Internet DRAFT - draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-rfc3946bis

draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-rfc3946bis





    
    
Network Working Group                                         E. Mannie 
Internet Draft                                               Consultant 
Replaces RFC 3946                                      D. Papadimitriou 
Category: Standard Track                                        Alcatel 
Expiration Date: February 2006                                          
                                                            August 2005 
 
 
     Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions 
                for Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) 
            and Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control 
    
                 draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-rfc3946bis-00.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 (2005). All Rights Reserved. 
 
Abstract 
    
   This document provides minor clarification to RFC 3946. 
    
   This document is a companion to the Generalized Multi-Protocol 
   Label Switching (GMPLS) signaling. It defines the Synchronous 
   Optical Network (SONET)/Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) 
   technology specific information needed when using GMPLS signaling. 
 
 
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors)                                 1 

draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-rfc3946bis-00.txt                August 2005 

Table of Contents 
 
   1.  Introduction ..............................................  2 
   2.  SONET and SDH Traffic Parameters ..........................  2 
       2.1.  SONET/SDH Traffic Parameters ........................  3 
       2.2.  RSVP-TE Details .....................................  9 
       2.3.  CR-LDP Details ......................................  9 
   3.  SONET and SDH Labels ...................................... 10 
   4.  Acknowledgments ........................................... 15 
   5.  Security Considerations ................................... 16 
   6.  IANA Considerations ....................................... 16 
   7.  References ................................................ 16 
       7.1.  Normative References ................................ 16 
   Appendix 1 - Signal Type Values Extension for VC-3 ............ 18 
   Annex 1 - Examples ............................................ 18 
   Contributors .................................................. 21 
   Authors' Addresses ............................................ 25 
   Full Copyright Statement ...................................... 26 
 
1. Introduction 
    
   As described in [RFC3945], Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) extends MPLS 
   from supporting packet (Packet Switching Capable - PSC) interfaces 
   and switching to include support of four new classes of interfaces 
   and switching: Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC), Time-Division 
   Multiplex (TDM), Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) and Fiber-Switch 
   Capable (FSC). A functional description of the extensions to MPLS 
   signaling needed to support the new classes of interfaces and 
   switching is provided in [RFC3471]. [RFC3473] describes RSVP-TE 
   specific formats and mechanisms needed to support all five classes 
   of interfaces, and CR-LDP extensions can be found in [RFC3472].   
    
   This document presents details that are specific to Synchronous 
   Optical Network (SONET)/Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH). Per 
   [RFC3471], SONET/SDH specific parameters are carried in the 
   signaling protocol in traffic parameter specific objects. 
    
   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 [RFC2119]. 
    
   Moreover, the reader is assumed to be familiar with the 
   terminology in ANSI [T1.105], ITU-T [G.707] as well as [RFC3471], 
   [RFC3472], and [RFC3473]. The following abbreviations are used in 
   this document: 
    
      DCC: Data Communications Channel. 
      LOVC: Lower Order Virtual Container 
      HOVC: Higher Order Virtual Container 
      MS: Multiplex Section. 
      MSOH: Multiplex Section overhead. 
      POH: Path overhead. 
      RS: Regenerator Section. 
      RSOH: Regenerator section overhead. 
 
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors)                                 2 

draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-rfc3946bis-00.txt                August 2005 

      SDH: Synchronous digital hierarchy. 
      SOH: Section overhead. 
      SONET: Synchronous Optical Network. 
      SPE: Synchronous Payload Envelope. 
      STM(-N): Synchronous Transport Module (-N) (SDH). 
      STS(-N): Synchronous Transport Signal-Level N (SONET). 
      VC-n: Virtual Container-n (SDH). 
      VTn: Virtual Tributary-n (SONET). 
 
2. SONET and SDH Traffic Parameters 
    
   This section defines the GMPLS traffic parameters for SONET/SDH.  
   The protocol specific formats, for the SONET/SDH-specific RSVP-TE 
   objects and CR-LDP TLVs are described in sections 2.2 and 2.3 
   respectively. 
    
   These traffic parameters specify indeed a base set of capabilities 
   for SONET ANSI [T1.105] and SDH ITU-T [G.707] such as 
   concatenation and transparency. Other documents may further 
   enhance this set of capabilities in the future. For instance, 
   signaling for SDH over PDH ITU-T G.832 or sub-STM-0 ITU-T G.708 
   interfaces could be defined. 
    
   The traffic parameters defined hereafter (see Section 2.1) MUST be 
   used when the label is encoded as SUKLM as defined in this memo 
   (see Section 3). They MUST also be used when requesting one of 
   Section/RS or Line/MS overhead transparent STS-1/STM-0, STS-
   3*N/STM-N (N=1, 4, 16, 64, 256) signals. 
    
   The traffic parameters and label encoding defined in [RFC3471], 
   Section 3.2, MUST be used for fully transparent STS-1/STM-0, STS-
   3*N/STM-N (N=1, 4, 16, 64, 256) signal requests. A fully 
   transparent signal is one for which all overhead is left 
   unmodified by intermediate nodes, i.e., when all defined 
   Transparency (T) bits would be set if the traffic parameters 
   defined in section 2.1 were used. 
    
2.1. SONET/SDH Traffic Parameters 
    
   The traffic parameters for SONET/SDH are organized 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 
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
   |  Signal Type  |      RCC      |              NCC              | 
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
   |              NVC              |        Multiplier (MT)        | 
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
   |                       Transparency (T)                        | 
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
   |                           Profile (P)                         | 
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
    
   Annex 1 lists examples of SONET and SDH signal coding. 
 
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors)                                 3 

draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-rfc3946bis-00.txt                August 2005 

    
   o) Signal Type (ST): 8 bits 
      
   This field indicates the type of Elementary Signal that comprises 
   the requested LSP. Several transforms can be applied successively 
   on the Elementary Signal to build the Final Signal being actually 
   requested for the LSP. 
    
   Each transform application is optional and must be ignored if 
   zero, except the Multiplier (MT) that cannot be zero and is 
   ignored if equal to one. 
      
   Transforms must be applied strictly in the following order: 
    
   - First, contiguous concatenation (by using the RCC and NCC 
     fields) can be optionally applied on the Elementary Signal, 
     resulting in a contiguously concatenated signal. 
   - Second, virtual concatenation (by using the NVC field) can be  
     optionally applied on the Elementary Signal resulting in a 
     virtually concatenated signal. 
   - Third, some transparency (by using the Transparency field) can  
     be optionally specified when requesting a frame as signal rather 
     than an SPE or VC based signal.  
   - Fourth, a multiplication (by using the Multiplier field) can be  
     optionally applied either directly on the Elementary Signal, or on 
     the contiguously concatenated signal obtained from the first 
     phase, or on the virtually concatenated signal obtained from the 
     second phase, or on these signals combined with some transparency. 
 
   Permitted Signal Type values for SONET/SDH are: 
    
   Value  Type (Elementary Signal) 
   -----  ------------------------ 
     1     VT1.5  SPE / VC-11 
     2     VT2    SPE / VC-12 
     3     VT3    SPE 
     4     VT6    SPE / VC-2 
     5     STS-1  SPE / VC-3 
     6     STS-3c SPE / VC-4 
     7     STS-1      / STM-0   (only when requesting transparency) 
     8     STS-3      / STM-1   (only when requesting transparency) 
     9     STS-12     / STM-4   (only when requesting transparency) 
     10    STS-48     / STM-16  (only when requesting transparency) 
     11    STS-192    / STM-64  (only when requesting transparency) 
     12    STS-768    / STM-256 (only when requesting transparency) 
    
   A dedicated signal type is assigned to a SONET STS-3c SPE instead of 
   coding it as a contiguous concatenation of three STS-1 SPEs. This is 
   done in order to provide easy interworking between SONET and SDH 
   signaling. 
      
   Appendix 1 adds one signal type (optional) to the above values. 
      
         
 
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors)                                 4 

draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-rfc3946bis-00.txt                August 2005 

   o) Requested Contiguous Concatenation (RCC): 8 bits 
    
   This field is used to request the optional SONET/SDH contiguous 
   concatenation of the Elementary Signal. 
    
   This field is a vector of flags. Each flag indicates the support 
   of a particular type of contiguous concatenation. Several flags 
   can be set at the same time to indicate a choice. 
    
   These flags allow an upstream node to indicate to a downstream 
   node the different types of contiguous concatenation that it 
   supports. However, the downstream node decides which one to use 
   according to its own rules. 
    
   A downstream node receiving simultaneously more than one flag 
   chooses a particular type of contiguous concatenation, if any 
   supported, and based on criteria that are out of this document 
   scope. A downstream node that doesn't support any of the 
   concatenation types indicated by the field must refuse the LSP 
   request. In particular, it must refuse the LSP request if it 
   doesn't support contiguous concatenation at all. 
    
   When several flags have been set, the upstream node retrieves the 
   (single) type of contiguous concatenation the downstream node has 
   selected by looking at the position indicated by the first label 
   and the number of label(s) as returned by the downstream node (see 
   also Section 3). 
    
   The entire field is set to zero to indicate that no contiguous 
   concatenation is requested at all (default value). A non-zero 
   field indicates that some contiguous concatenation is requested. 
    
   The following flag is defined: 
    
      Flag 1 (bit 1): Standard contiguous concatenation. 
    
   Flag 1 indicates that the standard SONET/SDH contiguous 
   concatenation as defined in [T1.105]/[G.707] is supported.  Note 
   that bit 1 is the low order bit. Other flags are reserved for 
   extensions, if not used they must be set to zero when sent, and 
   should be ignored when received. 
    
   See note 1 hereafter in the section on the NCC about the SONET 
   contiguous concatenation of STS-1 SPEs when the number of 
   components is a multiple of three. 
 
   o) Number of Contiguous Components (NCC): 16 bits 
    
   This field indicates the number of identical SONET SPEs/SDH VCs 
   (i.e., Elementary Signal) that are requested to be concatenated, 
   as specified in the RCC field. 
    
   Note 1: when requesting a SONET STS-Nc SPE with N=3*X, the 

 
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors)                                 5 

draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-rfc3946bis-00.txt                August 2005 

   Elementary Signal to use must always be an STS-3c_SPE signal type 
   and the value of NCC must always be equal to X. This allows also 
   facilitating the interworking between SONET and SDH. In 
   particular, it means that the contiguous concatenation of three 
   STS-1 SPEs can not be requested because according to this 
   specification, this type of signal must be coded using the STS-3c 
   SPE signal type. 
    
   Note 2: when requesting a transparent STS-N/STM-N signal limited 
   to a single contiguously concatenated STS-Nc_SPE/VC-4-Nc, the 
   signal type must be STS-N/STM-N, RCC with flag 1 and NCC set to 1. 
    
   The NCC value must be consistent with the type of contiguous 
   concatenation being requested in the RCC field. In particular, 
   this field is irrelevant if no contiguous concatenation is 
   requested (RCC = 0), in that case it must be set to zero when 
   sent, and should be ignored when received. A RCC value different 
   from 0 implies a number of contiguous components greater than or 
   equal to 1. 
    
   <BEGIN NOTE for explanation. To be removed before publication as 
   RFC> 
    
   Update from RFC 3946 from "greater than 1" to "greater than or 
   equal to 1". The original "greater than" aimed to be interpreted 
   as "greater than or equal" and not "strictly greater than".   
    
   <END NOTE> 
    
   Note 3: Following these rules, when requesting a VC-4 signal, the 
   RCC and the NCC values must be set to 0 whereas for an STS-3c SPE 
   signal, the RCC and the NCC values must be set 1. However, if 
   local conditions allow and since the setting of the RCC and NCC 
   values is locally driven, the requesting upstream node MAY set the 
   RCC and NCC values to either SDH or SONET settings without 
   impacting the function. Moreover, the downstream node SHOULD 
   accept the requested values if local conditions allow. If these 
   values can not be supported, the receiver downstream node MUST 
   generate a PathErr/NOTIFICATION message (see Section 2.2/2.3, 
   respectively). 
    
   <BEGIN NOTE for explanation. To be removed before publication as 
   RFC> 
    
   With this additional note, the generic processing to achieve 
   interworking between SONET and SDH (as originally specified in RFC 
   3946) is explicitly provided for STS-3c SPE and VC-4 signals. 
    
   <END NOTE> 
    
   o) Number of Virtual Components (NVC): 16 bits 
    
   This field indicates the number of signals that are requested to 
   be virtually concatenated. These signals are all of the same type 
 
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors)                                 6 

draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-rfc3946bis-00.txt                August 2005 

   by definition. They are Elementary Signal SPEs/VCs for which 
   signal types are defined in this document, i.e., VT1.5_SPE/VC-11, 
   VT2_SPE/VC-12, VT3_SPE, VT6_SPE/VC-2, STS-1_SPE/VC-3 or STS-
   3c_SPE/VC-4. 
    
   This field is set to 0 (default value) to indicate that no virtual 
   concatenation is requested. 
      
   o) Multiplier (MT): 16 bits 
    
   This field indicates the number of identical signals that are 
   requested for the LSP, i.e., that form the Final Signal. These 
   signals can be either identical Elementary Signals, or identical 
   contiguously concatenated signals, or identical virtually 
   concatenated signals. Note that all these signals belong thus to 
   the same LSP. 
    
   The distinction between the components of multiple virtually 
   concatenated signals is done via the order of the labels that are 
   specified in the signaling. The first set of labels must describe 
   the first component (set of individual signals belonging to the 
   first virtual concatenated signal), the second set must describe 
   the second component (set of individual signals belonging to the 
   second virtual concatenated signal) and so on. 
    
   This field is set to one (default value) to indicate that exactly 
   one instance of a signal is being requested. Intermediate and 
   egress nodes MUST verify that the node itself and the interfaces 
   on which the LSP will be established can support the requested 
   multiplier value. If the requested values can not be supported, 
   the receiver node MUST generate a PathErr/NOTIFICATION message 
   (see Section 2.2/2.3, respectively). 
    
   Zero is an invalid value. If received, the node MUST generate a 
   PathErr/NOTIFICATION message (see Section 2.2/2.3, respectively). 
    
   Note 1: when requesting a transparent STS-N/STM-N signal limited 
   to a single contiguously concatenated STS-Nc-SPE/VC-4-Nc, the 
   multiplier field MUST be equal to 1 (only valid value). 
 
   o) Transparency (T): 32 bits 
    
   This field is a vector of flags that indicates the type of 
   transparency being requested. Several flags can be combined to 
   provide different types of transparency. Not all combinations are 
   necessarily valid. The default value for this field is zero, i.e., 
   no transparency requested. 
    
   Transparency, as defined from the point of view of this signaling 
   specification, is only applicable to the fields in the SONET/SDH 
   frame overheads. In the SONET case, these are the fields in the 
   Section Overhead (SOH), and the Line Overhead (LOH). In the SDH 
   case, these are the fields in the Regenerator Section Overhead  
   (RSOH), the Multiplex Section overhead (MSOH), and the pointer 
 
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors)                                 7 

draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-rfc3946bis-00.txt                August 2005 

   fields between the two. With SONET, the pointer fields are part of 
   the LOH. 
    
   Note as well that transparency is only applicable when using the 
   following Signal Types: STS-1/STM-0, STS-3/STM-1, STS-12/STM-4, 
   STS-48/STM-16, STS-192/STM-64 and STS-768/STM-256. At least one 
   transparency type must be specified when requesting such a signal 
   type. 
    
   Transparency indicates precisely which fields in these overheads 
   must be delivered unmodified at the other end of the LSP. An 
   ingress LSR requesting transparency will pass these overhead 
   fields that must be delivered to the egress LSR without any 
   change. From the ingress and egress LSRs point of views, these 
   fields must be seen as unmodified. 
    
   Transparency is not applied at the interfaces with the initiating 
   and terminating LSRs, but is only applied between intermediate 
   LSRs. The transparency field is used to request an LSP that 
   supports the requested transparency type; it may also be used to 
   setup the transparency process to be applied at each intermediate 
   LSR. 
    
   The different transparency flags are the following: 
    
      Flag 1 (bit 1): Section/Regenerator Section layer. 
      Flag 2 (bit 2): Line/Multiplex Section layer. 
    
   Where bit 1 is the low order bit. Other flags are reserved, they 
   should be set to zero when sent, and should be ignored when 
   received. A flag is set to one to indicate that the corresponding 
   transparency is requested. 
    
   Intermediate and egress nodes MUST verify that the node itself and 
   the interfaces on which the LSP will be established can support 
   the requested transparency. If the requested flags can not be 
   supported, the receiver node MUST generate a PathErr/NOTIFICATION 
   message (see Section 2.2/2.3, respectively). 
    
   Section/Regenerator Section layer transparency means that the 
   entire frames must be delivered unmodified. This implies that 
   pointers cannot be adjusted. When using Section/Regenerator 
   Section layer transparency all other flags MUST be ignored. 
    
   Line/Multiplex Section layer transparency means that the LOH/MSOH 
   must be delivered unmodified. This implies that pointers cannot be 
   adjusted. 
    
   o) Profile (P): 32 bits 
      
   This field is intended to indicate particular capabilities that 
   must be supported for the LSP, for example monitoring 
   capabilities. 
      
 
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors)                                 8 

draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-rfc3946bis-00.txt                August 2005 

   No standard profile is currently defined and this field SHOULD be 
   set to zero when transmitted and SHOULD be ignored when received. 
      
   In the future TLV based extensions may be created. 
    
2.2. RSVP-TE Details 
    
   For RSVP-TE, the SONET/SDH traffic parameters are carried in the 
   SONET/SDH SENDER_TSPEC and FLOWSPEC objects. The same format is 
   used both for SENDER_TSPEC object and FLOWSPEC objects. The 
   content of the objects is defined above in Section 2.1. The 
   objects have the following class and type for SONET ANSI T1.105 
   and SDH ITU-T G.707: 
    
      SONET/SDH SENDER_TSPEC object: Class = 12, C-Type = 4 
      SONET/SDH FLOWSPEC object: Class = 9, C-Type = 4 
    
   There is no Adspec associated with the SONET/SDH SENDER_TSPEC. 
   Either the Adspec is omitted or an int-serv Adspec with the 
   Default General Characterization Parameters and Guaranteed Service 
   fragment is used, see [RFC2210]. 
    
   For a particular sender in a session the contents of the FLOWSPEC 
   object received in a Resv message SHOULD be identical to the 
   contents of the SENDER_TSPEC object received in the corresponding 
   Path message. If the objects do not match, a ResvErr message with 
   a "Traffic Control Error/Bad Flowspec value" error SHOULD be 
   generated. 
    
   Intermediate and egress nodes MUST verify that the node itself and 
   the interfaces on which the LSP will be established can support 
   the requested Signal Type, RCC, NCC, NVC and Multiplier (as 
   defined in Section 2.1). If the requested value(s) can not be 
   supported, the receiver node MUST generate a PathErr message with 
   a "Traffic Control Error/ Service unsupported" indication (see 
   [RFC2205]). 
    
   In addition, if the MT field is received with a zero value, the 
   node MUST generate a PathErr message with a "Traffic Control 
   Error/Bad Tspec value" indication (see [RFC2205]). 
    
   Intermediate nodes MUST also verify that the node itself and the 
   interfaces on which the LSP will be established can support the 
   requested Transparency (as defined in Section 2.1). If the 
   requested value(s) can not be supported, the receiver node MUST 
   generate a PathErr message with a "Traffic Control Error/Service 
   unsupported" indication (see [RFC2205]). 
 
2.3. CR-LDP Details 
    
   For CR-LDP, the SONET/SDH traffic parameters are carried in the 
   SONET/SDH Traffic Parameters TLV. The content of the TLV is 
   defined above in Section 2.1. The header of the TLV has the 
   following format: 
 
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors)                                 9 

draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-rfc3946bis-00.txt                August 2005 

    
    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 
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
   |U|F|          Type             |      Length                   | 
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
    
   The type field for the SONET/SDH Traffic Parameters TLV is: 
   0x0838. 
    
   Intermediate and egress nodes MUST verify that the node itself and 
   the interfaces on which the LSP will be established can support 
   the requested Signal Type, RCC, NCC, NVC and Multiplier (as 
   defined in Section 2.1). If the requested value(s) can not be 
   supported, the receiver node MUST generate a NOTIFICATION message 
   with a "Resource Unavailable" status code (see [RFC3212]). 
    
   In addition, if the MT field is received with a zero value, the 
   node MUST generate a NOTIFICATION message with a "Resource 
   Unavailable" status code (see [RFC3212]). 
    
   Intermediate nodes MUST also verify that the node itself and the 
   interfaces on which the LSP will be established can support the 
   requested Transparency (as defined in Section 2.1). If the 
   requested value(s) can not be supported, the receiver node MUST 
   generate a NOTIFICATION message with a "Resource Unavailable" 
   status code (see [RFC3212]). 
 
3. SONET and SDH Labels 
    
   SONET and SDH each define a multiplexing structure. Both 
   structures are trees whose roots are respectively an STS-N or an 
   STM-N; and whose leaves are the signals that can be transported 
   via the time-slots and switched between time-slots within an 
   ingress port and time-slots within an egress port, i.e., a VTx 
   SPE, an STS-x SPE or a VC-x. A SONET/SDH label will identify the 
   exact position (i.e., first time-slot) of a particular VTx SPE, 
   STS-x SPE or VC-x signal in a multiplexing structure. SONET and 
   SDH labels are carried in the Generalized Label per [RFC3473] and 
   [RFC3472]. 
    
   Note that by time-slots we mean the time-slots as they appear 
   logically and sequentially in the multiplex, not as they appear 
   after any possible interleaving. 
    
   These multiplexing structures will be used as naming trees to 
   create unique multiplex entry names or labels. The same format of 
   label is used for SONET and SDH. As explained in [RFC3471], a 
   label does not identify the "class" to which the label belongs.  
   This is implicitly determined by the link on which the label is 
   used. 
    
   In case of signal concatenation or multiplication, a list of 
   labels can appear in the Label field of a Generalized Label.  
 
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors)                                10 

draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-rfc3946bis-00.txt                August 2005 

    
   In case of contiguous concatenation, only one label appears in the 
   Label field. This unique label is encoded as a single 32 bit label 
   value (as defined in this Section) of the Generalized Label object 
   (Class-Num = 16, C-Type = 2)/TLV (0x0825). This label identifies 
   the lowest time-slot occupied by the contiguously concatenated 
   signal. By lowest time-slot we mean the one having the lowest 
   label (value) when compared as integer values, i.e., the time-slot 
   occupied by the first component signal of the concatenated signal 
   encountered when descending the tree. 
    
   In case of virtual concatenation, the explicit ordered list of all 
   labels in the concatenation is given. This ordered list of labels 
   is encoded as a sequence of 32 bit label values (as defined in 
   this Section) of the Generalized Label object (Class-Num = 16, C-
   Type = 2)/TLV (0x0825). Each label indicates the first time-slot 
   occupied by a component of the virtually concatenated signal. The 
   order of the labels must reflect the order of the payloads to 
   concatenate (not the physical order of time-slots). The above 
   representation limits virtual concatenation to remain within a 
   single (component) link; it imposes as such a restriction compared 
   to the ANSI [T1.105]/ ITU-T [G.707] recommendations. The standard 
   definition for virtual concatenation allows each virtual 
   concatenation components to travel over diverse paths. Within 
   GMPLS, virtual concatenation components must travel over the same 
   (component) link if they are part of the same LSP. This is due to 
   the way that labels are bound to a (component) link. Note however, 
   that the routing of components on different paths is indeed 
   equivalent to establishing different LSPs, each one having its own 
   route. Several LSPs can be initiated and terminated between the 
   same nodes and their corresponding components can then be 
   associated together (i.e., virtually concatenated). 
    
   In case of multiplication (i.e., using the multiplier transform), 
   the explicit ordered list of all labels that take part in the 
   Final Signal is given. This ordered list of labels is encoded as a 
   sequence of 32 bit label values (as defined in this Section) of 
   the Generalized Label object (Class-Num = 16, C-Type = 2)/TLV 
   (0x0825). In case of multiplication of virtually concatenated 
   signals, the explicit ordered list of set of labels that take part 
   in the Final Signal is given. The first set of labels indicates 
   the time-slots occupied by the first virtually concatenated 
   signal, the second set of labels indicates the time-slots occupied 
   by the second virtually concatenated signal, and so on. The above 
   representation limits multiplication to remain within a single 
   (component) link. 
    
   <BEGIN NOTE for explanation. To be removed before publication as 
   RFC> 
    
   Clarification of label encoding added in each of the three 
   paragraphs above. 
    
   <END NOTE> 
 
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors)                                11 

draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-rfc3946bis-00.txt                August 2005 

    
   The format of the label for SONET and/or SDH TDM-LSR link 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 
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
   |               S               |   U   |   K   |   L   |   M   | 
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
    
   This is an extension of the numbering scheme defined in [G.707] 
   sections 7.3.7 to 7.3.13, i.e., the (K, L, M) numbering.  Note 
   that the higher order numbering scheme defined in [G.707] sections 
   7.3.1 to 7.3.6 is not used here. 
    
   Each letter indicates a possible branch number starting at the 
   parent node in the multiplex structure. Branches are considered as 
   numbered in increasing order, starting from the top of the 
   multiplexing structure. The numbering starts at 1, zero is used to 
   indicate a non-significant or ignored field. 
    
   When a field is not significant or ignored in a particular context 
   it MUST be set to zero when transmitted, and MUST be ignored when 
   received. 
    
   When a hierarchy of SONET/SDH LSPs is used, a higher order LSP 
   with a given bandwidth can be used to carry lower order LSPs.  
   Remember here that a higher order LSP is established through a 
   SONET/SDH higher order path layer network and a lower order LSP, 
   through a SONET/SDH lower order path layer network (see also ITU-T 
   G.803, Section 3 for the corresponding definitions). In this 
   context, the higher order SONET/SDH LSP behaves as a "virtual 
   link" with a given bandwidth (e.g., VC-3), it may also be used as 
   a Forwarding Adjacency. A lower order SONET/SDH LSP can be 
   established through that higher order LSP. Since a label is local 
   to a (virtual) link, the highest part of that label (i.e., the S, 
   U and K fields) is non-significant and is set to zero, i.e., the 
   label is "0,0,0,L,M". Similarly, if the structure of the lower 
   order LSP is unknown or not relevant, the lowest part of that 
   label (i.e., the L and M fields) is non-significant and is set to 
   zero, i.e., the label is "S,U,K,0,0". 
    
   For instance, a VC-3 LSP can be used to carry lower order LSPs.  
   In that case the labels allocated between the two ends of the VC-3 
   LSP for the lower order LSPs will have S, U and K set to zero, 
   i.e., non-significant, while L and M will be used to indicate the 
   signal allocated in that VC-3. 
    
   In case of tunneling such as VC-4 containing VC-3 containing 
   VC-12/VC-11 where the SUKLM structure is not adequate to represent 
   the full signal structure, a hierarchical approach must be used, 
   i.e., per layer network signaling. 
    
   The possible values of S, U, K, L and M are defined as follows: 
    
 
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors)                                12 

draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-rfc3946bis-00.txt                August 2005 

   1. S=1->N is the index of a particular STS-3/AUG-1 inside an 
      STS-N/STM-N multiplex. S is only significant for SONET STS-N 
      (N>1) and SDH STM-N (N>0). S must be 0 and ignored for STS-1  
      and STM-0. 
    
   2. U=1->3 is the index of a particular STS-1_SPE/VC-3 within an 
      STS-3/AUG-1. U is only significant for SONET STS-N (N>1) and  
      SDH STM-N (N>0). U must be 0 and ignored for STS-1 and STM-0. 
    
   3. K=1->3 is the index of a particular TUG-3 within a VC-4. K is 
      only significant for an SDH VC-4 structured in TUG-3s. K must  
      be 0 and ignored in all other cases. 
    
   4. L=1->7 is the index of a particular VT_Group/TUG-2 within an 
      STS-1_SPE/TUG-3 or VC-3. L must be 0 and ignored in all other 
      cases. 
    
   5. M is the index of a particular VT1.5_SPE/VC-11, VT2_SPE/VC-12  
      or VT3_SPE within a VT_Group/TUG-2. M=1->2 indicates a specific  
      VT3 SPE inside the corresponding VT Group, these values MUST  
      NOT be used for SDH since there is no equivalent of VT3 with  
      SDH. M=3->5 indicates a specific VT2_SPE/VC-12 inside the  
      corresponding VT_Group/TUG-2. M=6->9 indicates a specific  
      VT1.5_SPE/VC-11 inside the corresponding VT_Group/TUG-2. 
    
   Note that a label always has to be interpreted according the 
   SONET/SDH traffic parameters, i.e., a label by itself does not 
   allow knowing which signal is being requested (a label is context 
   sensitive). 
    
   The label format defined in this section, referred to as SUKLM, 
   MUST be used for any SONET/SDH signal requests that are not 
   transparent i.e., when all Transparency (T) bits defined in 
   section 2.1 are set to zero. Any transparent STS-1/STM-0/STS-
   3*N/STM-N (N=1, 4, 16, 64, 256) signal request MUST use a label 
   format as defined in [RFC3471]. 
 
      The S encoding is summarized in the following table: 
    
          S    SDH                     SONET 
         ------------------------------------------------ 
          0    other                   other 
          1    1st AUG-1               1st STS-3 
          2    2nd AUG-1               2nd STS-3 
          3    3rd AUG-1               3rd STS-3 
          4    4rd AUG-1               4rd STS-3 
          :    :                       : 
          N    Nth AUG-1               Nth STS-3 
 
      The U encoding is summarized in the following table: 
    
          U    SDH AUG-1               SONET STS-3 
         ------------------------------------------------- 
          0    other                   other 
 
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors)                                13 

draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-rfc3946bis-00.txt                August 2005 

          1    1st VC-3                1st STS-1 SPE 
          2    2nd VC-3                2nd STS-1 SPE 
          3    3rd VC-3                3rd STS-1 SPE 
 
      The K encoding is summarized in the following table: 
    
          K    SDH VC-4 
         --------------- 
          0    other 
          1    1st TUG-3 
          2    2nd TUG-3 
          3    3rd TUG-3 
 
      The L encoding is summarized in the following table: 
    
          L    SDH TUG-3    SDH VC-3    SONET STS-1 SPE 
         ------------------------------------------------- 
          0    other        other       other 
          1    1st TUG-2    1st TUG-2   1st VTG 
          2    2nd TUG-2    2nd TUG-2   2nd VTG 
          3    3rd TUG-2    3rd TUG-2   3rd VTG 
          4    4th TUG-2    4th TUG-2   4th VTG 
          5    5th TUG-2    5th TUG-2   5th VTG 
          6    6th TUG-2    6th TUG-2   6th VTG 
          7    7th TUG-2    7th TUG-2   7th VTG 
 
      The M encoding is summarized in the following table: 
    
          M    SDH TUG-2                 SONET VTG 
         ------------------------------------------------- 
          0    other                     other 
          1    -                         1st VT3 SPE 
          2    -                         2nd VT3 SPE 
          3    1st VC-12                 1st VT2 SPE 
          4    2nd VC-12                 2nd VT2 SPE 
          5    3rd VC-12                 3rd VT2 SPE 
          6    1st VC-11                 1st VT1.5 SPE 
          7    2nd VC-11                 2nd VT1.5 SPE 
          8    3rd VC-11                 3rd VT1.5 SPE 
          9    4th VC-11                 4th VT1.5 SPE 
    
   Examples of labels: 
    
   Example 1: the label for the STS-3c_SPE/VC-4 in the Sth STS-3/AUG- 
              1 is: S>0, U=0, K=0, L=0, M=0. 
    
   Example 2: the label for the VC-3 within the Kth-1 TUG-3 within 
              the VC-4 in the Sth AUG-1 is: S>0, U=0, K>0, L=0, M=0. 
    
   Example 3: the label for the Uth-1 STS-1_SPE/VC-3 within the Sth 
              STS-3/AUG-1 is: S>0, U>0, K=0, L=0, M=0. 
    
   Example 4: the label for the VT6/VC-2 in the Lth-1 VT Group/TUG-2 
              in the Uth-1 STS-1_SPE/VC-3 within the Sth STS-3/AUG-1    
 
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors)                                14 

draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-rfc3946bis-00.txt                August 2005 

              is: S>0, U>0, K=0, L>0, M=0. 
          
   Example 5: the label for the 3rd VT1.5_SPE/VC-11 in the Lth-1 VT 
              Group/TUG-2 within the Uth-1 STS-1_SPE/VC-3 within the            
              Sth STS-3/AUG-1 is: S>0, U>0, K=0, L>0, M=8. 
    
   Example 6: the label for the STS-12c SPE/VC-4-4c which uses the  
              9th STS-3/AUG-1 as its first timeslot is: S=9, U=0, 
              K=0, L=0, M=0. 
    
   In case of contiguous concatenation, the label that is used is the 
   lowest label (value) of the contiguously concatenated signal as 
   explained before. The higher part of the label indicates where the 
   signal starts and the lowest part is not significant. 
    
   In case of STM-0/STS-1, the values of S, U and K must be equal to 
   zero according to the field coding rules.  For instance, when 
   requesting a VC-3 in an STM-0 the label is S=0, U=0, K=0, L=0, 
   M=0. When requesting a VC-11 in a VC-3 in an STM-0 the label is 
   S=0, U=0, K=0, L>0, M=6..9. 
    
   Note: when a Section/RS or Line/MS transparent STS-1/STM-0/STS-
   3*N/STM-N (N=1, 4, 16, 64, 256) signal is requested, the SUKLM 
   label format and encoding is not applicable and the label encoding 
   MUST follow the rules defined in [RFC3471] Section 3.2. 
 
4. Acknowledgments 
    
   Valuable comments and input were received from the CCAMP mailing 
   list where outstanding discussions took place. 
    
   The authors would like to thank Richard Rabbat for its valuable 
   input that lead to this revision. 
    
5. Security Considerations 
    
   This document introduces no new security considerations to either 
   [RFC3473] or [RFC3472]. GMPLS security is described in section 11 
   of [RFC3471] and refers to [RFC3209] for RSVP-TE and to [RFC3212] 
   for CR-LDP. 
    
6. IANA Considerations 
    
   Three values have been defined by IANA for this document. 
    
   Two RSVP C-Types in registry: 
      http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters 
    
      -  A SONET/SDH SENDER_TSPEC object: Class = 12, C-Type = 4 (see 
         Section 2.2). 
    
      -  A SONET/SDH FLOWSPEC object: Class = 9, C-Type = 4 (see  
         Section 2.2). 
          
 
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors)                                15 

draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-rfc3946bis-00.txt                August 2005 

   One LDP TLV Type in registry: 
      http://www.iana.org/assignments/ldp-namespaces 
    
      -  A type field for the SONET/SDH Traffic Parameters TLV (see  
         Section 2.3). 
 
7. References 
 
7.1 Normative References 
 
   [G.707]    ITU-T Recommendation G.707, "Network Node Interface for 
              the Synchronous Digital Hierarchy", October 2000. 
    
   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 
    
   [RFC2205]  Braden, R., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S. 
              Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 
              1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997. 
    
   [RFC2210]  Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated 
              Services", RFC 2210, September 1997. 
    
   [RFC3209]  Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, 
              V., and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP 
              Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. 
                
   [RFC3212]  Jamoussi, B., Andersson, L., Callon, R., Dantu, R., 
              Wu, L., Doolan, P., Worster, T., Feldman, N., 
              Fredette, A., Girish, M., Gray, E., Heinanen, J., 
              Kilty, T., and A. Malis, "Constraint-Based LSP Setup 
              using LDP", RFC 3212, January 2002. 
    
   [RFC3471]  Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label 
              Switching (MPLS) Signaling Functional Description", 
              RFC 3471, January 2003. 
                    
   [RFC3472]  Ashwood-Smith, P. and L. Berger, "Generalized Multi-
              Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Signaling - 
              Constraint-based Routed Label Distribution Protocol 
              (CR-LDP) Extensions", RFC 3472, January 2003. 
    
   [RFC3473]  Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label 
              Switching (MPLS) Signaling - Resource ReserVation 
              Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", 
              RFC 3473, January 2003. 
    
   [RFC3945]  Mannie, E., Ed., "Generalized Multiprotocol Label 
              Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 
              2004. 
    
   [T1.105]   "Synchronous Optical Network (SONET): Basic 
              Description Including Multiplex Structure, Rates, and 
              Formats", ANSI T1.105, October 2000. 
 
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors)                                16 

draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-rfc3946bis-00.txt                August 2005 

                    





















































 
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors)                                17 

draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-rfc3946bis-00.txt                August 2005 

Appendix 1 - Signal Type Values Extension for VC-3 
    
   This appendix defines the following optional additional Signal 
   Type value for the Signal Type field of section 2.1: 
    
       Value         Type 
       -----  --------------------- 
        20     "VC-3 via AU-3 at the end" 
    
   According to the ITU-T [G.707] recommendation a VC-3 in the TU-
   3/TUG-3/VC-4/AU-4 branch of the SDH multiplex cannot be structured 
   in TUG-2s, however a VC-3 in the AU-3 branch can be. In addition, 
   a VC-3 could be switched between the two branches if required. 
 
   A VC-3 circuit could be terminated on an ingress interface of an 
   LSR (e.g. forming a VC-3 forwarding adjacency). This LSR could 
   then want to demultiplex this VC-3 and switch internal low order 
   LSPs. For implementation reasons, this could be only possible if 
   the LSR receives the VC-3 in the AU-3 branch. E.g. for an LSR not 
   able to switch internally from a TU-3 branch to an AU-3 branch on 
   its incoming interface before demultiplexing and then switching 
   the content with its switch fabric. 
    
   In that case it is useful to indicate that the VC-3 LSP must be 
   terminated at the end in the AU-3 branch instead of the TU-3 
   branch. 
    
   This is achieved by using the "VC-3 via AU-3 at the end" signal 
   type. This information can be used, for instance, by the 
   penultimate LSR to switch an incoming VC-3 received in any branch 
   to the AU-3 branch on the outgoing interface to the destination 
   LSR. 
    
   The "VC-3 via AU-3 at the end" signal type does not imply that the 
   VC-3 must be switched via the AU-3 branch at some other places in 
   the network. The VC-3 signal type just indicates that a VC-3 in 
   any branch is suitable. 

















 
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors)                                18 

draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-rfc3946bis-00.txt                August 2005 

Annex 1 - Examples 
    
   This annex defines examples of SONET and SDH signal coding. Their 
   objective is to help the reader to understand how works the traffic 
   parameter coding and not to give examples of typical SONET or SDH 
   signals. 
    
   As stated above, signal types are Elementary Signals to which 
   successive concatenation, multiplication and transparency 
   transforms can be applied to obtain Final Signals. 
 
   1. A VC-4 signal is formed by the application of RCC with value  
      0, NCC with value 0, NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T     
      with value 0 to a VC-4 Elementary Signal. 
    
   2. A VC-4-7v signal is formed by the application of RCC with value 
      0, NCC with value 0, NVC with value 7 (virtual concatenation of 
      7 components), MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to a VC-4 
      Elementary Signal. 
    
   3. A VC-4-16c signal is formed by the application of RCC with    
      value 1 (standard contiguous concatenation), NCC with value 16,  
      NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to a VC-4 
      Elementary Signal. 
    
   4. An STM-16 signal with Multiplex Section layer transparency is 
      formed by the application of RCC with value 0, NCC with value      
      0, NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with flag 2 to an   
      STM-16 Elementary Signal. 
            
   5. An STM-4 signal with Multiplex Section layer transparency is 
      formed by the application of RCC with value 0, NCC with value  
      0, NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with flag 2 applied  
      to an STM-4 Elementary Signal. 
    
   6. An STM-256 signal with Multiplex Section layer transparency is 
      formed by the application of RCC with value 0, NCC with value  
      0, NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with flag 2 applied    
      to an STM-256 Elementary Signal. 
    
   7. An STS-1 SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC with 
      value 0, NCC with value 0, NVC with value 0, MT with value 1    
      and T with value 0 to an STS-1 SPE Elementary Signal. 
    
   8. An STS-3c SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC with 
      value 1 (standard contiguous concatenation), NCC with value 1, 
      NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to an STS- 
      3c SPE Elementary Signal. 
    
   9. An STS-48c SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC with 
      value 1 (standard contiguous concatenation), NCC with value 16, 
      NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to an STS- 
      3c SPE Elementary Signal. 
    
 
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors)                                19 

draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-rfc3946bis-00.txt                August 2005 

   10.An STS-1-3v SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC  
      with value 0, NVC with value 3 (virtual concatenation of 3 
      components), MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to an STS-1 SPE 
      Elementary Signal. 
    
   11.An STS-3c-9v SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC    
      with value 1, NCC with value 1, NVC with value 9 (virtual 
      concatenation of 9 STS-3c), MT with value 1 and T with value 0 
      to an STS-3c SPE Elementary Signal. 
    
   12.An STS-12 signal with Section layer (full) transparency is 
      formed by the application of RCC with value 0, NCC with value  
      0, NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with flag 1 to an  
      STS-12 Elementary Signal. 
    
   13.A 3 x STS-768c SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC  
      with value 1, NCC with value 256, NVC with value 0, MT with    
      value 3, and T with value 0 to an STS-3c SPE Elementary Signal. 
    
   14.A 5 x VC-4-13v composed signal is formed by the application of  
      RCC with value 0, NVC with value 13, MT with value 5 and T with 
      value 0 to a VC-4 Elementary Signal. 
    
   The encoding of these examples is summarized in the following 
   table: 
    
      Signal                     ST   RCC   NCC   NVC   MT   T 
      -------------------------------------------------------- 
      VC-4                        6     0     0     0    1   0 
      VC-4-7v                     6     0     0     7    1   0 
      VC-4-16c                    6     1    16     0    1   0 
      STM-16 MS transparent      10     0     0     0    1   2 
      STM-4 MS transparent        9     0     0     0    1   2 
      STM-256 MS transparent     12     0     0     0    1   2 
      STS-1 SPE                   5     0     0     0    1   0 
      STS-3c SPE                  6     1     1     0    1   0 
      STS-48c SPE                 6     1    16     0    1   0 
      STS-1-3v SPE                5     0     0     3    1   0 
      STS-3c-9v SPE               6     1     1     9    1   0 
      STS-12 Section transparent  9     0     0     0    1   1 
      3 x STS-768c SPE            6     1   256     0    3   0 
      5 x VC-4-13v                6     0     0    13    5   0 
 
Contributors 
    
   Contributors are listed by alphabetical order: 
    
      Stefan Ansorge (Alcatel) 
      Lorenzstrasse 10 
      70435 Stuttgart, Germany 
      EMail: stefan.ansorge@alcatel.de 
 
      Peter Ashwood-Smith (Nortel) 
      PO. Box 3511 Station C, 
 
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors)                                20 

draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-rfc3946bis-00.txt                August 2005 

      Ottawa, ON K1Y 4H7, Canada 
      EMail:petera@nortelnetworks.com 
    
      Ayan Banerjee (Calient) 
      5853 Rue Ferrari 
      San Jose, CA 95138, USA 
      EMail: abanerjee@calient.net 
    
      Lou Berger (Movaz) 
      7926 Jones Branch Drive 
      McLean, VA 22102, USA 
      EMail: lberger@movaz.com 
 
      Greg Bernstein (Ciena) 
      10480 Ridgeview Court 
      Cupertino, CA 94014, USA 
      EMail: greg@ciena.com 
 
      Angela Chiu (Celion) 
      One Sheila Drive, Suite 2 
      Tinton Falls, NJ 07724-2658 
      EMail: angela.chiu@celion.com 
 
      John Drake (Calient) 
      5853 Rue Ferrari 
      San Jose, CA 95138, USA 
      EMail: jdrake@calient.net 
 
      Yanhe Fan (Axiowave) 
      100 Nickerson Road 
      Marlborough, MA 01752, USA 
      EMail: yfan@axiowave.com 
    
      Michele Fontana (Alcatel) 
      Via Trento 30, 
      I-20059 Vimercate, Italy 
      EMail: michele.fontana@alcatel.it 
    
      Gert Grammel (Alcatel) 
      Lorenzstrasse, 10 
      70435 Stuttgart, Germany 
      EMail: gert.grammel@alcatel.de 
 
      Juergen Heiles (Siemens) 
      Hofmannstr. 51 
      D-81379 Munich, Germany 
      EMail: juergen.heiles@siemens.com 
 
      Suresh Katukam (Cisco) 
      1450 N. McDowell Blvd, 
      Petaluma, CA 94954-6515, USA 
      EMail: suresh.katukam@cisco.com 
 
      Kireeti Kompella (Juniper) 
 
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors)                                21 

draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-rfc3946bis-00.txt                August 2005 

      1194 N. Mathilda Ave. 
      Sunnyvale, CA 94089, USA 
      EMail: kireeti@juniper.net 
    
      Jonathan P. Lang (Calient) 
      25 Castilian 
      Goleta, CA 93117, USA 
      EMail: jplang@calient.net 
 
      Fong Liaw (Solas Research) 
      EMail: fongliaw@yahoo.com 
 
      Zhi-Wei Lin (Lucent) 
      101 Crawfords Corner Rd 
      Holmdel, NJ  07733-3030, USA 
      EMail: zwlin@lucent.com 
    
      Ben Mack-Crane (Tellabs) 
      EMail: ben.mack-crane@tellabs.com 
    
      Dimitrios Pendarakis (Tellium) 
      2 Crescent Place, P.O. Box 901 
      Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901, USA 
      EMail: dpendarakis@tellium.com 
 
      Mike Raftelis (White Rock) 
      18111 Preston Road 
      Dallas, TX 75252, USA 
 
      Bala Rajagopalan (Tellium) 
      2 Crescent Place, P.O. Box 901 
      Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901, USA 
      EMail: braja@tellium.com 
 
      Yakov Rekhter (Juniper) 
      1194 N. Mathilda Ave. 
      Sunnyvale, CA 94089, USA 
      EMail: yakov@juniper.net 
 
      Debanjan Saha (Tellium) 
      2 Crescent Place, P.O. Box 901 
      Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901, USA 
      EMail: dsaha@tellium.com 
 
      Vishal Sharma (Metanoia) 
      335 Elan Village Lane 
      San Jose, CA 95134, USA 
      EMail: vsharma87@yahoo.com 
 
      George Swallow (Cisco) 
      250 Apollo Drive 
      Chelmsford, MA 01824, USA 
      EMail: swallow@cisco.com 
    
 
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors)                                22 

draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-rfc3946bis-00.txt                August 2005 

      Z. Bo Tang (Tellium) 
      2 Crescent Place, P.O. Box 901 
      Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901, USA 
      EMail: btang@tellium.com 
    
      Eve Varma (Lucent) 
      101 Crawfords Corner Rd 
      Holmdel, NJ  07733-3030, USA 
      EMail: evarma@lucent.com 
 
      Yangguang Xu (Lucent) 
      21-2A41, 1600 Osgood Street 
      North Andover, MA 01845, USA 
      EMail: xuyg@lucent.com 
 
Authors' Addresses 
    
      Eric Mannie (Consultant) 
      Avenue de la Folle Chanson, 2 
      B-1050 Brussels, Belgium 
      Phone:  +32 2 648-5023 
      Mobile: +32 (0)495-221775 
    
      EMail:  eric_mannie@hotmail.com 
 
      Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel) 
      Francis Wellesplein 1, 
      B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium 
      Phone:  +32 3 240-8491 
    
      EMail:  dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be 
    






















 
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors)                                23 

draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-rfc3946bis-00.txt                August 2005 

Full Copyright Statement 
    
   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). 
    
   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. 
    
Intellectual Property 
    
   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 IETF's procedures with respect to 
   rights in IETF 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. 
    
Acknowledgement 
    
   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 
   Internet Society.  









 
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors)                                24