draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-bis-03.txt   rfc6387.txt 
Network Working Group A. Takacs Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Takacs
Internet-Draft Ericsson Request for Comments: 6387 Ericsson
Obsoletes: 5467 (if approved) L. Berger Obsoletes: 5467 L. Berger
Intended status: Standards Track LabN Consulting, L.L.C. Category: Standards Track LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
Expires: February 11, 2012 D. Caviglia ISSN: 2070-1721 D. Caviglia
Ericsson Ericsson
D. Fedyk D. Fedyk
Alcatel-Lucent Alcatel-Lucent
J. Meuric J. Meuric
France Telecom Orange France Telecom Orange
August 10, 2011 September 2011
GMPLS Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs) GMPLS Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-bis-03.txt
Abstract Abstract
This document defines a method for the support of GMPLS asymmetric This document defines a method for the support of GMPLS asymmetric
bandwidth bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs). The presented bandwidth bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs). The approach
approach is applicable to any switching technology and builds on the presented is applicable to any switching technology and builds on the
original Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) model for the transport original Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) model for the transport
of traffic-related parameters. This document moves the experiment of traffic-related parameters. This document moves the experiment
documented in RFC 5467 to the standards track and obsoletes RFC 5467. documented in RFC 5467 to the standards track and obsoletes RFC 5467.
Status of this Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering This is an Internet Standards Track document.
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 11, 2012. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6387.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Approach Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2. Approach Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.3. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Generalized Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs . . . . . 6 2. Generalized Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs . . . . . 4
2.1. UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.1. UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.1. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.1.1. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.2. UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.1. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.2.1. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.3. UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3.1. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.3.1. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Packet Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3. Packet Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.1. UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.2. UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.3. UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.3. UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
GMPLS [RFC3473] introduced explicit support for bidirectional Label GMPLS [RFC3473] introduced explicit support for bidirectional Label
Switched Paths (LSPs). The defined support matched the switching Switched Paths (LSPs). The defined support matched the switching
technologies covered by GMPLS, notably Time Division Multiplexing technologies covered by GMPLS, notably Time Division Multiplexing
(TDM) and lambdas; specifically, it only supported bidirectional LSPs (TDM) and lambdas; specifically, it only supported bidirectional LSPs
with symmetric bandwidth allocation. Symmetric bandwidth with symmetric bandwidth allocation. Symmetric bandwidth
requirements are conveyed using the semantics objects defined in requirements are conveyed using the semantics objects defined in
[RFC2205] and [RFC2210]. [RFC2205] and [RFC2210].
GMPLS asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSPs are bidirectional LSPs GMPLS asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSPs are bidirectional LSPs
that have different bandwidth reservations in each direction. that have different bandwidth reservations in each direction.
Support for bidirectional LSPs with asymmetric bandwidth, was Support for bidirectional LSPs with asymmetric bandwidth was
previously discussed in the context of Ethernet, notably [RFC6060] previously discussed in the context of Ethernet, notably [RFC6060]
and [RFC6003]. In that context, asymmetric bandwidth support was and [RFC6003]. In that context, asymmetric bandwidth support was
considered to be a capability that was unlikely to be deployed, and considered to be a capability that was unlikely to be deployed, and
hence [RFC5467] was published as Experimental. The MPLS Transport hence [RFC5467] was published as Experimental. The MPLS Transport
Profile, MPLS-TP, requires that asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional Profile, MPLS-TP, requires that asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional
LSPs be supported, see [RFC5654], and therefore this document is LSPs be supported (see [RFC5654]); therefore, this document is being
being published on the Standards Track. This document has no published on the Standards Track. This document has no technical
technical changes from the approach defined in [RFC5467]. This changes from the approach defined in [RFC5467]. This document moves
document moves the experiment documented in [RFC5467] to the the experiment documented in [RFC5467] to the standards track and
standards track and obsoletes [RFC5467]. This document also removes obsoletes [RFC5467]. This document also removes the Ethernet-
the Ethernet technology specific alternative approach discussed in technology-specific alternative approach discussed in the appendix of
the appendix of [RFC5467] and maintains only one approach that is [RFC5467] and maintains only one approach that is suitable for use
suitable for use with any technology. with any technology.
1.1. Background 1.1. Background
Bandwidth parameters are transported within RSVP ([RFC2210], Bandwidth parameters are transported within RSVP ([RFC2210],
[RFC3209], and [RFC3473]) via several objects that are opaque to [RFC3209], and [RFC3473]) via several objects that are opaque to
RSVP. While opaque to RSVP, these objects support a particular model RSVP. While opaque to RSVP, these objects support a particular model
for the communication of bandwidth information between an RSVP for the communication of bandwidth information between an RSVP
session sender (ingress) and receiver (egress). The original model session sender (ingress) and receiver (egress). The original model
of communication, defined in [RFC2205] and maintained in [RFC3209], of communication, defined in [RFC2205] and maintained in [RFC3209],
used the SENDER_TSPEC and ADSPEC objects in Path messages and the used the SENDER_TSPEC and ADSPEC objects in Path messages and the
skipping to change at page 4, line 23 skipping to change at page 4, line 13
bidirectional LSPs. bidirectional LSPs.
The defined approach is generic and can be applied to any switching The defined approach is generic and can be applied to any switching
technology supported by GMPLS. With this approach, the existing technology supported by GMPLS. With this approach, the existing
SENDER_TSPEC, ADSPEC, and FLOWSPEC objects are complemented with the SENDER_TSPEC, ADSPEC, and FLOWSPEC objects are complemented with the
addition of new UPSTREAM_TSPEC, UPSTREAM_ADSPEC, and addition of new UPSTREAM_TSPEC, UPSTREAM_ADSPEC, and
UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC objects. The existing objects are used in the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC objects. The existing objects are used in the
original fashion defined in [RFC2205] and [RFC2210], and refer only original fashion defined in [RFC2205] and [RFC2210], and refer only
to traffic associated with the LSP flowing in the downstream to traffic associated with the LSP flowing in the downstream
direction. The new objects are used in exactly the same fashion as direction. The new objects are used in exactly the same fashion as
the old objects, but refer to the upstream traffic flow. Figure 1 the old objects, but refer to the upstream traffic flow Figure 1
shows the bandwidth-related objects used for asymmetric bandwidth shows the bandwidth-related objects used for asymmetric bandwidth
bidirectional LSPs. bidirectional LSPs.
|---| Path |---| |---| Path |---|
| I |------------------->| E | | I |------------------->| E |
| n | -SENDER_TSPEC | g | | n | -SENDER_TSPEC | g |
| g | -ADSPEC | r | | g | -ADSPEC | r |
| r | -UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC | e | | r | -UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC | e |
| e | | s | | e | | s |
| s | Resv | s | | s | Resv | s |
| s |<-------------------| | | s |<-------------------| |
| | -FLOWSPEC | | | | -FLOWSPEC | |
| | -UPSTREAM_TSPEC | | | | -UPSTREAM_TSPEC | |
| | -UPSTREAM_ADSPEC | | | | -UPSTREAM_ADSPEC | |
|---| |---| |---| |---|
Figure 1: Generic Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs Figure 1: Generic Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs
The extensions defined in this document are limited to Point-to-Point The extensions defined in this document are limited to Point-to-Point
(P2P) LSPs. Support for Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) bidirectional (P2P) LSPs. Support for Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) bidirectional
LSPs is not currently defined and, as such, not covered in this LSPs is not currently defined and, as such, not covered in this
document. document.
1.3. Conventions Used in This Document 1.3. Conventions Used in This Document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
skipping to change at page 6, line 48 skipping to change at page 5, line 37
object MUST use the contents of the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object in the object MUST use the contents of the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object in the
upstream label and the resource allocation procedure defined in upstream label and the resource allocation procedure defined in
Section 3.1 of [RFC3473]. Consistent with [RFC3473], a node that is Section 3.1 of [RFC3473]. Consistent with [RFC3473], a node that is
unable to allocate a label or internal resources based on the unable to allocate a label or internal resources based on the
contents of the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object MUST issue a PathErr message contents of the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object MUST issue a PathErr message
with a "Routing problem/MPLS label allocation failure" indication. with a "Routing problem/MPLS label allocation failure" indication.
2.2. UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object 2.2. UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object
The format of an UPSTREAM_TSPEC object is the same as a SENDER_TSPEC The format of an UPSTREAM_TSPEC object is the same as a SENDER_TSPEC
object. This includes the definition of class types and their object, which includes the definition of class types and their
formats. The class number of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object is 121 (of formats. The class number of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object is 121 (of
the form 0bbbbbbb). the form 0bbbbbbb).
2.2.1. Procedures 2.2.1. Procedures
The UPSTREAM_TSPEC object describes the traffic flow that originates The UPSTREAM_TSPEC object describes the traffic flow that originates
at the egress. The UPSTREAM_TSPEC object MUST be included in any at the egress. The UPSTREAM_TSPEC object MUST be included in any
Resv message that corresponds to a Path message containing an Resv message that corresponds to a Path message containing an
UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object. The C-Type of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object. The C-Type of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object
MUST match the C-Type of the corresponding UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object. MUST match the C-Type of the corresponding UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object.
skipping to change at page 8, line 13 skipping to change at page 6, line 44
ADSPEC object and, as such, MAY be updated or added at transit nodes. ADSPEC object and, as such, MAY be updated or added at transit nodes.
3. Packet Formats 3. Packet Formats
This section presents the RSVP message-related formats as modified by This section presents the RSVP message-related formats as modified by
this section. This document modifies formats defined in [RFC2205], this section. This document modifies formats defined in [RFC2205],
[RFC3209], and [RFC3473]. See [RFC5511] for the syntax used by RSVP. [RFC3209], and [RFC3473]. See [RFC5511] for the syntax used by RSVP.
Unmodified formats are not listed. Three new objects are defined in Unmodified formats are not listed. Three new objects are defined in
this section: this section:
Object name Applicable RSVP messages Object name Applicable RSVP messages
--------------- ------------------------ --------------- ------------------------
UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Path, PathTear, PathErr, and Notify UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Path, PathTear, PathErr, and Notify
(via sender descriptor) (via sender descriptor)
UPSTREAM_TSPEC Resv, ResvConf, ResvTear, ResvErr, and UPSTREAM_TSPEC Resv, ResvConf, ResvTear, ResvErr, and
Notify (via flow descriptor list) Notify (via flow descriptor list)
UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Resv, ResvConf, ResvTear, ResvErr, and UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Resv, ResvConf, ResvTear, ResvErr, and
Notify (via flow descriptor list) Notify (via flow descriptor list)
The format of the sender description for bidirectional asymmetric The format of the sender description for bidirectional asymmetric
LSPs is: LSPs is:
<sender descriptor> ::= <SENDER_TEMPLATE> <SENDER_TSPEC> <sender descriptor> ::= <SENDER_TEMPLATE> <SENDER_TSPEC>
[ <ADSPEC> ] [ <ADSPEC> ]
[ <RECORD_ROUTE> ] [ <RECORD_ROUTE> ]
[ <SUGGESTED_LABEL> ] [ <SUGGESTED_LABEL> ]
[ <RECOVERY_LABEL> ] [ <RECOVERY_LABEL> ]
<UPSTREAM_LABEL> <UPSTREAM_LABEL>
<UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC> <UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC>
The format of the flow descriptor list for bidirectional asymmetric The format of the flow descriptor list for bidirectional asymmetric
LSPs is: LSPs is:
<flow descriptor list> ::= <FF flow descriptor list> <flow descriptor list> ::= <FF flow descriptor list>
| <SE flow descriptor> | <SE flow descriptor>
<FF flow descriptor list> ::= <FLOWSPEC> <FF flow descriptor list> ::= <FLOWSPEC>
<UPSTREAM_TSPEC> [ <UPSTREAM_ADSPEC> ] <UPSTREAM_TSPEC> [ <UPSTREAM_ADSPEC> ]
<FILTER_SPEC> <FILTER_SPEC>
skipping to change at page 10, line 9 skipping to change at page 7, line 44
<SE flow descriptor> ::= <FLOWSPEC> <SE flow descriptor> ::= <FLOWSPEC>
<UPSTREAM_TSPEC> [ <UPSTREAM_ADSPEC> ] <UPSTREAM_TSPEC> [ <UPSTREAM_ADSPEC> ]
<SE filter spec list> <SE filter spec list>
<SE filter spec list> is unmodified by this document. <SE filter spec list> is unmodified by this document.
4. Compatibility 4. Compatibility
This extension reuses and extends semantics and procedures defined in This extension reuses and extends semantics and procedures defined in
[RFC2205], [RFC3209], and [RFC3473] to support bidirectional LSPs [RFC2205], [RFC3209], and [RFC3473] to support bidirectional LSPs
with asymmetric bandwidth. To indicate the use of asymmetric with asymmetric bandwidth. Three new objects are defined to indicate
bandwidth, three new objects are defined. Each of these objects is the use of asymmetric bandwidth. Each of these objects is defined
defined with class numbers in the form 0bbbbbbb. Per [RFC2205], with class numbers in the form 0bbbbbbb. Per [RFC2205], nodes not
nodes not supporting this extension will not recognize the new class supporting this extension will not recognize the new class numbers
numbers and will respond with an "Unknown Object Class" error. The and will respond with an "Unknown Object Class" error. The error
error message will propagate to the ingress, which can then take message will propagate to the ingress, which can then take action to
action to avoid the path with the incompatible node or can simply avoid the path with the incompatible node or can simply terminate the
terminate the session. session.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
The IANA has made the assignments described below in the "Class The IANA has made the assignments described below in the "Class
Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types" section of the "RSVP Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types" section of the "RSVP
PARAMETERS" registry. PARAMETERS" registry.
5.1. UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object 5.1. UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object
A new class named UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC has been created in the 0bbbbbbb The class named UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC has been assigned in the 0bbbbbbb
range (120) with the following definition: range (120) with the following definition:
Class Types or C-types: Class Types or C-types:
Same values as FLOWSPEC object (C-Num 9) Same values as FLOWSPEC object (C-Num 9)
5.2. UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object 5.2. UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object
A new class named UPSTREAM_TSPEC has been created in the 0bbbbbbb The class named UPSTREAM_TSPEC has been assigned in the 0bbbbbbb
range (121) with the following definition: range (121) with the following definition:
Class Types or C-types: Class Types or C-types:
Same values as SENDER_TSPEC object (C-Num 12) Same values as SENDER_TSPEC object (C-Num 12)
5.3. UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object 5.3. UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object
A new class named UPSTREAM_ADSPEC has been created in the 0bbbbbbb The class named UPSTREAM_ADSPEC has been assigned in the 0bbbbbbb
range (122) with the following definition: range (122) with the following definition:
Class Types or C-types: Class Types or C-types:
Same values as ADSPEC object (C-Num 13) Same values as ADSPEC object (C-Num 13)
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
This document introduces new message objects for use in GMPLS This document introduces new message objects for use in GMPLS
signaling [RFC3473] -- specifically the UPSTREAM_TSPEC, signaling [RFC3473] -- specifically the UPSTREAM_TSPEC,
UPSTREAM_ADSPEC, and UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC objects. These objects UPSTREAM_ADSPEC, and UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC objects. These objects
parallel the existing SENDER_TSPEC, ADSPEC, and FLOWSPEC objects but parallel the existing SENDER_TSPEC, ADSPEC, and FLOWSPEC objects but
are used in the opposite direction. As such, any vulnerabilities are used in the opposite direction. As such, any vulnerabilities
that are due to the use of the old objects now apply to messages that are due to the use of the old objects now apply to messages
flowing in the reverse direction. flowing in the reverse direction.
From a message standpoint, this document does not introduce any new From a message standpoint, this document does not introduce any new
signaling messages or change the relationship between LSRs that are signaling messages or change the relationship between LSRs that are
adjacent in the control plane. As such, this document introduces no adjacent in the control plane. As such, this document introduces no
additional message- or neighbor-related security considerations. additional message- or neighbor-related security considerations.
See [RFC3473] for relevant security considerations, and [RFC5920] for See [RFC3473] for relevant security considerations and [RFC5920] for
a more general discussion on RSVP-TE security discussions. a more general discussion on RSVP-TE security discussions.
7. References 7. References
7.1. Normative References 7.1. Normative References
[RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., [RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and
and S. Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) S. Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) --
-- Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205, Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September
September 1997. 1997.
[RFC2210] Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated
Services", RFC 2210, September 1997.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, [RFC2210] Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated
V., and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for Services", RFC 2210, September 1997.
LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[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.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label [RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC
RFC 3473, January 2003. 3473, January 2003.
7.2. Informative References 7.2. Informative References
[RFC6060] Fedyk, D., et al "Generalized Multiprotocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Control of Ethernet Provider
Backbone Traffic Engineering (PBB-TE)",
RFC 6060, 2011.
[RFC6003] Papadimitriou, D., "MEF Ethernet Traffic Parameters,"
RFC 6003, October 2008.
[RFC5654] B. Niven-Jenkins, Ed., D. Brungard, Ed. and
M. Betts, Ed., "Requirements of an MPLS Transport
Profile," RFC 5654, September 2009.
[RFC4606] Mannie, E. and D. Papadimitriou, "Generalized Multi- [RFC4606] Mannie, E. and D. Papadimitriou, "Generalized Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for
Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous
Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control", RFC 4606, August Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control", RFC 4606, August 2006.
2006.
[RFC4328] Papadimitriou, D., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol [RFC4328] Papadimitriou, D., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical
G.709 Optical Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328, Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328, January 2006.
January 2006.
[RFC5511] Farrel, A. "Reduced Backus-Naur Form (RBNF) A Syntax [RFC5511] Farrel, A., "Routing Backus-Naur Form (RBNF): A Syntax
Used in Various Protocol Specifications", RFC 5511, Used to Form Encoding Rules in Various Routing Protocol
April 2009. Specifications", RFC 5511, April 2009.
[RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and [RFC5654] Niven-Jenkins, B., Ed., Brungard, D., Ed., Betts, M.,
GMPLS Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010. Ed., Sprecher, N., and S. Ueno, "Requirements of an MPLS
Transport Profile", RFC 5654, September 2009.
[RFC5467] L. Berger, A. Takacs, D. Caviglia, D. Fedyk and [RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
J. Meuric, "GMPLS Asymmetric Bandwidth Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs),"
RFC 5467, March 2009. [RFC5467] Berger, L., Takacs, A., Caviglia, D., Fedyk, D., and J.
Meuric, "GMPLS Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional Label
Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 5467, March 2009.
[RFC6003] Papadimitriou, D., "Ethernet Traffic Parameters", RFC
6003, October 2010.
[RFC6060] Fedyk, D., Shah, H., Bitar, N., and A. Takacs,
"Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Control of Ethernet Provider Backbone Traffic Engineering
(PBB-TE)", RFC 6060, March 2011.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Attila Takacs Attila Takacs
Ericsson Ericsson
Laborc u. 1. Konyves Kalman krt. 11.
Budapest, 1037 Budapest, 1097
Hungary Hungary
Email: attila.takacs@ericsson.com EMail: attila.takacs@ericsson.com
Lou Berger Lou Berger
LabN Consulting, L.L.C. LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
Email: lberger@labn.net EMail: lberger@labn.net
Diego Caviglia Diego Caviglia
Ericsson Ericsson
Via A. Negrone 1/A Via A. Negrone 1/A
Genova-Sestri Ponente, Genova-Sestri Ponente,
Italy Italy
Phone: +390106003738 Phone: +390106003738
Fax: Fax:
Email: diego.caviglia@ericsson.com EMail: diego.caviglia@ericsson.com
Don Fedyk Don Fedyk
Alcatel-Lucent Alcatel-Lucent
Groton, MA Groton, MA
USA USA
Email: donald.fedyk@alcatel-lucent.com EMail: donald.fedyk@alcatel-lucent.com
Julien Meuric Julien Meuric
France Telecom Orange France Telecom Orange
2, avenue Pierre Marzin 2, avenue Pierre Marzin
Lannion Cedex, 22307 Lannion Cedex, 22307
France France
Email: julien.meuric@orange-ftgroup.com EMail: julien.meuric@orange.com
 End of changes. 44 change blocks. 
145 lines changed or deleted 137 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/