draft-ietf-ccamp-swcaps-update-03.txt   rfc7074.txt 
Internet Draft Lou Berger
Updates: 3471, 4202, 4203, 5307 (LabN)
Category: Standards Track Julien Meuric
Expiration Date: February 23, 2014 (France Telecom Orange)
August 23, 2013
Revised Definition of The GMPLS Switching Capability and Type Fields Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Berger
Request for Comments: 7074 LabN
Updates: 3471, 4202, 4203, 5307 J. Meuric
Category: Standards Track Orange
ISSN: 2070-1721 November 2013
draft-ietf-ccamp-swcaps-update-03.txt Revised Definition of the GMPLS Switching Capability and Type Fields
Abstract Abstract
GMPLS provides control for multiple switching technologies, and GMPLS provides control for multiple switching technologies and for
hierarchical switching within a technology. GMPLS routing and hierarchical switching within a technology. GMPLS routing and
signaling use common values to indicate switching technology type. signaling use common values to indicate the type of switching
These values are carried in routing in the Switching Capability technology. These values are carried in routing protocols via the
field, and in signaling in the Switching Type field. While the Switching Capability field, and in signaling protocols via the
values used in these fields are the primary indicators of the Switching Type field. While the values used in these fields are the
technology and hierarchy level being controlled, the values are primary indicators of the technology and hierarchy level being
not consistently defined and used across the different controlled, the values are not consistently defined and used across
technologies supported by GMPLS. This document is intended to the different technologies supported by GMPLS. This document is
resolve the inconsistent definition and use of the Switching intended to resolve the inconsistent definition and use of the
Capability and Type fields by narrowly scoping the meaning and use Switching Capability and Type fields by narrowly scoping the meaning
of the fields. This document updates any document that uses the and use of the fields. This document updates all documents that use
GMPLS Switching Capability and Types fields, in particular RFC the GMPLS Switching Capability and Types fields, in particular RFCs
3471, RFC 4202, RFC 4203, and RFC 5307. 3471, 4202, 4203, and 5307.
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
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 Status of This Memo
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 This is an Internet Standards Track document.
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
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 23, 2014 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/rfc7074.
Copyright and License Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 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.
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) provides control Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) provides control
for multiple switching technologies. It also supports hierarchical for multiple switching technologies. It also supports hierarchical
switching within a technology. The original GMPLS Architecture, per switching within a technology. The original GMPLS Architecture, per
[RFC3945], included support for five types of switching capabilities. [RFC3945], included support for five types of switching capabilities.
An additional type was also been defined in [RFC6002]. The switching An additional type was also defined in [RFC6002]. The switching
types defined in these documents include: types defined in these documents include:
1. Packet Switch Capable (PSC)
2. Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC) 1. Packet Switch Capable (PSC)
3. Time-Division Multiplex Capable (TDM)
4. Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) 2. Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC)
5. Fiber-Switch Capable (FSC)
6. Data Channel Switching Capable (DCSC) 3. Time-Division Multiplex Capable (TDM)
4. Lambda Switch Capable (LSC)
5. Fiber-Switch Capable (FSC)
6. Data Channel Switching Capable (DCSC)
Support for the original types was defined for routing in [RFC4202], Support for the original types was defined for routing in [RFC4202],
[RFC4203], and [RFC5307], where the types were represented in the [RFC4203], and [RFC5307], where the types were represented in the
Switching Capability (Switching Cap) field. In general, hierarchy Switching Capability (Switching Cap) field. In general, hierarchy
within a type is addressed in a type-specific fashion and a single within a type is addressed in a type-specific fashion, and a single
Switching Capability field value is defined per type. The exception Switching Capability field value is defined per type. The exception
to this is PSC which was assigned four values to indicate four levels to this is PSC, which was assigned four values to indicate four
of hierarchy: PSC-1, PSC-2, PSC-3 and PSC-4. The same values used in levels of hierarchy: PSC-1, PSC-2, PSC-3, and PSC-4. The same values
routing are defined for signaling in [RFC3471], and are carried in used in routing are defined for signaling in [RFC3471], and are
the Switching Type field. Following the IANA registry, we refer to carried in the Switching Type field. Following the IANA registry, we
the values used in the routing Switching Capability field and refer to the values used in the routing Switching Capability field
signaling Switching Type field as Switching Types. and signaling Switching Type field as Switching Types.
In general, a Switching Type does not indicate a specific data plane In general, a Switching Type does not indicate a specific data-plane
technology, but rather this needs to be inferred from context. For technology; this needs to be inferred from context. For example,
example L2SC was defined to cover Ethernet and ATM, and TDM was L2SC was defined to cover Ethernet and ATM, and TDM was defined to
defined to cover both SONET/SDH [RFC4606] and G.709 [RFC4328]. The cover both SONET/SDH [RFC4606] and G.709 [RFC4328]. The basic
basic assumption was that different technologies of the same type assumption was that different technologies of the same type would
would never operate within the same control, i.e., signaling and never operate within the same control, i.e., signaling and routing
routing, domains. domains.
The past approach in assignment of Switching Types has proven to be The past approach in assignment of Switching Types has proven to be
problematic from two perspectives. The first issue is that some problematic from two perspectives. The first issue is that some
examples of switching technologies have different levels of switching examples of switching technologies have different levels of switching
that can be performed within the same technology. For example, there that can be performed within the same technology. For example, there
are multiple types of Ethernet switching that may occur within a are multiple types of Ethernet switching that may occur within a
provider network. The second issues is that the Switching Capability provider network. The second issue is that the Switching Capability
field value is used in Interior Gateway Protocols (IGPs) to indicate field value is used in Interior Gateway Protocols (IGPs) to indicate
the format of the Switching Capability-specific information (SCSI) the format of the Switching Capability-specific information (SCSI)
field, and that an implicit mapping of type to SCSI format is field, and that an implicit mapping of type to SCSI format is
impractical for implementations that support multiple switching impractical for implementations that support multiple switching
technologies. These issues led to the introduction of two new types technologies. These issues led to the introduction of two new types
for Ethernet in [RFC6004] and [RFC6060], namely: for Ethernet in [RFC6004] and [RFC6060], namely:
7. Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL) 7. Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL)
8. 802_1 PBB-TE (Provider Backbone Bridge - Traffic Engineering)
8. 802_1 PBB-TE (Provider Backbone Bridge Traffic Engineering)
An additional value is also envisioned to be assigned in support of An additional value is also envisioned to be assigned in support of
G.709v3 by [GMPLS-G709] in order to disambiguate the format of the G.709v3 by [GMPLS-G709] in order to disambiguate the format of the
SCSI field. SCSI field.
While a common representation of hierarchy levels within a switching While a common representation of hierarchy levels within a switching
technology certainly fits the design objectives of GMPLS, the technology certainly fits the design objectives of GMPLS, the
definition of multiple PSC Switching Types has also proven to be of definition of multiple PSC Switching Types has also proven to be of
little value. Notably, there are no known uses of PSC-2, PSC-3 and little value. Notably, there are no known uses of PSC-2, PSC-3, and
PSC-4. PSC-4.
This document proposes to resolve such inconsistent definitions and This document proposes to resolve such inconsistent definitions and
uses of the Switching Types by reducing the scope of the related uses of the Switching Types by reducing the scope of the related
fields and narrowing their use. In particular this document proposes fields and narrowing their use. In particular, this document
deprecating the use of the Switching Types as an identifier of deprecates the use of the Switching Types as an identifier of
hierarchy levels within a switching technology, and limit its use to hierarchy levels within a switching technology and limits its use to
identification of a per-switching technology SCSI field format. the identification of a per-switching technology SCSI field format.
This document updates any document that uses the GMPLS Switching This document updates all documents that use the GMPLS Switching
Capability and Switching Type fields, in particular RFCs 3471, 4202, Capability and Switching Type fields, in particular RFCs 3471, 4202,
4203, and 5307. 4203, and 5307.
1.1. Current Switching Type Definition 1.1. Current Switching Type Definition
The Switching Type values are carried in both routing and signaling The Switching Type values are carried in both routing and signaling
protocols. Values are identified in the IANA GMPLS Signaling protocols. Values are identified in IANA's "Generalized Multi-
Parameters Switching Type registry, which is currently located at Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters" registry,
http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters/gmpls-sig- which is currently located at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/
parameters.xml gmpls-sig-parameters/>.
For routing, a common information element is defined to carry For routing, a common information element is defined to carry
switching type values for both OSPF and IS-IS routing protocols in Switching Type values for both OSPF and IS-IS routing protocols in
[RFC4202]. Per [RFC4202], switching type values are carried in a [RFC4202]. Per [RFC4202], Switching Type values are carried in a
Switching Capability (Switching Cap) field in an Interface Switching Switching Capability (Switching Cap) field in an Interface Switching
Capability Descriptor. This information shares a common formatting Capability Descriptor. This information shares a common formatting
in both OSPF, as defined by [RFC4203], and in IS-IS, as defined by in both OSPF as defined by [RFC4203] and in IS-IS as defined by
[RFC5307]: [RFC5307]:
0 1 2 3 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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Switching Cap | Encoding | Reserved | | Switching Cap | Encoding | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
... ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Switching Capability-specific information | | Switching Capability-specific information |
| (variable) | | (variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
and ...
The content of the Switching Capability-specific information field The content of the Switching Capability-specific information field
depends on the value of the Switching Capability field. depends on the value of the Switching Capability field.
Similarly, the Switching Type field is defined as part of a common Similarly, the Switching Type field is defined as part of a common
format for use by GMPLS signaling protocols in [RFC3471] and is used format for use by GMPLS signaling protocols in [RFC3471] and is used
by [RFC3473]: by [RFC3473]:
0 1 2 3 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 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
skipping to change at page 4, line 39 skipping to change at page 5, line 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Switching Type: 8 bits Switching Type: 8 bits
Indicates the type of switching that should be performed on a Indicates the type of switching that should be performed on a
particular link. This field is needed for links that advertise particular link. This field is needed for links that advertise
more than one type of switching capability. This field should more than one type of switching capability. This field should
map to one of the values advertised for the corresponding link map to one of the values advertised for the corresponding link
in the routing Switching Capability Descriptor ... in the routing Switching Capability Descriptor ...
1.2. Conventions Used In This Document 1.2. 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
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. Revised Switching Type Definition 2. Revised Switching Type Definition
This document modifies the definition of Switching Type. The This document modifies the definition of Switching Type. The
definitions are slightly different for routing and signaling and are definitions are slightly different for routing and signaling and are
described in the following sections. described in the following sections.
2.1. Routing -- Switching Cap Field 2.1. Routing -- Switching Cap Field
For routing, i.e., [RFC4202], [RFC4203], and [RFC5307], the following For routing [RFC4202] [RFC4203] [RFC5307], the following definition
definition should be used for Switching Cap field: should be used for Switching Cap field:
The Switching Cap field indicates the type of switching being The Switching Cap field indicates the type of switching being
advertised via GMPLS Switching Type values. A different Switching advertised via GMPLS Switching Type values. A different Switching
Type value SHOULD be used for each data plane technology even when Type value SHOULD be used for each data-plane technology, even
those technologies share the same type of multiplexing or when those technologies share the same type of multiplexing or
switching. For example, Time Division Multiplexing (TDM) switching. For example, Time Division Multiplexing (TDM)
technologies that have different multiplexing structures, such as technologies that have different multiplexing structures, such as
SDH [G.707] and OTN [G.709], should use two different Switching Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) [G.707] and Optical Transport
Types. Network (OTN) [G.709], should use two different Switching Types.
As the format of the Switching Capability-specific information As the format of the Switching Capability-specific information
field is dependent on the value of this field, a different field is dependent on the value of this field, a different
Switching Type value MUST be used to differentiate between Switching Type value MUST be used to differentiate between
different Switching Capability-specific information field formats. different Switching Capability-specific information field formats.
This definition does not modify the format of the Interface This definition does not modify the format of the Interface
Switching Capability Descriptor. Switching Capability Descriptor.
Note that from a practical standpoint, this means that any time a new Note that from a practical standpoint, this means that any time a new
switching technology might use a different Switching Capability- switching technology might use a different Switching Capability-
specific information field format, that a new Switching Type SHOULD specific information field format, a new Switching Type SHOULD be
be used. used.
2.2. Signaling -- Switching Type Field 2.2. Signaling -- Switching Type Field
For signaling, i.e., [RFC3471] which is used by [RFC3473], the For signaling [RFC3471], which is used by [RFC3473], the following
following definition should be used for Switching Type field: definition should be used for the Switching Type field:
Indicates the type of switching that should be performed on a Indicates the type of switching that should be performed on a
particular link via GMPLS Switching Type values. This field maps particular link via GMPLS Switching Type values. This field maps
to one of the values advertised for the corresponding link in the to one of the values advertised for the corresponding link in the
routing Switching Capability Descriptor, see [RFC4203] and routing Switching Capability Descriptor, see [RFC4203] and
[RFC5307]. [RFC5307].
Note that from a practical standpoint, there is no change in the Note that from a practical standpoint, there is no change in the
definition of this field. definition of this field.
2.3. Assigned Switching Types 2.3. Assigned Switching Types
This document deprecates the following Switching Types: This document deprecates the following Switching Types:
Value Name Value Name
2 Packet-Switch Capable-2 (PSC-2) 2 Packet-Switch Capable-2 (PSC-2)
3 Packet-Switch Capable-3 (PSC-3) 3 Packet-Switch Capable-3 (PSC-3)
4 Packet-Switch Capable-4 (PSC-4) 4 Packet-Switch Capable-4 (PSC-4)
These values SHOULD be treated as unsupported types and, in the These values SHOULD be treated as unsupported types and, in the
case of signaling, processed according to Section 2.1.1 of case of signaling, processed according to Section 2.1.1 of
[RFC3473]. [RFC3473].
3. Compatibility 3. Compatibility
For existing implementations, the primary impact of this document is For existing implementations, the primary impact of this document is
deprecating the use of PSC-2, 3 and 4. At the time of publication, deprecating the use of PSC-2, 3, and 4. At the time of publication,
there are no known deployments (or even implementations) that make there are no known deployments (or even implementations) that make
use of these values so there is no compatibility issues for current use of these values, so there are no compatibility issues for current
routing and signaling implementations. routing and signaling implementations.
4. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
This document impacts the values carried in a single field in This document impacts the values carried in a single field in
signaling and routing. As no new protocol formats or mechanisms are signaling and routing protocols. As no new protocol formats or
defined, there are no particular security implications raised by this mechanisms are defined, there are no particular security implications
document. raised by this document.
For a general discussion on MPLS and GMPLS related security issues, For a general discussion on MPLS- and GMPLS-related security issues,
see the MPLS/GMPLS security framework [RFC5920]. see the MPLS/GMPLS security framework [RFC5920].
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
IANA needs to deprecate and redefine the related registry. In IANA has deprecated some values and redefined the related values in
particular the Switching Types portion of the Generalized Multi- the "IANA-GMPLS-TC-MIB" definitions. In particular, the Switching
Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters should be Types portion of the "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
revised to read: (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters" registry been revised to read:
Switching Types Switching Types
Registration Procedures Registration Procedures
Standards Action Standards Action
Reference Reference
[RFC3471][RFC4328][This.draft] [RFC3471][RFC4328][This Document]
Value Name Reference Value Name Reference
0 Unassigned 0 Unassigned
1 Packet-Switch Capable-1 (PSC-1) [RFC3471] 1 Packet-Switch Capable-1 (PSC-1) [RFC3471]
2 Deprecated [This.draft] 2 Deprecated [This Document]
3 Deprecated [This.draft] 3 Deprecated [This Document]
4 Deprecated [This.draft] 4 Deprecated [This Document]
5-29 Unassigned 5-29 Unassigned
30 Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL) [RFC6004] 30 Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL) [RFC6004]
31-39 Unassigned 31-39 Unassigned
40 802_1 PBB-TE [RFC6060] 40 802_1 PBB-TE [RFC6060]
41-50 Unassigned 41-50 Unassigned
51 Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC) [RFC3471] 51 Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC) [RFC3471]
52-99 Unassigned 52-99 Unassigned
100 Time-Division-Multiplex Capable (TDM) [RFC3471] 100 Time-Division-Multiplex Capable (TDM) [RFC3471]
101-124 Unassigned 101-124 Unassigned
125 Data Channel Switching Capable (DCSC) [RFC6002] 125 Data Channel Switching Capable (DCSC) [RFC6002]
126-149 Unassigned 126-149 Unassigned
150 Lambda-Switch Capable (LSC) [RFC3471] 150 Lambda-Switch Capable (LSC) [RFC3471]
151-199 Unassigned 151-199 Unassigned
200 Fiber-Switch Capable (FSC) [RFC3471] 200 Fiber-Switch Capable (FSC) [RFC3471]
skipping to change at page 7, line 17 skipping to change at page 7, line 43
52-99 Unassigned 52-99 Unassigned
100 Time-Division-Multiplex Capable (TDM) [RFC3471] 100 Time-Division-Multiplex Capable (TDM) [RFC3471]
101-124 Unassigned 101-124 Unassigned
125 Data Channel Switching Capable (DCSC) [RFC6002] 125 Data Channel Switching Capable (DCSC) [RFC6002]
126-149 Unassigned 126-149 Unassigned
150 Lambda-Switch Capable (LSC) [RFC3471] 150 Lambda-Switch Capable (LSC) [RFC3471]
151-199 Unassigned 151-199 Unassigned
200 Fiber-Switch Capable (FSC) [RFC3471] 200 Fiber-Switch Capable (FSC) [RFC3471]
201-255 Unassigned 201-255 Unassigned
A parallel change to IANA-GMPLS-TC-MIB is also required. In A parallel change to IANA-GMPLS-TC-MIB was also made. In particular,
particular, under IANAGmplsSwitchingTypeTC a reference to this under IANAGmplsSwitchingTypeTC a reference to this document has been
document should be added as item 3. Also the following changes should added as item 3. The following changes have also been made to the
be made to the related values: related values:
psc2(2), -- Deprecated [This.draft] psc2(2), -- Deprecated [This Document]
psc3(3), -- Deprecated [This.draft] psc3(3), -- Deprecated [This Document]
psc4(4), -- Deprecated [This.draft] psc4(4), -- Deprecated [This Document]
6. Acknowledgments 6. Acknowledgments
We thank John Drake for highlighting the current inconsistent We thank John Drake for highlighting the current inconsistent
definitions associated with the Switching Capability and Type Fields. definitions associated with the Switching Capability and Type fields.
Daniele Ceccarelli and Adrian Farrel provided valuable feedback on Daniele Ceccarelli and Adrian Farrel provided valuable feedback on
this document. this document.
7. References 7. References
7.1. Normative References 7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "RFC Key Words Key words for use in RFCs to [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Indicate Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching [RFC3471] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
(GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC
January 2003. 3471, January 2003.
[RFC4202] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "Routing Extensions in [RFC4202] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol
(GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005. Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005.
[RFC4203] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "OSPF Extensions in Support [RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions
of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
RFC 4203, October 2005. (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005.
[RFC5307] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "IS-IS Extensions in Support [RFC5307] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "IS-IS
of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol
RFC 5307, October 2008. Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 5307, October 2008.
7.2. Informative References 7.2. Informative References
[G.707] ITU-T Recommendation G.707/Y.1322 (2007), "Network node [G.707] ITU-T Recommendation G.707/Y.1322 (2007), "Network node
interface for the synchronous digital hierarchy (SDH)". interface for the synchronous digital hierarchy (SDH)".
[G.709] ITU-T Recommendation G.709/Y.1331 (2009), "Interfaces for [G.709] ITU-T Recommendation G.709/Y.1331 (2009), "Interfaces
the Optical Transport Network (OTN)". for the Optical Transport Network (OTN)".
[GMPLS-G709] Zhang, F., Li, D., Li, H., Belotti, S., Ceccarelli, [GMPLS-G709] Zhang, F., Li, D., Li, H., Belotti, S., and D.
D., "Framework for GMPLS and PCE Control of G.709 Ceccarelli, "Framework for GMPLS and PCE Control of
Optical Transport Networks", work in progress, G.709 Optical Transport Networks", Work in Progress,
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework. September 2013.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching [RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
(GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC
2003. 3473, January 2003.
[RFC3945] Mannie, E., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching [RFC3945] Mannie, E., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
(GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004. Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004.
[RFC4328] Papadimitriou, D., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label [RFC4328] Papadimitriou, D., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709
Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328, January 2006. Optical Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328, January
2006.
[RFC4606] Mannie, E., Papadimitriou, D., "Generalized [RFC4606] Mannie, E. and D. Papadimitriou, "Generalized
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for Multi-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 2006. Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control", RFC 4606, August 2006.
[RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS [RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010. Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
[RFC6002] Berger, L., Fedyk, D., "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Data [RFC6002] Berger, L. and D. Fedyk, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Data
Channel Switching Capable (DCSC) and Channel Set Label Channel Switching Capable (DCSC) and Channel Set Label
Extensions", RFC 6002, October 2010. Extensions", RFC 6002, October 2010.
[RFC6004] Berger, L., Fedyk, D., "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support [RFC6004] Berger, L. and D. Fedyk, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
for Metro Ethernet Forum and G.8011 Ethernet Service Support for Metro Ethernet Forum and G.8011 Ethernet
Switching", RFC 6004, front 2010. Service Switching", RFC 6004, October 2010.
[RFC6060] Fedyk, D., Shah, H., Bitar, N., Takacs, A., "Generalized [RFC6060] Fedyk, D., Shah, H., Bitar, N., and A. Takacs,
Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Control of "Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Ethernet Provider Backbone Traffic Engineering Control of Ethernet Provider Backbone Traffic
(PBB-TE)", RFC 6060, March 2011. Engineering (PBB-TE)", RFC 6060, March 2011.
8. Authors' Addresses 8. Authors' Addresses
Lou Berger Lou Berger
LabN Consulting, L.L.C. LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
Phone: +1 301 468 9228 Phone: +1 301 468 9228
Email: lberger@labn.net
EMail: lberger@labn.net
Julien Meuric Julien Meuric
France Telecom Orange Orange
Research & Development Research & Development
2, Avenue Pierre Marzin 2, Avenue Pierre Marzin
22307 Lannion Cedex - France 22307 Lannion Cedex -- France
Phone: +33 2 96 05 28 28
Email: julien.meuric@orange.com
Generated on: Fri, Aug 23, 2013 9:41:40 AM Phone: +33 2 96 05 28 28
EMail: julien.meuric@orange.com
 End of changes. 80 change blocks. 
185 lines changed or deleted 181 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/