draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-01.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-02.txt 
Network Working Group F. Zhang, Ed. Network Working Group F. Zhang, Ed.
Internet-Draft D. Li Internet-Draft D. Li
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Intended status: Standards Track Huawei
Expires: April 25, 2013 O. Gonzalez de Dios, Ed. Expires: August 29, 2013 O. Gonzalez de Dios, Ed.
Telefonica I+D Telefonica I+D
C. Margaria C. Margaria
Nokia Siemens Networks Nokia Siemens Networks
M. Hartley M. Hartley
Cisco Cisco
October 22, 2012 February 25, 2013
RSVP-TE Extensions for Collecting SRLG Information RSVP-TE Extensions for Collecting SRLG Information
draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-01 draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-02
Abstract Abstract
This document provides extensions for the Resource ReserVation This document provides extensions for the Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) to support automatic Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) to support automatic
collection of Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) Information for the TE collection of Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) Information for the TE
link formed by a LSP. link formed by a LSP.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 39 skipping to change at page 1, line 39
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 25, 2013. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 29, 2013.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2013 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. RSVP-TE Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. RSVP-TE Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. SRLG Collection Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. SRLG Collection Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. SRLG Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2. SRLG Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. SRLG Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.3. SRLG Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. RSVP-TE Extensions (Encoding) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. RSVP-TE Extensions (Encoding) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. SRLG Collection Flag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. SRLG Collection Flag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. SRLG sub-object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2. SRLG sub-object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Signaling Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Signaling Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. SRLG Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1. SRLG Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. SRLG Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.2. SRLG Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Policy Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1. Policy Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. Coherent SRLG IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.2. Coherent SRLG IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.1. RSVP Attribute Bit Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.1. RSVP Attribute Bit Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.2. ROUTE_RECORD Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.2. ROUTE_RECORD Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.2.1. SRLG sub-object Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.3. Policy Control Failure Error subcodes . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
It is important to understand which TE links in the network might be It is important to understand which TE links in the network might be
at risk from the same failures. In this sense, a set of links may at risk from the same failures. In this sense, a set of links may
constitute a 'shared risk link group' (SRLG) if they share a resource constitute a 'shared risk link group' (SRLG) if they share a resource
whose failure may affect all links in the set [RFC4202]. whose failure may affect all links in the set [RFC4202].
On the other hand, as described in [RFC4206] and [RFC6107], H-LSP On the other hand, as described in [RFC4206] and [RFC6107], H-LSP
(Hierarchical LSP) or S-LSP (stitched LSP) can be used for carrying (Hierarchical LSP) or S-LSP (stitched LSP) can be used for carrying
skipping to change at page 4, line 8 skipping to change at page 4, line 8
information was collected during signaling changes, the relevant information was collected during signaling changes, the relevant
nodes of the LSP must be capable of updating the SRLG information of nodes of the LSP must be capable of updating the SRLG information of
the LSP. This means that that the signaling procedure must be the LSP. This means that that the signaling procedure must be
capable of updating the new SRLG information. capable of updating the new SRLG information.
3. RSVP-TE Extensions (Encoding) 3. RSVP-TE Extensions (Encoding)
3.1. SRLG Collection Flag 3.1. SRLG Collection Flag
In order to indicate nodes that SRLG collection is desired, this In order to indicate nodes that SRLG collection is desired, this
document defines a new flag in the Attribute Flags TLV, which is document defines a new flag in the Attribute Flags TLV, which is
carried in an LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object: [Editor's note: carried in an LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_ATTRIBUTE Object:
LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object is also under consideration]
o Bit Number (to be assigned by IANA, recommended bit zero): SRLG o Bit Number (to be assigned by IANA, recommended bit 12): SRLG
Collection flag Collection flag
The SRLG Collection flag is meaningful on a Path message. If the The SRLG Collection flag is meaningful on a Path message. If the
SRLG Collection flag is set to 1, it means that the SRLG information SRLG Collection flag is set to 1, it means that the SRLG information
should be reported to the head and tail node along the setup of the should be reported to the head and tail node along the setup of the
LSP. LSP.
The rules of the processing of the Attribute Flags TLV are not The rules of the processing of the Attribute Flags TLV are not
changed. changed.
skipping to change at page 5, line 27 skipping to change at page 5, line 27
SRLG Id SRLG Id
The 32-bit identifier of the SRLG. The 32-bit identifier of the SRLG.
Reserved Reserved
This field is reserved. It SHOULD be set to zero on transmission and This field is reserved. It SHOULD be set to zero on transmission and
MUST be ignored on receipt. MUST be ignored on receipt.
The rules of the processing of the LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object and The rules of the processing of the LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES,
ROUTE_RECORD Object are not changed.[Editor's note: The rules of LSP_ATTRIBUTE and ROUTE_RECORD Objects are not changed.
processing LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object (which is under consideration) are
also not changed]
4. Signaling Procedures 4. Signaling Procedures
4.1. SRLG Collection 4.1. SRLG Collection
Typically, the head node gets the route information of an LSP by Typically, the head node gets the route information of an LSP by
adding a RRO which contains the sender's IP addresses in the Path adding a RRO which contains the sender's IP addresses in the Path
message. If a head node also desires SRLG recording, it sets the message. If a head node also desires SRLG recording, it sets the
SRLG Collection Flag in the Attribute Flags TLV which can be carried SRLG Collection Flag in the Attribute Flags TLV which can be carried
in an LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object. either in an LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object if the collection is
mandatory, or in an LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object if the collection is
desired, but not mandatory
When a node receives a Path message which carries an When a node receives a Path message which carries an
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object and the SRLG Collection Flag is set, LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object and the SRLG Collection Flag is set,
if local policy determines that the SRLG information should not be if local policy determines that the SRLG information should not be
provided to the endpoints, it must return a PathErr message to reject provided to the endpoints, it MUST return a PathErr message with
the Path message. Otherwise, it must add an SRLG sub-object to the Error Code 2 (policy) and Error subcode "SRLG Recording Rejected"
RRO to carry the local SRLG information. Then it forwards the Path (value to be assigned by IANA, suggest value 108) to reject the Path
message to the next node in the downstream direction. message.
[Editor's note: It is under consideration that with the Path message When a node receives a Path message which carries an LSP_ATTRIBUTES
carries an LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object and the SRLG Collection Object and the SRLG Collection Flag is set, if local policy
Flag is set, if local policy determines that the SRLG information determines that the SRLG information should not be provided to the
should not be provided to the endpoints, the Path message should not endpoints, the Path message SHOULD NOT be rejected due to SRLG
rejected and the SRLG sub-object must not added] recording restriction and the Path message SHOULD be forwarded
without the SRLG sub-object(s) in the Path RRO.
If local policy permits the recording of the SRLG information, the
processing node SHOULD add an SRLG sub-object to the RRO to carry the
local SRLG information. It then forwards the Path message to the
next node in the downstream direction.
Following the steps described above, the intermediate nodes of the Following the steps described above, the intermediate nodes of the
LSP can collect the SRLG information in the RRO during the forwarding LSP can collect the SRLG information in the RRO during the forwarding
of the Path message hop by hop. When the Path message arrives at the of the Path message hop by hop. When the Path message arrives at the
tail node, the tail node can get the SRLG information from the RRO. tail node, the tail node can get the SRLG information from the RRO.
Before the Resv message is sent to the upstream node, the tail node Before the Resv message is sent to the upstream node, the tail node
adds an SRLG sub-object to the RRO. The collected SRLG information adds the SRLG subobject with the SRLG value(s) associated with the
can be carried in the SRLG sub-object. Therefore, during the local hop to the Resv RRO in a similar manner to that specified above
forwarding of the Resv message in the upstream direction, the SRLG for the addition of Path RRO sub-objects by midpoint nodes.
information is not needed to be collected hop by hop.
When a node receives a Resv message for an LSP for which SRLG
Collection is specified, if local policy determines that the SRLG
information should not be provided to the endpoints, if the SRLG-
recording request was in a LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object, then a
ResvErr with Error code 2 (policy) and Error subcode "SRLG Recording
Rejected" (value to be assigned by IANA, suggest value 108) MUST be
sent. If the request was in a LSP_ATTRIBUTES object, then a ResvErr
SHOULD NOT be generated, but SRLG information must not be added in
the RRO. Otherwise, if local policy allows to provide the SRLG
informatin, it MUST add an SRLG sub-object to the RRO to carry the
SRLG information in the upstream direction. When the Resv message
arrives at the head node, the head node can get the SRLG information
from the RRO in the same way as the tail node.
Note that a link's SRLG information for the upstream direction cannot
be assumed to be the same as that in the downstream.
o For Path and Resv messages for a unidirectional LSP, a node SHOULD
include SRLG sub-objects in the RRO for the downstream data link
only.
o For Path and Resv messages for a bidirectional LSP, a node SHOULD
include SRLG sub-objects in the RRO for both the upstream data
link and the downstream data link from the local node. In this
case, the node MUST include the information in the same order for
both Path messages and Resv messages. That is, the SRLG sub-
object for the upstream link is added to the RRO before the SRLG
sub-object for the downstream link.
Based on the above procedure, the endpoints can get the SRLG Based on the above procedure, the endpoints can get the SRLG
information automatically. Then the endpoints can for instance information automatically. Then the endpoints can for instance
advertise it as a TE link to the routing instance based on the advertise it as a TE link to the routing instance based on the
procedure described in [RFC6107] and configure the SRLG information procedure described in [RFC6107] and configure the SRLG information
of the FA automatically. of the FA automatically.
It is noted that a node (e.g. the edge node of a domain) may edit the It is noted that a node (e.g. the edge node of a domain) may edit the
RRO to remove the route information (e.g. node, interface identifier RRO to remove the route information (e.g. node, interface identifier
information) before forwarding it due to some reasons information) before forwarding it due to some reasons
(e.g.confidentiality or reduce the size of RRO). A node MAY edit (e.g.confidentiality or reduce the size of RRO). A node MAY edit
SRLG information within the RRO of a Path or Resv message if dictated SRLG information within the RRO of a Path or Resv message if dictated
by its local policy. If a node makes such an alteration to an by its local policy. If a node makes such an alteration to an
existing RRO object, it SHOULD set the "SRLG-list edited" flag in the existing RRO object, it SHOULD set the "SRLG-list edited" flag in the
edited RRO sub-object to indicate to other nodes that this has been edited RRO sub-object to indicate to other nodes that this has been
done. done.
[Editor's note: Two behaviors are under consideration: using
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES the collection is mandatory, while using
LSP_ATTRIBUTES the collection is desired, but not mandatory]
4.2. SRLG Update 4.2. SRLG Update
When the SRLG information of a link is changed, the LSPs using that When the SRLG information of a link is changed, the LSPs using that
link should be aware of the changes. The procedures defined in link should be aware of the changes. The procedures defined in
Section 4.4.3 of RFC 3209 [RFC3209] MUST be used to refresh the SRLG Section 4.4.3 of RFC 3209 [RFC3209] MUST be used to refresh the SRLG
information if the SRLG change is to be communicated to other nodes information if the SRLG change is to be communicated to other nodes
according to the local node's policy. If local policy is that the according to the local node's policy. If local policy is that the
SRLG change should be suppressed or would result in no change to the SRLG change should be suppressed or would result in no change to the
previously signaled SRLG-list, the node need not send an update previously signaled SRLG-list, the node need not send an update
skipping to change at page 7, line 18 skipping to change at page 7, line 45
In a border node of inter-domain or inter-layer network, the In a border node of inter-domain or inter-layer network, the
following SRLG processing policy should be capable of being following SRLG processing policy should be capable of being
configured: configured:
o Whether the SRLG IDs of the domain or specific layer network can o Whether the SRLG IDs of the domain or specific layer network can
be exposed to the nodes outside the domain or layer network, or be exposed to the nodes outside the domain or layer network, or
whether they should be summarized or removed entirely. whether they should be summarized or removed entirely.
o If SRLGs are summarized or removed, whether the "SRLG-list edited" o If SRLGs are summarized or removed, whether the "SRLG-list edited"
flag is set in affected SRLG RRO-sub-objects. flag is set in affected SRLG RRO-sub-objects and .
o If the SRLG IDs must not be exposed to the nodes outside of the o If SRLGs are summarized or removed, whether the "SRLG-list edited"
domain or specific layer network by policy, the border node must and "Partial SRLG-list" flags are set in affected SRLG RRO-sub-
reject the Path message desiring SRLG recording and send a PathErr objects.
message with the defined error code 'Policy Control
Failure'/'Inter-domain policy failure'. [Editor's note: This last
statement may be removed in next versions and do not impose such
rejection.]
5.2. Coherent SRLG IDs 5.2. Coherent SRLG IDs
In a multi-layer multi-domain scenario, SRLG ids may be configured by In a multi-layer multi-domain scenario, SRLG ids may be configured by
different management entities in each layer/domain. In such different management entities in each layer/domain. In such
scenarios, maintaining a coherent set of SRLG IDs is a key scenarios, maintaining a coherent set of SRLG IDs is a key
requirement in order to be able to use the SRLG information properly. requirement in order to be able to use the SRLG information properly.
Thus, SRLG IDs must be unique. Note that current procedure is Thus, SRLG IDs must be unique. Note that current procedure is
targeted towards a scenario where the different layers and domains targeted towards a scenario where the different layers and domains
belong to the same operator, or to several coordinated administrative belong to the same operator, or to several coordinated administrative
groups. groups. Ensuring the aforementioned coherence of SRLG IDs is beyond
the scope of this documen
Further scenarios, where coherence in the SRLG IDs cannot be Further scenarios, where coherence in the SRLG IDs cannot be
guaranteed are out of the scope of the present document and are left guaranteed are out of the scope of the present document and are left
for further study. for further study.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
TBD. This document does not introduce any additional security issues above
those identified in [RFC5920][RFC3209][RFC3473]
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
7.1. RSVP Attribute Bit Flags 7.1. RSVP Attribute Bit Flags
The IANA has created a registry and manages the space of attributes IANA has created a registry and manages the space of attributes bit
bit flags of Attribute Flags TLV as described in section 11.3 of flags of Attribute Flags TLV as described in section 11.3 of
[RFC5420]. It is requested that the IANA makes assignments from the [RFC5420]. It is requested that IANA makes assignments from the
Attribute Bit Flags. Attribute Bit Flags.
This document introduces a new Attribute Bit Flag: This document introduces a new Attribute Bit Flag:
o Bit number: TBD (10) o Bit number: TBD (12)
o Defining RFC: this I-D o Defining RFC: this I-D
o Name of bit: SRLG Collection Flag o Name of bit: SRLG Collection Flag
o The meaning of the Attribute Flags TLV on a Path is defined in o The meaning of the Attribute Flags TLV on a Path is defined in
this I-D this I-D
7.2. ROUTE_RECORD Object 7.2. ROUTE_RECORD Object
skipping to change at page 8, line 36 skipping to change at page 9, line 13
located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters. We located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters. We
request that IANA make assignments from the ROUTE_RECORD RFC 3209 request that IANA make assignments from the ROUTE_RECORD RFC 3209
[RFC3209] portions of this registry. [RFC3209] portions of this registry.
This document introduces a new RRO sub-object: This document introduces a new RRO sub-object:
Type Name Reference Type Name Reference
--------- ---------------------- --------- --------- ---------------------- ---------
TBD (34) SRLG sub-object This I-D TBD (34) SRLG sub-object This I-D
7.2.1. SRLG sub-object Flags
It is requested that the IANA ceates a registry to manage the space
of bit flags of the SRLG sub-object defined in this document. It is
requested that IANA makes assignments from the SRLG sub-object Flags.
This document introduces two new SRLG sub-object Flags.
+------------+-------------------+---------------+
| Bit Number | Name | Reference |
+------------+-------------------+---------------+
| 1 | SRLG-list edited | This document |
| 2 | Partial SRLG-list | This document |
+------------+-------------------+---------------+
7.3. Policy Control Failure Error subcodes
IANA has made the following assignments in the "Error Codes and
Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes" section of the "RSVP
PARAMETERS" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters. We request that
IANA make assignments from the Policy Control Failure Sub-Codes
registry.
This document introduces a new Policy Control Failure Error sub-code:
o Error sub-code: TBD (108)
o Defining RFC: this I-D
o Name of error sub-code: SRLG Recording Rejected
o The meaning of the SRLG Recording Rejected error sub-code is
defined in this I-D
8. Contributing Authors 8. Contributing Authors
Zafar Ali Zafar Ali
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
zali@cisco.com zali@cisco.com
9. Acknowledgements 9. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Igor Bryskin, Ramon Casellas and Lou The authors would like to thank Igor Bryskin, Ramon Casellas, Lou
Berger for their useful comments to the document. Berger and Alan Davey for their useful comments and improvements to
the document.
10. Normative References 10. Normative References
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC4202] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Routing Extensions in [RFC4202] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Routing Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005. (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005.
[RFC4206] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths (LSP) [RFC4206] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths (LSP)
Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206, October 2005. (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206, October 2005.
[RFC5150] Ayyangar, A., Kompella, K., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel, [RFC5150] Ayyangar, A., Kompella, K., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel,
"Label Switched Path Stitching with Generalized "Label Switched Path Stitching with Generalized
Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (GMPLS Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (GMPLS
TE)", RFC 5150, February 2008. TE)", RFC 5150, February 2008.
[RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
[RFC6107] Shiomoto, K. and A. Farrel, "Procedures for Dynamically [RFC6107] Shiomoto, K. and A. Farrel, "Procedures for Dynamically
Signaled Hierarchical Label Switched Paths", RFC 6107, Signaled Hierarchical Label Switched Paths", RFC 6107,
February 2011. February 2011.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Fatai Zhang (editor) Fatai Zhang (editor)
Huawei Huawei
F3-5-B RD Center F3-5-B RD Center
Bantian, Longgang District, Shenzhen 518129 Bantian, Longgang District, Shenzhen 518129
 End of changes. 25 change blocks. 
68 lines changed or deleted 141 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/