP tail-end: tail/destination of the TE LSP. Intra-area TE LSP: TE LSP whose path does not transit across areas. Vasseur et al. [Page 2] Internet Draft draft-vasseur-ospf-te-caps-00 July 2004 Inter-area TE LSP: A TE LSP whose path transits across at least two different IGP areas. Inter-AS MPLS TE LSP: A TE LSP whose path transits across at least two different ASes or sub-ASes (BGP confederations). 2. Introduction This document defines OSPF protocol extensions and procedures for the advertisement TE node capabilities. A functional description of these extensions can be found in [TE-INFO], and is not repeated here. This document describes the usage of three OSPF TE capabilities TLVs: the PCED (PCE Discovery), the TE-MESH-GROUP and the TE-NODE-CAP TLVs. These OSPF TE capability TLVs are carried within the OSPF router information LSA (opaque type of 4, opaque ID of 0) specified in [OSPF-CAP]. Each TE TLV defined in this document (carried in an OSPF router information LSA as defined in [OSPF-CAP]) has the following format: 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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | // Value // | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Where Type: identifies the TLV type Length: length of the value field in octets The format of the TLV is the same as the TLV format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF [OSPF-TE]. The TLV is padded to four-octet alignment; padding is not included in the length field (so a three octet value would have a length of three, but the total size of the TLV would be eight octets). Nested TLVs are also 32-bit aligned. Unrecognized types are ignored. All types between 32768 and 65535 are reserved for vendor-specific extensions. All other undefined type codes are reserved for future assignment by IANA. Note that a sub-TLV is similar to a TLV: TLV are carried within an LSA as sub-TLVs are carried within TLVs. Each sub-TLV describes a particular MPLS Traffic Engineering capability. In the rest of this document both terms will be used interchangeably. Vasseur et al. [Page 3] Internet Draft draft-vasseur-ospf-te-caps-00 July 2004 The TE-NODE-CAP TLV is used for the advertisement of both control plane and data plane TE node capabilities. The TE-NODE-CAP sub-TLV is made of a set of non-ordered sub-TLVs each having the format as described above. The PCED TLV is used for the advertisement of Path Computation Element Capabilities. The PCED sub-TLV is made of a set of non-ordered sub-TLVs each having the format as described above. The TE-MESH-GROUP TLV is used to advertise the desire to join/leave a given MPLS-TE mesh group. The TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV does not have any sub-TLV currently defined. 3. TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV format This section specifies the sub-TLVs carried within the TE-NODE-CAP TLV payload which defines the TE node capabilities. The TE-NODE-CAP TLV type is 1. The TE-NODE-CAP TLV is made of various non ordered sub-TLVs. Currently two sub-TLVs are defined. TLV type Length Name 1 variable DATA-PLANE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV 2 variable CONTROL-PLANE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV Any non recognized sub-TLV MUST be silently ignored. More sub-TLV could be added in the future to handle new capabilities 3.1. The DATA-PLANE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV The DATA-PLANE-CAPABILITY is a series of bit flags and has a variable length. CODE: 1 LENGTH: Variable (N*8) 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |B|E| | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ // // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ TE-NODE-CAP sub-TLV format Two bits are currently defined: Vasseur et al. [Page 4] Internet Draft draft-vasseur-ospf-te-caps-00 July 2004 -B bit: When set this indicates that the LSR can act as a branch node on a P2MP LSP. -E bit: When set, this indicates that the LSR can act as a bud LSR on a P2MP LSP, i.e. and LSR that is both transit and egress. See [P2MP-REQ]) and [RSVP-P2MP] for more detail on the usage of these bits. Note that more flags may be defined in the future. 3.2. The CONTROL-PLANE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV The CONTROL-PLANE-CAPABILITY is a series of bit flags and has a variable length. CODE: 2 LENGTH: Variable (N*8) 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |M|G|P| | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ // // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ TE-NODE-CAP sub-TLV format Currently three flags are defined: -M bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports MPLS-TE signalling ([RSVP-TE]). -G bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports GMPLS signalling ([RSVP-G]). -P bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports P2MP MPLS-TE signalling ([RSVP-P2MP]). Note that more flags may be defined in the future. 4. PCED TLV format This section specifies the sub-TLVs carried within the PCED TLV payload which define the PCE capabilities. The PCED TLV type is 2 The PCED TLV is made of various non ordered sub-TLVs defined Vasseur et al. [Page 5] Internet Draft draft-vasseur-ospf-te-caps-00 July 2004 bellow: TLV type Length Name 1 variable PCE-ADDRESS sub-TLV 2 8 PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV 3 8 AS-DOMAIN sub-TLV Any non recognized sub-TLV MUST be silently ignored. 4.1. PCE-ADDRESS sub-TLV The PCE-ADDRESS sub-TLV specifies the IP address to be used to reach the PCE described by this PCED sub-TLV. This address will typically be a loop-back address that is always reachable, provided the router is not isolated. The PCE-ADDRESS sub-TLV is mandatory. The PCE-ADDRESS sub-TLV type is 1, length is 4 octets for an IPv4 address and 20 octets for an IPv6 address, and the value is the PCE IPv4 or IPv6 address. CODE: 1 LENGTH: Variable (4 or 20) 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | address-type | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | // PCE IP address // | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ PCE-ADDRESS sub-TLV format Address-type: 1 IPv4 2 IPv6 The PCE-ADDRESS sub-TLV MUST appear exactly once in the PCED sub-TLV originated by a router. The only exception is when the PCE has both an IPv4 and IPv6 address; in this case, two Path Computation Element address sub-TLVs might be inserted: one for the IPv4 address, one for the IPv6 address, in this order. 4.2. PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV The PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV is used by the PCE to signal its Path Computation Element capabilities. This could then be used by an LSR to select the appropriate PCE among a list of PCE candidates. This sub-TLV is optional. Vasseur et al. [Page 6] Internet Draft draft-vasseur-ospf-te-caps-00 July 2004 The PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV type is 2 and the length is 8 octets. CODE: 2 LENGTH: 8 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Reserved |D|M|P|A|I|L| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV format The first 3 bits L, I and A defines the PCE scope for which the Path Computation Element is capable of performing the TE LSP path computation. L bit: Local scope. When set, this flag indicates that the PCE can compute paths for the area/level the ISIS CAPABILITY TLV is flooded into (the PCE can compute TE LSP paths for intra-area TE LSPs). I bit: Inter-area scope. When set, the PCE can perform TE LSP path computation for inter-area TE LSPs but within the same AS. A bit: Multi-domain scope. When set, the PCE can perform path computation for inter-AS TE LSPs. In this case, the PCED sub-TLV MUST contain one or more AS-DOMAIN sub-TLV(s), each describing the domain for which the PCE can compute TE LSPs paths having their destination address in the respective AS. Note that those flags are not exclusive (a PCE may set one or more flags). P bit: The notion of request priority allows a PCC to specify how urgent the request is, by setting a flag in the REQUEST_ID object of the Path computation request message. See [PATH-COMP] for more details. P=1: the PCE takes into account the ¬¬request priority¬¬ in its scheduling of the various requests. P=0: the PCE does not take the request priority into account. M bit M=1: the PCE is capable of computing more than one path obeying a set of specified constraints (in a single pass), provided that they exist. M=0: the PCE cannot compute more than one path in a single pass Vasseur et al. [Page 7] Internet Draft draft-vasseur-ospf-te-caps-00 July 2004 obeying a set of specified constraints. D bit The PCC may request the PCE to compute N diversely routed paths obeying a set of specified constraints. Such N paths may not exist of course depending on the current state of the network. S D=1: the PCE is capable of computing diversely (link, node, SRLG) routed paths. D=0: the PCE is not capable of computing diversely routed paths. The D bit is relevant if and only if the M bit has been set to 1. It MUST be set to 0 if the M bit is set to 0. Note that for future capabilities, it may be desirable to introduce new flags or may be new sub-TLV to be carried in the PCED capability sub-TLV if the capability needs more than just a single flag to be described. 4.3. AS-DOMAIN sub-TLV When the PCE can perform path computation for an inter-AS TE LSP, the A bit of the PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV MUST be set. Moreover, one or more sub-TLVs MUST be included within the PCED sub-TLV, each sub-TLV identifying an AS number. Each AS-DOMAIN sub-TLV has the following form: CODE: 3 LENGTH: 4 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AS Number | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ AS-DOMAIN sub-TLV format The AS-DOMAIN sub-TLV type is 3, length is 4 octets, and the value is the AS number identifying the AS for which the PCE can compute inter- AS TE LSP paths (TE LSP having their destination address in this AS). When coded on four bytes, the AS Number field MUST have its left two bytes set to 0. The set of AS-DOMAIN sub-TLVs specifies a list of ASes (AS1,à, ASn). This means that the PCE can compute TE LSP path such that the destination address of the TE LSP belongs to this set of ASes. 5. TE-Mesh-Group TLV format The TE-MESH-GROUP TLV has the following format: Vasseur et al. [Page 8] Internet Draft draft-vasseur-ospf-te-caps-00 July 2004 CODE: 3 LENGTH: Variable (N*8 octets) 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | mesh-group-number | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Tail-end address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Tail-end name | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ // // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV format N is the number of mesh-groups. For each Mesh-group announced by the LSR, the TLV contains: - A mesh-group-number: identifies the mesh-group number, - A Tail-end address: user configurable IP address to be used as a tail-end address by other LSRs belonging to the same mesh-group. - A Tail-end name: 32-bits string which facilitates the TE LSP identification which can be very useful in inter-area/AS MPLS TE environments. 6. Element of procedure The TLVs defined in this document are carried within an OSPF router information opaque LSA (opaque type of 4, opaque ID of 0) as defined in [OSPF-CAP]. A router MUST originate a new OSPF router information LSA whenever the content of the any of the carried TLV changes or whenever required by the regular OSPF procedure (LSA refresh (every LSRefreshTime)). As defined in RFC2370, an opaque LSA has a flooding scope determined by its LSA type: - link-local (type 9), - area-local (type 10) - entire OSPF routing domain (type 11). In this case, the flooding scope is equivalent to the Type 5 LSA flooding scope. A router may generate multiple OSPF router information LSAs with different flooding scopes. 6.1. TE-NODE-CAP TLV The TE-NODE-CAP may be carried within a type 10 or 11 router information LSA depending on the MPLS Traffic Engineering capability. The flooding scope is defined on a per capability basis. Capabilities Vasseur et al. [Page 9] Internet Draft draft-vasseur-ospf-te-caps-00 July 2004 with a identical flooding scope MUST be flooded within the same TE- NODE-CAP TLV carried within a router information LSA. 6.2. PCED TLV The PCED TLV may be carried within a type 10 or 11 router information LSA depending on the Path Computation Element scope. - If the PCE can compute an intra-area TE LSP, the L bit of the PCE-CAPABILITY TLV of the PCED TLV MUST be set and the PCED TLV MUST be generated within a Type 10 router information LSA, - If the PCE can compute an inter-area TE LSP, the I bit of the PCE-CAPABILITY TLV of the PCED TLV MUST be set. The PCED TLV MUST be generated: - within a Type 10 router information LSA if the PCE can compute an inter-area TE LSP path for the LSRs in the area it is attached to (for instance the PCE is an ABR computing an inter-area TE LSP path for its attached areas) - within a Type 11 router information LSA if the PCE can compute an inter-area TE LSP path for the whole domain. - If the PCE can compute an inter-AS TE LSP path, the A bit of the PCE-CAPABILITY TLV of the PCED TLV MUST be set and the PCED TLV MUST be generated within a Type 11 router information LSA, Note: if the PCE can compute both intra and inter-area TE LSP paths, both the L and I bits of the PCE-CAPABILITY TLV MUST be set. The flags are not exclusive. This only applies to the PCED TLV carried within the type 10 router information LSA. If a PCE can compute an intra-area TE LSP and an inter-area or inter- AS TE LSP path, it MUST originate: - a type 10 OSPF router information LSA with a PCED TLV having the L, I and A flags of its PCE-CAPABILITY TLV set as described above. - a type 11 OSPF router information LSA with a PCED TLV having L=0 and the I and A flags of its PCE-CAPABILITY TLV set as described above. Example <-----------------AS1-----------------> <---area 1--><----area 0-----><-area 2-> R1---------ABR1*------------ABR3*-----| ------------ | | | | | | | S1 | S2 | ASBR1*--eBGP--ASBR2-| AS2 | | | | | | | R2---------ABR2*------------ABR4------| ------------ Vasseur et al. [Page 10] Internet Draft draft-vasseur-ospf-te-caps-00 July 2004 The areas contents are not detailed. Assumptions: - area 1 and area 2 are regular areas - the * indicates a Path Computation Element capability - ABR1 is a PCE for area 1 only - ABR2 is a PCE for intra and inter-area TE LSP path computation in area 0 and 1 - ABR3 is a PCE for only inter-area TE LSP path computation for the whole domain, - S1 is a PCE for area 1 only - S2 is a PCE for the whole domain, - ASBR1 is a PCE for inter-AS TE LSPs whose destination resides in AS2 (not for intra or inter-area area TE LSPs). In the example above: - S1 originates a type 10 router information LSA with a PCED TLV such that: o The L bit of the PCE-CAPABILITY TLV is set, o The I and A bits of the PCE-CAPABILITY TLV are cleared. - ABR1 originates in area 1 a type 10 router information LSA with a PCED TLV such that: o The L bit of the PCE-CAPABILITY TLV is set, o The I and A bits of the PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV are cleared, - ABR2 originates in both area 0 and 1 a type 10 router information LSA with a PCED TLV such that: o The L and I bits of the PCE-CAPABILITY TLV are set, o The A bit of the PCE-CAPABILITY TLV is cleared - ABR3 originates a type 11 router information LSA with a PCED TLV such that: o The L bit of the PCE-CAPABILITY TLV is cleared, o The I bit of the PCE-CAPABILITY TLV is set, o The A bit of the PCE-CAPABILITY TLV is cleared, - S2 originates: - in area 0 a type 10 router information LSA with a PCED TLV such that: o The L and I bits of the PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV are set, o The A bit of the PCE-CAPABILITY TLV is cleared, - a type 11 router information LSA with a PCED TLV such that: o The L bit of the PCE-CAPABILITY TLV is cleared, o The I bit of the PCE-CAPABILITY TLV is set, o The A bit of the PCE-CAPABILITY TLV is cleared, - ASBR1 originates a type 11 router information LSA with a PCED TLV such that: Vasseur et al. [Page 11] Internet Draft draft-vasseur-ospf-te-caps-00 July 2004 o The L bit and the I bit of the PCE-CAPABILITY TLV are cleared, o The A bit of the PCE-CAPABILITY TLV set, o One AS-DOMAIN TLV within the PCED TLV with AS number = AS2 The receipt of a new router information LSA carrying a PCED TLV never triggers an SPF calculation. When an LSR or a Path Computation Element is newly configured as a PCE, the corresponding router information LSA MUST be immediately flooded. When a PCE capability changes, the corresponding router information LSA MUST be immediately flooded. When a PCE looses its Path Computation Element capability, the corresponding router information LSA MUST be immediately flooded with LS age = MaxAge. 6.3. TE-MESH-GROUP TLV The TE-MESH-GROUP TLV may be carried within a type 10 or 11 router information LSA depending on the MPLS TE mesh-group profile: - If the MPLS TE mesh-group is contained within a single area (all the LSRs have their head-end and tail-end LSR within the same OSPF area), the TE-MESH-GROUP TLV MUST be generated within a Type 10 router information LSA, - If the MPLS TE mesh-group spans multiple OSPF areas, the TE- MESH-GROUP TLV MUST be generated within a Type 11 router information LSA, 7. Interoperability with routers non supporting this capability There is no interoperability issue as a router not supporting the TE- NODE-CAP, PCED or TE-MESH-GROUP TLVs SHOULD just silently discard those TLVs as specified in RFC2370. 8. Security considerations No new security issues are raised in this document. 9. 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. Vasseur et al. [Page 12] Internet Draft draft-vasseur-ospf-te-caps-00 July 2004 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.. 9.1. IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668. 10. References Normative references [RFC] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to indicate requirements levels", RFC 2119, March 1997. [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. [OSPF-v2] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998. [OSPF-TE] Katz, D., Yeung, D., Kompella, K., "Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September 2003. [OSPF-CAP] Lindem, A., Shen, N., Aggarwal, R., Shaffer, S., Vasseur, J.P., "Extensions to OSPF for advertising Optional Router Capabilities", draft-ietf-ospf-cap-02.txt, work in progress. [TE-INFO] Vasseur, J.P., Le Roux, J.L., et al., "Routing extensions for discovery of TE router information", draft-vasseur-ccamp-te- router-info-00.txt, work in progress. Informative References [OSPF-G] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "OSPF extensions in support of Generalized Multi-protocol Label Switching", draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf- gmpls-extensions-12.txt, work in progress. Vasseur et al. [Page 13] Internet Draft draft-vasseur-ospf-te-caps-00 July 2004 [INT-AREA-REQ] Le Roux, J.L., Vasseur, J.P., Boyle, J., "Requirements for inter-area MPLS Traffic Engineering", draft-ietf-tewg-interarea- mpls-te-req-02.txt, work in progress. [INT-AS-REQ] Zhang, R., Vasseur, J.P., "MPLS Inter-AS Traffic Engineering Requirements", draft-ietf-tewg-interas-mpls-te-req- 07.txt, work in progress. [INT-DOMAIN-FRWK] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.P., Ayyangar, A., "A Framework for Inter-Domain MPLS Traffic Engineering", draft-farrel- ccamp-inter-domain-framework-01.txt, work in progress. [P2MP-Req] Yasukawa, S., et. al., "Requirements for point-to- multipoint extension to RSVP-TE", draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-requirement- 02.txt, work in progress. [RSVP-TE] Awduche, D., et. al., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. [RSVP-G] Berger, L, et. al., "GMPLS Signaling RSVP-TE extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. [RSVP-P2MP] Aggarwal, Papadimitriou, Yasukawa, et. al. "Extensions to RSVP-TE for point-to-multipoint TE LSPs", draft-dry-mpls-rsvp-te- p2mp-00.txt, work in progress. 11. Authors' Address: Jean-Philippe Vasseur (Editor) Cisco Systems, Inc. 300 Beaver Brook Road Boxborough , MA - 01719 USA Email: jpv@cisco.com Peter Psenak CISCO Systems, Inc. Pegasus Parc De Kleetlaan 6A 1831, Diegem BELGIUM Email: ppsenak@cisco.com Seisho Yasukawa NTT Network Service Systems Laboratories, NTT Corporation 9-11, Midori-Cho 3-Chome Musashino-Shi, Tokyo 180-8585 Japan Phone: + 81 422 59 4769 Email: yasukawa.seisho@lab.ntt.co.jp Jean-Louis Le Roux Vasseur et al. [Page 14] Internet Draft draft-vasseur-ospf-te-caps-00 July 2004 France Telecom 2, avenue Pierre-Marzin 22307 Lannion Cedex FRANCE Email: jeanlouis.leroux@francetelecom.com Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). 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. 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. Vasseur et al. [Page 15]