Internet DRAFT - draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-node-cap

draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-node-cap




 


Network Working Group                                   JP Vasseur (Ed.) 
                                                       Cisco System Inc. 
IETF Internet Draft                                     JL Le Roux (Ed.) 
                                                          France Telecom 
                                                         
                                                 
                                                 
                                                                         
Proposed Status: Standard Track                                          
Expires: March 2006                                         October 2005 
 
 
       Routing extensions for discovery of Traffic Engineering Node 
                               Capabilities 
 
                  draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-node-cap-01.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. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    
 
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al.                                        [Page 1] 
  
Internet Draft  draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-node-cap-01.txt    October 2005 


Abstract 
    
   It is highly desired in several cases, to take into account Traffic 
   Engineering (TE) node capabilities during TE LSP path selection, such 
   as for instance the capability to act as a branch LSR of a P2MP LSP. 
   This requires advertising these capabilities within the IGP. 
   For that purpose, this document specifies OSPF and IS-IS traffic 
   engineering extensions for the advertisement of control plane and 
   data plane traffic engineering node capabilities.   
 
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.      Contributors................................................3 
   2.      Terminology.................................................3 
   3.      Introduction................................................4 
   4.      TE Node Capability Descriptor...............................4 
   4.1.    Description.................................................4 
   4.2.    Required Information........................................5 
   5.      OSPF TE extensions..........................................6 
   5.1.    OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV format...............6 
   5.1.1.  The DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV..................................7 
   5.1.2.  The CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV...............................8 
   5.2.    Elements of Procedure.......................................9 
   6.      IS-IS TE Extensions........................................10 
   6.1.    IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV format.............10 
   6.1.1.  DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV.....................................10 
   6.1.2.  CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV..................................11 
   6.2.    Elements of procedure......................................12 
   7.      Backward compatibility.....................................12 
   8.      Security Considerations....................................12 
   9.      IANA considerations........................................12 
   9.1.    OSPF TLVs..................................................12 
   9.2.    ISIS TLVs..................................................13 
   9.3.    Capability bits............................................13 
   10.     Acknowledgments............................................13 
   11.     References.................................................14 
   11.1.  Normative references........................................14 
   11.2.  Informative References......................................14 
   12.     Editors' Address...........................................15 
   13.     Intellectual Property Statement............................15 
    
    
    
    
    
    
 
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al.                                      [Page 2] 
  
Internet Draft  draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-node-cap-01.txt    October 2005 


    
1. Contributors 
    
   This document was the collective work of several. The text and  
   content of this document was contributed by the editors and the  
   co-authors listed below (the contact information for the editors  
   appears in section 12, and is not repeated below):  
 
   Paul Mabey                   Seisho Yasukawa 
   Qwest Communications         NTT 
   950 17th street              9-11, Midori-Cho 3-Chome  
   Denver, CO 80202             Musashino-Shi, Tokyo 180-8585 
   USA                          JAPAN 
   Email: pmabey@qwest.com      Email: yasukawa.seisho@lab.ntt.co.jp  
    
   Stefano Previdi              Peter Psenak  
   Cisco System, Inc.           Cisco System, Inc. 
   Via del Serafico 200         Pegasus Park 
   00142 Roma                   DE Kleetlaan 6A 
   ITALY                        1831, Diegmen 
   Email: sprevidi@cisco.com    BELGIUM 
                                Email: ppsenak@cisco.com  
 
2. Terminology 
 
    
   LSR: Label Switch Router.  
        
   TE LSP: Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path.  
        
   P2MP TE LSP: A TE LSP that has one unique 
                ingress LSR and one or more egress LSRs. 
    
   Branch LSR: An LSR on a P2MP LSP that has more than one directly  
               connected downstream LSRs. 
       
   Bud-LSR: An LSR on a P2MP LSP, that is an egress, but also has one or   
            more directly connected downstream LSRs. 
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
 
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al.                                      [Page 3] 
  
Internet Draft  draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-node-cap-01.txt    October 2005 


    
3. Introduction 
    
   MPLS Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) routing ([IS-IS-TE], [OSPF-TE]) 
   relies on extensions to link state IGP routing protocols ([OSPF], 
   [IS-IS]) in order to carry Traffic Engineering (TE) link information 
   used for constraint based routing. Further Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) 
   related routing extensions are defined in [IS-IS-G] and [OSPF-G].  
    
   It is desired to complement these routing extensions in order to 
   carry TE node capabilities, in addition to TE link information. These 
   TE node capabilities will be taken into account as constraints during 
   path selection. 
   Indeed, it is useful to advertise data plane TE node capabilities, 
   such as, for instance the capability to be a branch LSR or a bud-LSR 
   of a P2MP LSP. These capabilities are then taken into account as 
   constraints when computing TE LSP paths. 
   It is also useful to advertise control plane TE node capabilities 
   such as for instance the capability to support GMPLS  
   signaling for a packet LSR, or the capability to support P2MP (Point 
   to Multipoint) TE LSP signaling.  This allows selecting a path that 
   avoids nodes that do not support a given signaling feature, or 
   triggering a mechanism to support such nodes. Hence this facilitates 
   backward compatibility. 
    
   For that purpose, this document specifies IGP (OSPF and IS-IS) 
   traffic engineering node capability TLVs in order to advertise data 
   plane and control plane capabilities of a node. 
    
   A new TLV is defined for ISIS and OSPF: the TE Node Capability 
   Descriptor TLV, to be carried within: 
        - the ISIS Capability TLV ([ISIS-CAP]) for ISIS 
        - the Router Information LSA ([OSPF-CAP]), for OSPF. 
    
     
    
4. TE Node Capability Descriptor  
 
4.1. Description 
 
   LSRs in a network may have distinct control plane and data plane  
   Traffic Engineering capabilities. The TE Node Capability Descriptor  
   information defined in this document describes data and control plane 
   capabilities of an LSR. Such information can be used for instance 
   during path computation so as to avoid nodes that do not support a 
   given TE feature either in the control or data plane or to trigger 
   procedure to handle these nodes. In some cases, this may also be 
   useful to ensure backward compatibility.   
 
    
    
    
 
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al.                                      [Page 4] 
  
Internet Draft  draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-node-cap-01.txt    October 2005 


    
4.2. Required Information 
    
   The TE Node Capability Descriptor contains two variable length sets 
   of bit flags: 
        -The Data Plane Capabilities: This a variable length  
   set of bit flags where each bit corresponds to a given TE data plane 
   capability.  
        -The Control Plane Capabilities: This a variable length  
   set of bit flags where each bit corresponds to a given TE control 
   plane capability.  
              
   Two Data Plane Capabilities are currently defined: 
            -B bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR can act  
             as a branch node on a P2MP LSP (see [P2MP-REQ]) and [RSVP- 
             P2MP]).  
            -E bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR can act  
             as a bud LSR on a P2MP LSP, i.e. an LSR that is both  
             transit and egress.  
              
   Three Control Plane Capabilities are currently defined:   
            -M bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR supports  
             MPLS-TE signaling ([RSVP-TE]).         
            -G bit: when set this flag indicates that the LSR supports  
             GMPLS signaling ([RSVP-G]).  
            -P bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR supports  
             P2MP MPLS-TE signaling ([RSVP-P2MP]).  
              
   Note that new capabilities may be added in the future if required. 
    
   Note that bits numbers are under IANA control. 
    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al.                                      [Page 5] 
  
Internet Draft  draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-node-cap-01.txt    October 2005 


5. OSPF TE extensions 
    
5.1. OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV format  
    
   The OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is made of various non 
   ordered sub-TLVs.  
   The format of the OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV and its sub-
   TLVs is the same as the TLV format used by the Traffic Engineering 
   Extensions to OSPF [OSPF-TE]. That is, the TLV is composed of 2 
   octets for the type, 2 octets specifying the TLV length and a value 
   field.   
   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.  
    
   The OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV has the following format:  
        
    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            | 
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  
   |                                                               |  
   //                            sub-TLVs                          //          
   |                                                               |  
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  
    
              
         Type     To be defined by IANA 
         Length   Variable 
         Value    This comprises one or more sub-TLVs  
    
   Currently two sub-TLVs are defined:                   
            Sub-TLV type  Length               Name   
                1      variable     DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV   
                2      variable     CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV  
                       
   Any non recognized sub-TLV MUST be silently ignored.   
   More sub-TLVs could be added in the future to handle new 
   capabilities. 
 
   The OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is carried within an OSPF 
   router information LSA which is defined in [OSPF-CAP]. 
 
 
 
 
    

 
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al.                                      [Page 6] 
  
Internet Draft  draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-node-cap-01.txt    October 2005 


5.1.1. The DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV  
           
   The DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV is a series of bit flags, where each bit 
   correspond to a data plane TE node capability, and has a variable  
   length.   
        
   The format of the DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV is 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            | 
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
      |             Data Plane TE Node Capabilities                   | 
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
 
 
         Type     To be assigned by IANA (suggested value =1) 
         Length   It is set to N x 4 octets.  N starts 
                  from 1 and can be increased when there is a need.    
                  Each 4 octets are referred to as a capability flag. 
         Value    This comprises one or more capability flags.   
                  For each 4 octets, the bits are indexed from the most  
                  significant to the least significant, where each bit  
                  represents one data plane TE node capability.  When   
                  the first 32 capabilities are defined, a new   
                  capability flag will be used to accommodate the next  
                  capability. These bits are under IANA control. 
 
   The following bits in the first capability flag are to be assigned by 
   IANA: 
 
 
     Bit       Capabilities 
 
      0      B bit: P2MP Branch Node capability: When set this indicates  
             that the LSR can act as a branch node on a P2MP LSP     
             [P2MP-REQ];  
      1      E bit: P2MP Bud-LSR capability: When set, this indicates  
             that the LSR can act as a bud LSR on a P2MP LSP, i.e. an  
             LSR that is both transit and egress [P2MP-REQ]; 
    
     2-31    Reserved for future assignments by IANA. 
            
    
    
    
    
 
 
 
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al.                                      [Page 7] 
  
Internet Draft  draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-node-cap-01.txt    October 2005 


5.1.2. The CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV  
           
   The CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV is a series of bit flags, where each 
   bit correspond to a control plane TE node capability, and has a 
   variable length.   
        
   The format of the CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV is 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            | 
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
      |             Control Plane TE Node Capabilities                | 
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
 
 
         Type     To be assigned by IANA (suggested value = 2) 
         Length   It is set to N x 4 octets.  N starts 
                  from 1 and can be increased when there is a need.    
                  Each 4 octets are referred to as a capability flag. 
         Value    This comprises one or more capability flags.   
                  For each 4 octets, the bits are indexed from the most   
                  Significant to the least significant, where each bit  
                  represents one control plane TE node capability.  When  
                  the first 32 capabilities are defined, a new   
                  capability flag will be used to accommodate the next  
                  capability. These bits are under IANA control. 
 
   The following bits in the first capability flag are to be assigned by 
   IANA: 
    
       Bit          Capabilities 
 
        0          M bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports    
                   MPLS-TE signaling ([RSVP-TE]).  
    
        1          G bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports  
                   GMPLS signaling ([RSVP-G]).  
             
        2          P bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports     
                   P2MP MPLS-TE signaling ([RSVP-P2MP]).  
         
       3-31        Reserved for future assignments by IANA 
    
      
    
 


 
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al.                                      [Page 8] 
  
Internet Draft  draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-node-cap-01.txt    October 2005 


5.2. Elements of Procedure 
     
   The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is carried within an OSPF 
   Router information opaque LSA (opaque type of 4, opaque ID of 0) 
   which is defined in [OSPF-CAP].  
        
   A router MUST originate a new OSPF router information LSA whenever  
   the content of any of the carried TLVs changes or whenever  
   required by the regular OSPF procedure (LSA refresh (every  
   LSRefreshTime)).  
      
   The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV advertises capabilities that 
   are taken into account as constraints during path selection. Hence 
   its flooding scope is area-local, and MUST be carried within a type 
   10 router information LSA.  
 
   TE Node Capability Descriptor TLVs are OPTIONAL. When an OSPF LSA 
   does not contain any TE Node capability Descriptor TLV, this means 
   that the TE Capabilities of that LSR are unknown.   
 
   Note that a change in any of these capabilities MAY trigger CSPF    
   computation, but MUST not trigger normal SPF computation. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al.                                      [Page 9] 
  
Internet Draft  draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-node-cap-01.txt    October 2005 


6. IS-IS TE Extensions 
 
6.1. IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV format 
    
   The IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is made of various non 
   ordered sub-TLVs.  
    
   The format of the IS-IS TE Node Capability TLV and its sub-TLVs is 
   the same as the TLV format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions 
   to IS-IS [ISIS-TE]. That is, the TLV is composed of 1 octet for the   
   type, 1 octet specifying the TLV length and a value field.   
    
   The IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV has the following format:  
        
      TYPE: To be assigned by IANA   
      LENGTH: Variable, from 3 to 255 
      VALUE: set of one or more sub-TLVs 
 
   Currently two sub-TLVs are defined:                   
               Sub-TLV type  Length               Name   
                  1         variable     DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV   
                  2         variable     CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV  
                       
   Any non recognized sub-TLV MUST be silently ignored.   
   More sub-TLVs could be added in the future to handle new 
   capabilities.  
 
   The IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is carried within an IS-
   IS CAPABILITY TLV which is defined in [ISIS-CAP]. 
    
6.1.1. DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV  
           
   The DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV is a series of bit flags, where each bit 
   correspond to a data plane TE node capability, and has a variable 
   length. These bits are under IANA control.      
 
   The DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV has the following format:  
        
      TYPE: To be assigned by IANA (Suggested value =1)   
      LENGTH: It is set to N. N starts from 1 and can be increased when  
              there is a need. Each octet is referred to as a  
              capability flag. 
      VALUE: This comprises one or more data plane TE node capability   
             flags.  
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
 
 
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al.                                     [Page 10] 
  
Internet Draft  draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-node-cap-01.txt    October 2005 


   The following bits in the first capability flag are to be assigned by 
   IANA: 
    
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  
   |B|E| Reserved  |  
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  
       
   B bit: P2MP Branch node capability: When set this indicates  
          that the LSR can act as a branch node on a P2MP LSP     
          [P2MP-REQ]  
   E bit: P2MP bud-LSR capability: When set, this indicates  
          that the LSR can act as a bud LSR on a P2MP LSP, i.e. an  
          LSR that is both transit and egress [P2MP-REQ].  
    
   Reserved bits are for future assignment by IANA 
    
 
6.1.2. CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV  
           
   The CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV is a series of bit flags, where each 
   bit correspond to a control plane TE node capability, and has a 
   variable length. These bits are under IANA control.      
 
   The CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV has the following format:  
        
      TYPE: To be assigned by IANA (suggested value = 2)  
      LENGTH: It is set to N. N starts from 1 and can be increased   
              when there is a need. Each octet is referred to as a  
              capability flag. 
      VALUE: This comprises one or more control plane TE node capability    
             flags.  
 
   The following bits in the first capability flag are to be assigned by 
   IANA. 
    
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  
   |M|G|P|Reserved |  
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  
       
    -M bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports MPLS-TE  
            signaling ([RSVP-TE]).  
             
    -G bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports GMPLS signaling    
            ([RSVP-G]).  
           
    -P bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports P2MP MPLS-TE   
            signaling ([RSVP-P2MP]).  
    
     Reserved bits are for future assignment by IANA. 
 
 
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al.                                     [Page 11] 
  
Internet Draft  draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-node-cap-01.txt    October 2005 


 
6.2. Elements of procedure 
 
   The TE Node Capability TLV is carried within an IS-IS CAPABILITY TLV 
   defined in [IS-IS-CAP].  
    
   An IS-IS router MUST originate a new IS-IS LSP whenever the content  
   of any of the TE Node Capability TLV changes or whenever required by 
   the regular IS-IS procedure (LSP refresh).  
 
   The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV advertises capabilities that 
   are taken into account as constraints during path selection. Hence 
   its flooding is area-local, and MUST be carried within an IS-IS 
   CAPABILITY TLV having the S flag cleared.  
    
   TE Node Capability Descriptor TLVs are OPTIONAL. When a IS-IS LSP  
   does not contain any TE Node capability Descriptor TLV, this means 
   that the TE Capabilities of that LSR are unknown.  
    
   Note that a change in any of these capabilities MAY trigger CSPF    
   computation, but MUST not trigger normal SPF computation. 
     
                  
7. Backward compatibility 
    
   The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLVs defined in this document do 
   not introduce any interoperability issue. For OSPF, a router not 
   supporting the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV SHOULD just silently 
   ignore the TLV as specified in RFC2370. For IS-IS a router not 
   supporting the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV SHOULD just silently 
   ignore the TLV. 
    
8. Security Considerations 
 
   No new security issues are raised in this document. 
    
9. IANA considerations  
 
9.1. OSPF TLVs 
 
   IANA will assign a new codepoint for the TE Node Capability 
   Descriptor TLV defined in this document and carried within the Router 
   Information LSA. 
    
   Two sub-TLVs types are defined for this TLV and should be assigned by 
   IANA: 
        -CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV (suggested value =1) 
        -DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV (suggested value =2) 
    
    
    
    
 
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al.                                     [Page 12] 
  
Internet Draft  draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-node-cap-01.txt    October 2005 


9.2. ISIS TLVs 
    
   IANA will assign a new codepoint for the TE Node Capability 
   Descriptor TLV defined in this document, and carried within the ISIS 
   CAPABILITY TLV. 
    
   Two sub-TLVs types are defined for this TLV and should be assigned by 
   IANA: 
        -CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV (suggested value =1) 
        -DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV (suggested value =2) 
 
9.3. Capability bits 
 
   IANA is requested to manage the space of control plane and data plane 
   capability bit flags, numbering them in the usual IETF notation 
   starting at zero and continuing at least through 31. 
   New bit numbers may be allocated only by an IETF Consensus action. 
   Each bit should be tracked with the following qualities: 
      - Bit number 
      - Defining RFC 
      - Name of bit 
       
   Currently two bits are defined in the data plane capability flags. 
   Here are the suggested values: 
      -0x01: P2MP Branch LSR capability 
      -0x02: P2MP Bud LSR capability 
    
   Currently three bits are defined in the control plane capability 
   flags. Here are the suggested values: 
      -0x01: MPLS-TE support 
      -0x02: GMPLS support 
      -0x04: P2MP RSVP-TE support 
 
    
10. Acknowledgments 
 
   We would like to thank Benoit Fondeviole, Adrian Farrel and Dimitri 
   Papadimitriou for their useful comments and suggestions. 
 
   We would also like to thank authors of [LSP-ATTRIBUTE] from which 
   some text of this document has been inspired. 
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
 
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al.                                     [Page 13] 
  
Internet Draft  draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-node-cap-01.txt    October 2005 


11. References 
 
11.1. Normative references 
     
   [RFC] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to indicate 
   requirements levels", RFC 2119, March 1997. 
    
   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 
   Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 
    
   [RFC3667] Bradner, S., "IETF Rights in Contributions", BCP 78, RFC 
   3667, February 2004. 
 
   [BCP79] Bradner, S., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF 
   Technology", RFC 3979, March 2005. 
 
   [OSPF-v2] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998. 
    
   [IS-IS] "Intermediate System to Intermediate System Intra-Domain 
   Routing Exchange Protocol " ISO 10589. 
    
   [IS-IS-IP] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and 
   dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990.  
    
   [OSPF-TE] Katz, D., Yeung, D., Kompella, K., "Traffic Engineering 
   Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September 2003. 
    
   [IS-IS-TE] Li, T., Smit, H., "IS-IS extensions for Traffic 
   Engineering", RFC 3784, June 2004. 
    
   [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, work in progress. 
 
   [IS-IS-CAP] Vasseur, J.P. et al., "IS-IS extensions for advertising 
   router information", draft-ietf-isis-caps, 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. 
 
 
11.2. Informative References 
 
   [GMPLS-RTG] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "Routing Extensions in Support 
   of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching", draft-ietf-ccamp-
   gmpls-routing, work in progress. 
     


 
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al.                                     [Page 14] 
  
Internet Draft  draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-node-cap-01.txt    October 2005 


   [OSPF-G] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "OSPF extensions in support of 
   Generalized Multi-protocol Label Switching", draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-
   gmpls-extensions, work in progress. 
     
   [IS-IS-G] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "IS-IS extensions in support of 
   Generalized Multi-protocol Label Switching", draft-ietf-isis-gmpls-
   extensions, work in progress. 
    
   [P2MP-REQ] Yasukawa, S., et. al., "Signaling Requirements for Point 
   to Multipoint Traffic Engineered MPLS LSPs", draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-
   sig-requirement, work in progress.  
              
   [RSVP-P2MP] Aggarwal, Papadimitriou, Yasukawa, et. al. "Extensions to  
   RSVP-TE for point-to-multipoint TE LSPs", draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-
   p2mp-01, work in progress. 
    
   [LSP-ATTRIBUTE] Farrel, A., and al., "Encoding of attributes for MPLS 
   LSPs establishment Using RSVP-TE", draft-ietf-mpls-rsvpte-attributes, 
   work in progress. 
 
 
12. Editors' Address   
 
   Jean-Philippe Vasseur  
   Cisco Systems, Inc.  
   300 Beaver Brook Road  
   Boxborough , MA - 01719  
   USA  
   Email: jpv@cisco.com  
 
   Jean-Louis Le Roux  
   France Telecom  
   2, avenue Pierre-Marzin  
   22307 Lannion Cedex  
   FRANCE 
   Email: jeanlouis.leroux@francetelecom.com 
    
 
13. 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 
 
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al.                                     [Page 15] 
  
Internet Draft  draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-node-cap-01.txt    October 2005 


   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 (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. 
    


























 
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al.                                     [Page 16]