Internet DRAFT - draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln
draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln
Network Working Group Fatai Zhang
Internet Draft Xian Zhang
Category: Standards Track Huawei
O. Gonzalez de Dios
Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo
C. Margaria. C
Coriant
Expires: January 10, 2014 July 11, 2013
GMPLS-based Hierarchy LSP Creation
in Multi-Region and Multi-Layer Networks
draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-05.txt
Abstract
This specification describes the hierarchical LSP creation models in
the Multi-Region and Multi-Layer Networks (MRN/MLN), and provides the
extensions to the existing protocol mechanisms described in [RFC4206],
[RFC6107] and [RFC6001] to create a hierarchical LSP in multiple
layer networks.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with
the provisions of BCP 78 and 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.
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 10, 2014.
Zhang Expires January 2014 [Page 1]
draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-05.txt July 2013
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................ 2
1.1. Conventions used in this document .......................3
2. Provisioning of FA-LSP in Server Layer Network ...............3
2.1. Selection of Switching Layers........................... 3
2.2. Selection of Switching Granularity Levels ...............4
2.3. Selection of Adaptation Capabilities ....................6
3. Signaling Requirements for Server Layer Selection ............7
3.1. Model 1: Pre-provisioning of FA-LSP .....................8
3.2. Model 2: Signaling triggered server layer path computation
and setup ................................................... 9
3.3. Model 3: Signaling triggered server layer path, with explicit
server path ................................................. 9
4. Signaling Extensions ERO Sub-Object .........................10
4.1. SERVER_LAYER_INFO ERO Subobject ........................10
4.2. Processing of SERVER_LAYER_INFO sub-object .............12
4.3. Alternative Encoding Solutions .........................12
5. Security Considerations..................................... 13
6. IANA Considerations ........................................ 13
7. Acknowledgments ............................................ 13
8. References ................................................. 13
8.1. Normative References................................... 13
8.2. Informative Reference.................................. 14
9. Authors' Addresses ......................................... 15
1. Introduction
Networks may comprise multiple layers which have different switching
technologies or different switching granularity levels. The GMPLS
technology is required to support control of such network.
[RFC5212] defines the concept of MRN/MLN and describes the framework
and requirements of GMPLS controlled MRN/MLN. The GMPLS extension for
MRN/MLN, including routing and signaling aspects, is described in
[RFC6001].
[RFC4206] and [RFC6107] describe how to set up a hierarchical LSP
passing through multi-layer networks and how to advertise the
forwarding adjacency LSP (FA-LSP) created in the server layer network
as a TE link via GMPLS signaling and routing protocols.
Based on these existing standards, this document further describes
the provisioning of a FA-LSP when the region-edge nodes support
Zhang Expires January 2014 [Page 2]
draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-05.txt July 2013
multiple interface switching capabilities and/or multiple switching
granularities and/or adaptation functions, and then provides the
extensions to the RSVP-TE protocol in order to set up a hierarchical
LSP according to the modes of hierarchical LSP provisioning.
1.1. 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 [RFC2119].
2. Provisioning of FA-LSP in Server Layer Network
2.1. Selection of Switching Layers
As described in [RFC5212], the edge node of a region always has
multiple Interface Switching Capabilities (ISCs), i.e., it contains
multiple matrices which may be connected to each other by internal
links. Nodes with multiple ISCs are further classified as "simplex"
or "hybrid" nodes by [RFC5212] and [RFC5339], where the simplex node
advertises several TE links each with a single ISC value carried in
its ISCD sub-TLV, while the hybrid node advertises a single TE link
containing more than one ISCD each with a different ISC value. An
example of a hybrid node with a link having multiple ISCs is shown in
Figure 1, copied from [RFC5339].
Network element
.............................
: -------- :
: | PSC | :
: | | :
: --|#a | :
: | | #b | :
: | -------- :
: | | :
: | ---------- :
: /| | | #c | :
: | |-- | | :
Link1 ========| | | TDM | :
: | |----|#d | :
: \| ---------- :
:............................
Figure 1 - Hybrid node (Copied from [RFC5339])
In the case where a edge node of a region is a hybrid node, selection
of which server layer to create the FA-LSP is necessary.
Zhang Expires January 2014 [Page 3]
draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-05.txt July 2013
Figure 2 shows an multi-layer network, where node B and C are region
edge nodes having three switching matrices which support, for
instance, PSC, TDM and WDM switching, respectively. The three
switching matrices are connected to each other by the internal links.
Both the link between B and E and the link between E and C support
TDM and WDM switching capabilities.
+-------+ +------------+ +------------+ +-------+
| +---+ | | +---+ | FA | +---+ | | +---+ |
| |PSC+-+--+---+PSC|....|...................|....|PSC+---+--+-+PSC| |
| +---+ | | +-+-+-+ | | +-+-+-+ | | +---+ |
+-------+ | | | | | | | | +-------+
Node A | | | | +-------------+ | | | | Node D
| | +-+-+ | | +---+ | | +-+-+ | |
| | |TDM|+ | | +|TDM|+ | | +|TDM| | |
| | +-+-+| | | |+-+-+| | | |+-+-+ | |
| | | ||\ | | /|| | ||\ | | /|| | | |
| | | +| || || |+ | +| || || |+ | | |
| +-+-+-+ | |====| | +-+-+ | |====| | +-+-+-+ |
| |WDM|-| || || |-|WDM|-| || || |-|WDM| |
| +---+ |/ | | \| +---+ |/ | | \| +---+ |
+------------+ +-------------+ +------------+
Node B Node E Node C
Figure 2 - MLN with multiple ISCs at edge node
As can be seen in Figure 2, there are two choices when providing FA
in the PSC layer network between node B and C: one is creating a FA-
LSP with TDM switching matrix through node B, E and C, the other is
creating a FA-LSP with WDM switching matrix through node B, E and C.
[RFC6001] introduces a new SC (Switching Capability) sub-object into
the XRO (ref. to [RFC4874]). This sub-object is used to indicate
which switching capability is not expected to be used. When one of
the switching capabilities is selected, the SC sub-object can be
included in the message to exclude all other SCs.
2.2. Selection of Switching Granularity Levels
Even in the case where the edge node only has one switching
capability in the server layer, there may be still multiple choices
for the server layer network to set up a FA-LSP to provide new FA in
the client layer network. This is because the server layer network
may have the capability of providing different switching granularity
levels for the FA-LSP.
Zhang Expires January 2014 [Page 4]
draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-05.txt July 2013
+-------+ +---------+ +---------+ +-------+
| +---+ | | +---+ | FA | +---+ | | +---+ |
| |PSC|-+---+--+PSC|..|.......................|..|PSC+--+---+-|PSC| |
| +---+ | | +-+-+ | | +-+-+ | | +---+ |
+-------+ | | | ODU1/ ODU1/ | | | +-------+
Node A | | | ODU2/ +-------+ ODU2/ | | | Node D
| +-+-+ | ODU3 | +---+ | ODU3 | +-+-+ |
| |TDM+--+-------+-+TDM+-+-------+--+TDM| |
| +---+ | | +---+ | | +---+ |
+---------+ +-------+ +---------+
Node B Node E Node C
Figure 3a - Multiple switching granularities in server layer
Figure 3a shows an example multi-region network, where the edge node
B and C have PSC and TDM switching matrices, and where the TDM
switching matrix supports ODU1, ODU2 and ODU3 switching levels.
Therefore, when an FA between node B and C in the PSC layer network
is needed, either of ODU1, ODU2 or ODU3 connection (FA-LSP) can be
created in the TDM layer network.
|<----------------------- ODU0 Connection ----------------------->|
| |
++------+ +---------+ +---------+ +------++
| +---+ | | +---+ | FA (ODU1/2/3) | +---+ | | +---+ |
| |TDM|-+---+--+ |..|.......................|..| +--+---+-|TDM| |
| +---+ | | | | | | | | | | +---+ |
+-------+ | |TDM| | +-------+ | |TDM| | +-------+
Node A | | | | OTU3 | +---+ | OTU3 | | | | Node D
| | +--+-------+-+TDM+-+-------+--+ | |
| +---+ | | +---+ | | +---+ |
++--------+ +-------+ +--------++
|Node B Node E Node C |
| |
|<--------- FA LSP (ODU1/2/3)------------>|
Figure 3b - TDM nested LSP provisioning
Figure 3b is another example multi-layer network within the same
region. When there is a need to set up an FA between node B and C for
the client layer ODU0 connection, the server layer has multiple
Zhang Expires January 2014 [Page 5]
draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-05.txt July 2013
choices, e.g., ODU1 or ODU2 or ODU3, for the FA-LSP if the multi-
stage multiplexing is supported at node B and C.
|<---------------- Client layer LSP (Bandwidth 1) --------------->|
| |
++------+ +---------+ +---------+ +------++
| +---+ | | +---+ | FA | +---+ | | +---+ |
| |PSC|-+---+--+ |..|.......................|..| +--+---+-|PSC| |
| +---+ | | | | | | | | | | +---+ |
+-------+ | |PSC| | +-------+ | |PSC| | +-------+
Node A | | | | | +---+ | | | | | Node D
| | +--+-------+-+PSC+-+-------+--+ | |
| +---+ | | +---+ | | +---+ |
++--------+ +-------+ +--------++
|Node B Node E Node C |
| |
|<--- Service layer LSP (Bandwidth 2) --->|
Figure 3c - PSC nested LSP provisioning
Figure 3c is a third example showing an LSP nesting scenario in a PSC
signal-layer network (e.g., an MPLS-TP network). A PSC tunnel passing
through node B, E and C is requested to carry the client layer LSP.
There are multiple choices of the bandwidth of the tunnel, on the
premise that the bandwidth of the FA-LSP is equal to or larger than
the client layer LSP.
The selection of server layer switching matrix and switching
granularity is based on both policy and bandwidth resources. The
selection can be performed by a planning tool and/or NMS/PCE/VNTM
(Virtual Network Topology Manager, see [RFC5623]) and/or the network
node.
2.3. Selection of Adaptation Capabilities
Adaptation function also needs to be selected when creating the
server layer connection. This is because the edge nodes may support
multiple adaptation functions.
Zhang Expires January 2014 [Page 6]
draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-05.txt July 2013
+-------+ +-----------+ +---------+ +-------+
| +---+ | | +---+ | FA | +---+ | | +---+ |
| |PSC|-+---+---+PSC|...|.....................|..|PSC+--+---+-|PSC| |
| +---+ | | +---+ | | +-+-+ | | +---+ |
+-------+ |___|_ _|___| | __|__ | +-------+
Node A |\_A_/ \_B_/| | \_A_/ | Node D
| | | | +-------+ | | |
| +---+ | | +---+ | | +-+-+ |
| |TDM+---+------+-+TDM+-+------+--+TDM| |
| +---+ | | +---+ | | +---+ |
+-----------+ +-------+ +---------+
Node B Node E Node C
_____ _____
\_A_/: Adaptation_Function_A; \_B_/: Adaptation_Function_B;
Figure 4 - Selection of adaptation function
For example, in Figure 4, edge node B supports two adaptation
functions, i.e., adaptation_function_A and adaptation_function_B,
while edge node C only supports adaptation_function_A. In this case,
only adaptation_function_A can be used for the server layer
connection.
The Call procedure ([RFC4974]) may be used between edge node B and C
to negotiate and determine the adaptation function for the server
layer if the Call function is supported.
3. Signaling Requirements for Server Layer Selection
[RFC5623], the framework of PCE-based MLN, provides the models of
cross-layer LSP path computation and creation, which are listed below:
- Inter-Layer Path Computation Models:
o Single PCE
o Multiple PCE with inter-PCE
o Multiple PCE without inter-PCE
- Inter-Layer Path Control Models:
o PCE-VNTM cooperation
Zhang Expires January 2014 [Page 7]
draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-05.txt July 2013
o Higher-layer signaling trigger
o NMS-VNTM cooperation (integrated flavor)
o NMS-VNTM cooperation (separate flavor)
This section keeps alignment with [RFC5623] except that the
restriction of using a PCE for path computation is not necessary
(i.e., other element, such as a network node, may also have path
computation capability).
In this document, those models in [RFC4206] are mapped into 3 models
on the viewpoint of signaling:
- Model 1: Pre-provisioning of FA-LSP
- Model 2: Signaling triggered server layer path computation and
setup
- Model 3: Signaling triggered server layer path, with explicit
server path.
3.1. Model 1: Pre-provisioning of FA-LSP
In this model, the FA-LSP in the server layer is created before
initiating the signaling of the client layer LSP. Two typical
scenarios using this model are:
- Network planning and building at the stage of client network
initialization.
- NMS/VNTM triggering the creation of FA-LSP when computing the path
of client layer LSP. The path control models of PCE-VNTM
cooperation and NMS-VNTM cooperation (both integrated and separate
flavor) in [RFC5623] belong to this scenario.
In such case, the server layer selection and path computation is
performed by planning tool or NMS/PCE/VNTM or the edge node. The
signaling of client layer LSP and server layer FA-LSP are separated.
The normal LSP creation procedures ([RFC3471] and [RFC3473]) are
followed to set up these two LSPs and no new extension is required.
Zhang Expires January 2014 [Page 8]
draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-05.txt July 2013
3.2. Model 2: Signaling triggered server layer path computation and
setup
In this model, the source node of client layer LSP only computes the
route within its own layer network. When the signaling of the client
layer LSP reaches at the region edge node, the edge node performs
server layer FA-LSP path computation and then creates the FA-LSP.
When a PCE is introduced to perform path computation in each layer of
the multi-layer network, this model is the same as the model of
"higher-layer signaling trigger with Multiple PCE without inter-PCE"
in [RFC5623].
In such case, the edge node will receive the client layer PATH
message with a loose ERO indicating an FA is requested, and may
perform the server layer selection (e.g., through the server layer
PCE or the VNTM) and then compute and set up the FA-LSP. The
signaling procedure of client layer LSP and server layer FA-LSP is
described in detail in [RFC4206] and [RFC6107].
It's possible that the source node of the client layer LSP selects
the server layer SC and/or granularity and/or adaptation function
when performing path computation in the client layer, and requests or
suggests the edge node to use an appointed server layer to create the
FA-LSP.
In this case, the XRO including SC sub-object ([RFC6001]) is adopted
for the server layer SC exclusion, which can be used indirectly to
select server layer SC. Such solution is not straightforward enough.
Furthermore it cannot be used for the selection of server layer
granularity and adaptation function. Therefore, new extensions for
the selection of server layer SC, switching granularity and
adaptation function are required.
3.3. Model 3: Signaling triggered server layer path, with explicit
server path
In this model, the source node of the client layer LSP performs a
full path computation including the client layer and the server layer
routes. The server layer FA-LSP creation is triggered at the edge
node by the client layer LSP signaling. When a PCE is introduced to
perform path computation in the multi-layer network, this model is
the same as the model of "Higher-layer signaling trigger with Single
PCE" or "Higher-layer signaling trigger with Multiple PCE with inter-
PCE" in [RFC5623].
Zhang Expires January 2014 [Page 9]
draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-05.txt July 2013
In such case, the server layer selection and server layer path
computation is performed at the source node of the client layer LSP
(e.g., through VNTM or PCE), but not at the edge node.
In [RFC4206], the ERO which contains the list of nodes and links
(including the client layer and server layer) along the path is used
in the client layer PATH message. The edge node can find out the tail
end of the FA-LSP based on the switching capability of the node using
the IGP database (see session 6.2 of [RFC 4206]).
Similar to the problem of model 2, the edge node is not aware of
which switching granularity and which adaptation function to be
selected for the FA-LSP because the ERO and/or XRO do not contain
such information. Therefore, the edge node may not be able to create
the FA-LSP, or may select another switching granularity by itself
which is different from the one selected previously at the source
node, which makes the creation of hierarchy LSP out of control.
Therefore, new extensions for the selection of server layer SC,
switching granularity and adaptation function are also required in
this model.
4. Signaling Extensions ERO Sub-Object
4.1. SERVER_LAYER_INFO ERO Subobject
In order to solve the problems described in the previous sections, a
new sub-object named SERVER_LAYER_INFO sub-object is introduced in
this document, which is carried in the ERO and is used to explicitly
indicate which server layer to create the FA-LSP.
The SERVER_LAYER_INFO sub-object is put immediately after the node or
link (interface) address sub-object, indicating the related node is a
region edge node on the LSP in the ERO.
The format of the SERVER_LAYER_INFO sub-object is shown below:
Zhang Expires January 2014 [Page 10]
draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-05.txt July 2013
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type | Length |M| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LSP Enc. Type |Switching Type | G-PID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Traffic Spec Length | TSpec Type | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Traffic Parameters |
~ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
[Editor's note: the encoding is still under discussion.]
- L bit: MUST be zero and MUST be ignored when received.
- Type: The SERVER_LAYER_INFO sub-object has a type of xx (TBD).
- Length: The total length of the sub-object in bytes, including the
Type and Length fields. The value of this field is always a
multiple of 4.
- M (Mandatory) bit: When set, it means the edge node MUST set up
the FA-LSP in the appointed server layer; otherwise, the appointed
server layer is suggested and the edge node may select other
server layer by local policy.
- LSP Encoding Type, Switching Type and G-PID: These 3 fields are
used to point out which switching layer is requested to set up the
FA-LSP. The values of these 3 fields are inherited from the
Generalized Label Request Object in GMPLS signaling, referring to
[RFC3471], [RFC3473] and other related standards and drafts. Note
that G-PID can be used to indicate the payload type of the server
layer (i.e., the client signal) as well as the adaptation function
for adapting the client signal into the server layer FA-LSP.
- Traffic Spec Length, TSpec Type, Traffic Parameters: The traffic
parameters field is used to indicate the switching granularity of
the FA-LSP. The format of this field depends on the TSpec Type
Traffic Spec Length and is consistent with the existing standards
and drafts. For example, the traffic parameters of Ethernet,
SONET/SDH and OTN are defined in [RFC6003], [RFC4606] and [OTN-
ctrl] respectively.
Zhang Expires January 2014 [Page 11]
draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-05.txt July 2013
4.2. Processing of SERVER_LAYER_INFO sub-object
As described in RFC3209 and RFC3473 the ERO is managed as a sub-
object list. The SERVER_LAYER_INFO sub-object MUST be appended after
the existing sub-object defined in [RFC3209], [RFC3473], [RFC3477],
[RFC4873], [RFC4874], [RFC5520] and [RFC5553] TBD:extensions.
When a node receives a PATH message containing ERO and finds that
there is a SERVER_LAYER_INFO sub-object immediately after the node or
link address sub-object related to itself, the node determines that
it's a region edge node. Then, the edge node finds out the server
layer selection information from the sub-object:
- Determine the switching layer by the LSP Encoding Type and
Switching Type fields;
- Determine the switching granularity of the FA-LSP by the Traffic
Parameters field;
- Determine the adaptation function for adapting the client signal
into the server layer FA-LSP by the G-PID field.
The edge node MUST then determine the other edge of the region, i.e.,
the tail end of the FA-LSP, with respect to the subsequence of hops
of the ERO. The node that satisfies the following conditions will be
treated as the tail end of the FA-LSP:
- There is a SERVER_LAYER_INFO sub-object that immediately follows
the node or link address sub-object which is related to that node;
- The LSP Encoding Type, Switching Type, G-PID and the Traffic
Parameters fields of this SERVER_LAYER_INFO sub-object is the same
as the SERVER_LAYER_INFO sub-object corresponding to the head end;
- The node is the first one that satisfies the two conditions above
in the subsequence of hops of the ERO.
If a match of tail end is found, the head end now has the clear
server layer information of the FA-LSP and then initiates an RSVP-TE
session to create the FA-LSP in the appointed server layer between
the head end and the tail end.
4.3. Alternative Encoding Solutions
[Editor's note: the section is still under discussion.]
Zhang Expires January 2014 [Page 12]
draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-05.txt July 2013
A first alternative solution is to use the mechanism defined in [LSP-
RO], i.e., create an ERO HOP attribute TLV.
The content and procedure are not changed from the previous section.
5. A second alternative solution aims to simplify the SERVER_LAYER_INFO
processing by using the SERO mechanisms. This can be a new
requirements to the SERO or to the ERO Hop attribute. This
alternative is not further described here but mentioned for
discussions.
6. Security Considerations
TBD.
7. IANA Considerations
TBD.
8. Acknowledgments
TBD.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3945] Mannie, E., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004.
[RFC3209] D. Awduche et al, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC3209, December 2001.
[RFC3471] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC
3471, January 2003.
[RFC3473] L. Berger, Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC
3473, January 2003.
Zhang Expires January 2014 [Page 13]
draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-05.txt July 2013
[RFC5212] K. Shiomoto et al, "Requirements for GMPLS-Based Multi-
Region and Multi-Layer Networks (MRN/MLN)", RFC5212, July
2008.
[RFC5339] JL. Le Roux et al, "Evaluation of Existing GMPLS
Protocols against Multi-Layer and Multi-Region Networks
(MLN/MRN)", RFC5339, September 2008.
[RFC4206] K. Kompella et al, "Label Switched Paths (LSP) Hierarchy
with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC4206, October 2005.
[RFC6107] K. Shiomoto, A. Farrel, "Procedures for Dynamically
Signaled Hierarchical Label Switched Paths", RFC6107,
February 2011.
[RFC6001] Dimitri Papadimitriou et al, "Generalized Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (GMPLS) Protocol Extensions for Multi-
Layer and Multi-Region Networks (MLN/MRN)", RFC6001,
October, 2010.
9.2. Informative Reference
[RFC4974] D. Papadimitriou and A. Farrel, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions in Support of Calls",
RFC4974, August 2007.
[RFC5623] E. Oki et al, "Framework for PCE-Based Inter-Layer MPLS
and GMPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC 5623, September 2009.
[RFC4606] E. Mannie, D. Papadimitriou, "Generalized Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for Synchronous
Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous Digital Hierarchy
(SDH) Control", RFC 4606, August 2006.
[OTN-ctrl] Fatai Zhang et al, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
witching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for the evolving
G.709 Optical Transport Networks Control", draft-ietf-
ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-08.txt, April, 2013.
[RFC6003] D. Papadimitriou, "Ethernet Traffic Parameters", RFC6003,
October, 2010.
[LSP-RO] Margaria, C., Giovanni, G., et al, "draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-
attribute-ro', draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro-01.txt,
work I progress;
Zhang Expires January 2014 [Page 14]
draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-05.txt July 2013
10. Authors' Addresses
Fatai Zhang
Huawei Technologies
F3-1B R&D Center, Huawei Base
Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China
Phone: +86-755-28972603
Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com
Xian Zhang
Huawei Technologies
F3-1B R&D Center, Huawei Base
Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China
Phone: +86-755-28972645
Email: huawei.danli@huawei.com
Yi Lin
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
F3-1B R&D Center, Huawei Base
Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China
Phone: +86-755-28972597
Email: yi.lin@huawei.com
Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo
Emilio Vargas 6
Madrid, 28045 Spain
Phone: +34 913374013
Email: ogondio@tid.es
Zhang Expires January 2014 [Page 15]
draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-05.txt July 2013
Cyril Margaria
Coriant GmbH
St Martin Strasse 76
Munich, 81541
Germany
Phone: +49 89 5159 16934
Email: cyril.margaria@coriant.com
Intellectual Property
The IETF Trust 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 any IETF 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.
Copies of Intellectual Property 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
any standard or specification contained in an IETF Document. Please
address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
The definitive version of an IETF Document is that published by, or
under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of IETF Documents that are
published by third parties, including those that are translated into
other languages, should not be considered to be definitive versions
of IETF Documents. The definitive version of these Legal Provisions
is that published by, or under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of
these Legal Provisions that are published by third parties, including
those that are translated into other languages, should not be
considered to be definitive versions of these Legal Provisions.
For the avoidance of doubt, each Contributor to the IETF Standards
Process licenses each Contribution that he or she makes as part of
Zhang Expires January 2014 [Page 16]
draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-05.txt July 2013
the IETF Standards Process to the IETF Trust pursuant to the
provisions of RFC 5378. No language to the contrary, or terms,
conditions or rights that differ from or are inconsistent with the
rights and licenses granted under RFC 5378, shall have any effect and
shall be null and void, whether published or posted by such
Contributor, or included with or in such Contribution.
Disclaimer of Validity
All IETF Documents and the information contained therein are provided
on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE
IETF TRUST 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 THEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE
ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Zhang Expires January 2014 [Page 17]
