[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02

Network Working Group                                    W. Imajuku, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                   NTT Com
Intended status: Informational                             T. Otani, Ed.
Expires: December 14, 2009                                          KDDI
                                                           N. Bitar, Ed.
                                                                 Verizon
                                                           June 12, 2009






     Service Provider Requirements for Ethernet control with GMPLS
          draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-gmpls-provider-reqs-02.txt

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 December 14, 2009.













Imajuku, et al.         Expires December 14, 2009               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft        Service Provider Requirements            June 2009


Abstract

   Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) is applicable to
   Ethernet switches supporting Provider Backbone Bridge Traffic
   Engineering (PBB-TE) networks.  The GMPLS controlled Ethernet label
   switch network not only automates creation of Ethernet Label Switched
   Paths(Eth-LSPs), it also provides sophisticated Eth-LSP recovery
   Mechanisms such as protection and restoration of an Eth-LSP.  This
   document describes the requirements for the set of solutions of GMPLS
   controlled Ethernet label switch networks.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Conventions used in this document  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Reference model  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.1.  Single Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.2.  Multi Layer  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4.  Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.1.  Control plane architecture and functionality . . . . . . .  7
       4.1.1.  In-band control channel  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       4.1.2.  Neighbor discovery mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       4.1.3.  Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.2.  Ethernet LSP control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       4.2.1.  Prevention of Loops  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       4.2.2.  Service control  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       4.2.3.  P2MP and MP2MP requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       4.2.4.  Asymmetric bandwidth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       4.2.5.  QoS control  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.3.  OA&M related functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.4.  Protection and Restoration related functionality . . . . .  9
     4.5.  Link Aggregation Group (LAG) related functionality . . . .  9
       4.5.1.  Failure or deletion of LAG member link . . . . . . . .  9
       4.5.2.  Recovery or addition of LAG member link  . . . . . . .  9
     4.6.  Inter-domain Ethernet LSP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.7.  Multi-layer network  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       4.7.1.  Dynamic formation of LAG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       4.7.2.  Other requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     4.8.  Scalability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   7.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 19



Imajuku, et al.         Expires December 14, 2009               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft        Service Provider Requirements            June 2009


1.  Introduction

   Scalability and manageability of Ethernet switch networks has
   continuously improved, and the deployment of Ethernet switches
   supporting Provider Bridging (PB) [IEEE802.1ad] has became one of the
   solutions for service providers to provide enterprise WAN/LAN
   services.  IEEE standardization activities of Provider Backbone
   Bridge(PBB) [IEEE802.1ah] and PBB for Traffic Engineering (PBB-TE)
   [IEEE802.1Qay] provide an opportunity not only for enhancing the
   scalability, manageability, and controllability of the Ethernet
   service networks, but also for more efficiently deploying access/
   metro access networks.

   Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) provides the
   framework for handling and controlling various types of connection-
   oriented switching technologies, namely packet switching with various
   label formats TDM switching, and wavelength switching [RFC3945].
   Therefore, the combined use of GMPLS and PBB-TE is a fairly suitable
   "use case" that contributes to enhancing the flexibility of Ethernet
   Label Switched Path (Eth-LSP) over Ethernet switch networks without
   defining additional connection layers.

   This document describes requirements for GMPLS protocols to control
   Ethernet label switch networks and comprises mainly two parts.  The
   first one is the requirements for GMPLS extension for controlling
   Ethernet layer.  The second one includes the requirements for GMPLS
   extensions to support multi-layer operation.  Although a large
   portion of requirements in the second scope coincides with the
   description in [RFC5145] and [RFC5146], some of important
   requirements are also described in this document.





















Imajuku, et al.         Expires December 14, 2009               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft        Service Provider Requirements            June 2009


2.  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].














































Imajuku, et al.         Expires December 14, 2009               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft        Service Provider Requirements            June 2009


3.  Reference model

3.1.  Single Layer

   This document describes requirements based on the reference model
   depicted in Fig.1.  The first reference model is an intra-domain and
   single layer GMPLS controlled Ethernet label switching network in
   which Eth-LSPs traverse over between Backbone Core Bridges (BCBs) or
   Backbone Edge Bridges (BEBs).

                  --------      -----       --------
   P-based IF  --|  LSR1  |____|LSR2 |_____|  LSR3  |-- P-based IF
   S-tagged IF --|(IB-BEB)|    |(BCB)|     |(IB-BEB)|-- S-tagged IF
   I-tagged IF --|        |    |     |     |        |-- I-tagged IF
                  --------      -----       --------

                          |  GMPLS Eth-LSP |
                          |   (BVID/BMAC)  |
                          |<-------------->|

   Figure 1 Single layer GMPLS controlled PBB-TE network

   The BEBs provide mainly three types of service interfaces, namely
   Port based service interface (P-based IF), S-tagged service interface
   (S-tagged IF), and I-tagged service Interface (I-tagged IF)
   [IEEE802.1ah].  The "P-based IF" and "S-tagged IF" are connected to
   the I-component of a BEB (I-BEB), while the I-tagged IF is connected
   to the B-component of a BEB (B-BEB).  "S-tagged IF" can perform
   various types of mapping between Service VLAN ID (S-VID) and Backbone
   instance Service Identifier (I-SID).  Here, S-VID is assigned within
   customer network domain or Provider Bridge (PB) domain.  On the other
   hand, I-SID is defined between I-components of BEBs.

3.2.  Multi Layer

   The second reference model is Ethernet and L1 (such as TDM, OTN, etc)
   multi-layer network.  Each Ethernet switch node behaves as a border
   node between the Ethernet layer and optical Layers.  Each BCB or BEB
   terminates Optical Label Switched Path (O-LSPs) with Ethernet
   encoding type and some O-LSPs dynamically form LAG.  Thus, some Eth-
   LSPs traverse over multiple O-LSPs, while other Eth-LSPs traverse
   over single O-LSPs.

   Also, it is technically possible to form multiple layer Ethernet
   switch networks.  Namely, the reference model is defined as the case
   that Ethernet switch network substitutes L1 network in Fig.2, and
   realizes MAC in MAC Ethernet transport.  The routing information of
   optical layer may be isolated (overlay model), shuffled (peer model),



Imajuku, et al.         Expires December 14, 2009               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft        Service Provider Requirements            June 2009


   or virtualized with FA-LSPs (augmented model) for Ethernet switch
   layer.

                  --------       ------       --------
   P-based IF  --|  LSR1  |     | LSR2 |     |  LSR3  |-- P-based IF
   S-tagged IF --|(IB-BEB)|     | (BCB)|     |(IB-BEB)|-- S-tagged IF
   I-tagged IF --|        |     |      |     |        |-- I-tagged IF
                  --------       ------       --------
                     |           |  ||LAG    LAG||
   ..................|...........|..||..........||...................
                     |           |  ||          ||
                  ---+----       ------        ------
                 | LSR A  |_____|LSR B |_____|LSR C |
                 |  (LSC) |     |(LSC) | WDM |(LSC) |
                  --------       ------       ------
                     | GMPLS Eth-LSP (BVID/BMAC)|
                     |<------------------------>|
                     |   O-LSP   |   |  O-LSP   |
                     |<--------->|   |<-------->|

   Figure 2 Multi-layer GMPLS controlled Ethernet label switched network






























Imajuku, et al.         Expires December 14, 2009               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft        Service Provider Requirements            June 2009


4.  Requirements

   Section 4.1 to 4.6 describe requirements for single layer Ethernet
   label swicth network based on the reference model from Fig.1.  In
   addition, section 4.7 describes requirements for multiple layer
   network with Ethernet layer and circuit switch layer (such as
   wavelength switched layer and so on).  Finally, section 4.8 describes
   generic requirements applicable to single and multiple layer
   networks.

4.1.  Control plane architecture and functionality

4.1.1.  In-band control channel

   The solution should be able to establish in-band control channel,
   while preserving the solution of out-band control channel.  The
   solution should include negotiation mechanism to specify bandwidth
   and priority of control-channel between peer Ethernet switches.

4.1.2.  Neighbor discovery mechanism

   The solution MUST be able to realize automatic neighbor discovery as
   realized in current PB or PBB networks.  Namely, the solution MUST
   support an automatic negotiation mechanism to exchange information of
   Node ID, TE-Link ID, Data-link ID (in the case of link Bundling), and
   IP address of the control channel for these configuration between
   neighbors.  On the other hand, the extension should be minimized by
   making use of [RFC4394] and [IEEE802.1AB].

4.1.3.  Addressing

   All service interfaces, TE-Link IDs and Data-link IDs MUST be able to
   be indicated by standard IEEE MAC address format, but Node ID should
   be with IP addresses.

4.2.  Ethernet LSP control

4.2.1.  Prevention of Loops

   The solution should have reliability to prevent creating loops of
   Eth-LSPs.  Specifically if the solution supports numbered TE-Link
   addressing, the solution should define a methodology and protocol
   extensions if needed to detect or prevent loops.

4.2.2.  Service control

   The solution should control various types of service interfaces
   defined in [IEEE802.1ah].  The service types of Egress port



Imajuku, et al.         Expires December 14, 2009               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft        Service Provider Requirements            June 2009


   1) Port based service interface

   2) S-tagged service interface

   a) one-to-one mapping of S-VIDs to I-SIDs

   b) bundled mapping of S-VIDs to I-SIDs such as many-to-one, all-to-
   one, transparent mapping

   3) I-tagged service interface should be controllable in addition to
   assignment of Egress port itself.

   Also, the solution should be flexible to following operational
   scenarios,

   1) Any change of mapping of S-VIDs to I-SIDs

   2) Flexibility to nest or stitch higher layer Eth-LSPs.

   3) Any change of bandwidth of Eth-LSPs.  Here, the solution of
   bandwidth modification scenario may include bundling of multiple Eth-
   LSPs.

4.2.3.  P2MP and MP2MP requirements

   To provide the service such as a content distribution, the creation
   of uni-directional P2MP Eth-LSPs should be supported.  Also, to
   provide E-tree type services with multicast traffic, the creation of
   bi-directional P2MP Eth-LSPs should be supported.  The MP2MP
   requirement is for further study.

4.2.4.  Asymmetric bandwidth

   To provide the service which has asymmetric traffic pattern such as a
   kind of E-tree type services, the creation of asymmetric bandwidth
   bi-directional Eth-LSPs should be supported.  The bandwidth
   modification of Eth-LSPs in operation should be also supported.

4.2.5.  QoS control

   The routing and signaling extensions to control QoS based on Ethernet
   traffic parameters defined in [MEF10.1] should be supported.  Unused
   bandwidth per CoS should be exhanged by routing extensions like
   [RFC4124] and the CoS and bandwidth profile such as CIR, CBS, EIR and
   EBS for a requested LSP should be carried by signaling extensions for
   bandwidth accounting and traffic control at a local level.





Imajuku, et al.         Expires December 14, 2009               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft        Service Provider Requirements            June 2009


4.3.  OA&M related functionality

   OAM mechanisms must be defined for GMPLS controlled E-LSPs.  Since
   the data plane is still Ethernet based, the mechanisms should
   capitalize on existing [IEEE802.1ag] and [Y.1731] mechanisms.

   Also, the solution should provide admin status control mechanism to
   coordinate with Connectivity Fault Management (CFM) functionality
   [IEEE802.1ag].

4.4.  Protection and Restoration related functionality

   1:1 protection, Shared protection and dynamic restoration should be
   supported.  Protection and Restoration may be triggered by Ethernet
   OA&M function such as CC, AIS and RDI [IEEE802.1ag] , [Y.1731].

4.5.  Link Aggregation Group (LAG) related functionality

   Link Aggregation is beneficial functionality to realize flexible
   reconfiguration of logical link bandwidth and reliable Ethernet label
   switched networks.  The availability of link bandwidth between peer
   Ethernet switches can be enhanced.

   The solution should support Link Bundling mechanism described in
   [RFC4201] to explicitly assign the links forming LAG.

4.5.1.  Failure or deletion of LAG member link

   The solution should include functionality to prioritize Eth-LSPs,
   specifically when total bandwidth of Eth-LSPs exceeds total bandwidth
   of healthy LAG members after the failure of one or more LAG member
   links.

   The solution should provide for rerouting an Eth-LSP setup over a
   failed member link in a LAG to another member link in the LAG.

4.5.2.  Recovery or addition of LAG member link

   The solution should include functionality to re-optimize Eth-LSP
   paths after the addition of a LAG member link, i.e. reversion of
   failed Eth-LSPs after the failure of the LAG member link, or
   reallocation of other Eth-LSPs traversing congested Links after the
   addition of LAG member link.

4.6.  Inter-domain Ethernet LSP

   The solution should take into account possible future extension to
   control inter-domain Eth-LSPs.  Here, the possible extensions are



Imajuku, et al.         Expires December 14, 2009               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft        Service Provider Requirements            June 2009


   Eth-LSPs traverse over

   1) I-tagged service interfaces

   2) S-tagged service interfaces, and

   3) C-tagged service interfaces.

4.7.  Multi-layer network

4.7.1.  Dynamic formation of LAG

   The solution should include dynamic formation of a LAG after the
   creation or deletion of optical LSPs which interconnect ports of
   Ethernet switches.  It should use the existing Link Bundling
   mechanism to assign bandwidth to dynamically formulated LAG.

4.7.2.  Other requirements

   The architecture and requirements for MPLS-GMPLS inter-working are
   described in [RFC5145] and [RFC5146].  Some of the requirements
   described in [RFC5146] are valid even for the case of GMPLS-GMPLS
   interworking between Ethernet label switched network and L1 network.
   In other words,

   1) End-to-End signaling of Eth-LSPs

   2) Triggered establishment of L1 LSPs

   3) Avoiding complexity and risks.

   should be satisfied even for GMPLS control plane for Ethernet.  For
   more details, see [RFC5146] and MPLS-TE client network written in the
   document should be understood as Ethernet client network.

   Regarding to routing issue,

   1) Advertisement of Ethernet label switch network information via L1
   GMPLS networks

   2) Selective Advertisement of Ethernet label switched network
   information via a Border node

   should be satisfied even in the case of GMPLS-GMPLS inter-working.
   Note that there is significant difference between MPLS-TE and GMPLS
   controlled Ethernet from the view point of methodology to create
   control channel.




Imajuku, et al.         Expires December 14, 2009              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft        Service Provider Requirements            June 2009


4.8.  Scalability

   The solution MUST be designed to scale according to following
   metrics.

   - Number of nodes

   - Number of TE-Links

   - Number of LSPs

   - Number of service ports

   - Number of bundled S-VLANs mapped to I-SID and Eth-LSPs

   - Number of advertised VLANs

   - Number of MEPs and MIPs.

































Imajuku, et al.         Expires December 14, 2009              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft        Service Provider Requirements            June 2009


5.  Security Considerations

   The extension for GMPLS controlled Ethernet label switching should be
   considered under the same security as current work.  This extension
   will not change the underlying security issues.














































Imajuku, et al.         Expires December 14, 2009              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft        Service Provider Requirements            June 2009


6.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no actions for IANA.
















































Imajuku, et al.         Expires December 14, 2009              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft        Service Provider Requirements            June 2009


7.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Mr. Allan McGuire, Mr. Jullien
   Meuric, Mr. Lou Berger, Mr. Don Fedyk and Mr. Attila Takacs for their
   valuable comments.














































Imajuku, et al.         Expires December 14, 2009              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft        Service Provider Requirements            June 2009


8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [IEEE802.1AB]
              "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks,
              Station and Media Access Control Connectivity Discovery".

   [IEEE802.1Qay]
              "IEEE standard for Provider Backbone Bridges Traffic
              Engineering", work in progress.".

   [IEEE802.1ad]
              "IEEE Computer Society, "Virtual Bridged Local Area
              Networks - Amendment 4 : Provider Bridges", P802.1ad/D6.0,
              Draft, Work in Progress".

   [IEEE802.1ag]
              "IEEE Computer Society, "Virtual Bridged Local Area
              Networks - Amendment 5 : Connectivity Fault Management",
              P802.1ag/D5.2, Draft, Work in Progress".

   [IEEE802.1ah]
              "IEEE standard for Provider Backbone Bridges", work in
              progress.".

   [IEEE802.3]
              "IEEE Computer Society, "Amendment to Carrier Sense
              Multiple Access with Collision Detection (CAMS/CD) Access
              Method and Physical Layer Specifications".

   [MEF10.1]  "MEF, "Ethernet Services Attributes Phase2(MEF10.1)," http
              ://www.metroethernetforum.org/PDF_Documents/MEF10-1.pdf,
              Nov. 2006.".

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3471]  Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
              (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471,
              January 2003.

   [RFC3945]  Mannie, E., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
              (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004.

   [Y.1731]   "ITU-T Y.1731".





Imajuku, et al.         Expires December 14, 2009              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft        Service Provider Requirements            June 2009


8.2.  Informative References

   [RFC4124]  Le Faucheur, F., "Protocol Extensions for Support of
              Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC 4124,
              June 2005.

   [RFC4201]  Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., and L. Berger, "Link Bundling
              in MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4201, October 2005.

   [RFC4204]  Lang, J., "Link Management Protocol (LMP)", RFC 4204,
              October 2005.

   [RFC4394]  Fedyk, D., Aboul-Magd, O., Brungard, D., Lang, J., and D.
              Papadimitriou, "A Transport Network View of the Link
              Management Protocol (LMP)", RFC 4394, February 2006.

   [RFC5145]  Shiomoto, K., "Framework for MPLS-TE to GMPLS Migration",
              RFC 5145, March 2008.

   [RFC5146]  Kumaki, K., "Interworking Requirements to Support
              Operation of MPLS-TE over GMPLS Networks", RFC 5146,
              March 2008.





























Imajuku, et al.         Expires December 14, 2009              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft        Service Provider Requirements            June 2009


Authors' Addresses

   Wataru Imajuku (editor)
   NTT Communications Corporation
   1-1-6 Uchisaiwai-cho
   Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo
   Japan

   Phone: +81-(46) 859-4315
   Email: imajuku.wataru@lab.ntt.co.jp


   Yoshiaki Sone
   NTT Network Innovation Labs
   1-1 Hikari-no-oka
   Yokosuka, Kanagawa
   Japan

   Phone: +81-(46) 859-2456
   Email: sone.yoshiaki@lab.ntt.co.jp


   Muneyoshi Suzuki
   NTT Access Service System Labs
   1-6 Nakase
   Mihama-ku, Chiba
   Japan

   Phone: (43) 211-8282
   Email: suzuki.muneyoshi@lab.ntt.co.jp


   Kazuhiro Matsuda
   NTT Network Innovation Labs
   1-1 Hikari-no-oka
   Yokosuka, Kanagawa
   Japan

   Phone: (46) 859-3177
   Email: matsuda.kazuhiro@lab.ntt.co.jp











Imajuku, et al.         Expires December 14, 2009              [Page 17]


Internet-Draft        Service Provider Requirements            June 2009


   Tomohiro Otani (editor)
   KDDI Corporation
   2-3-2 Nishi-shinjuku
   Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo  163-8003
   Japan

   Phone: +81-(3) 3347-6006
   Email: tm-otani@kddi.com


   Kenichi Ogaki
   KDDI R&D Laboratories, Inc.
   2-1-15 Ohara
   Kamifukuoka, Saitama  356-8502
   Japan

   Phone: +81-(49) 278-7897
   Email: ogaki@kddilabs.jp


   Nabil Bitar (editor)
   Verizon
   40 Sylvan Road
   Waltham, MA  02451
   USA

   Email: nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com



























Imajuku, et al.         Expires December 14, 2009              [Page 18]


Internet-Draft        Service Provider Requirements            June 2009


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of
   publication of this document
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
   respect to this document.

   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.


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


Imajuku, et al.         Expires December 14, 2009              [Page 19]


Internet-Draft        Service Provider Requirements            June 2009

   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
   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.






































Imajuku, et al.         Expires December 14, 2009              [Page 20]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/