draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-reqts-03.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-reqts-04.txt 
Network Working Group K. Kumaki, Ed. Network Working Group K. Kumaki, Ed.
Internet Draft KDDI Corporation Internet Draft KDDI Corporation
Intended Status: Informational Intended Status: Informational
Created: November 5, 2007 Created: January 13, 2008
Expires: May 5, 2008 Expires: July 13, 2008
Interworking Requirements to Support operation of MPLS-TE over GMPLS Interworking Requirements to Support operation of MPLS-TE over GMPLS
Networks Networks
draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-reqts-03.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-reqts-04.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
skipping to change at page 2, line 8 skipping to change at page 2, line 5
The GMPLS network may be a packet or a non-packet network, and may The GMPLS network may be a packet or a non-packet network, and may
itself be a multi-layer network supporting both packet and non-packet itself be a multi-layer network supporting both packet and non-packet
technologies. A MPLS-TE Label Switched Path (LSP) originates and technologies. A MPLS-TE Label Switched Path (LSP) originates and
terminates on an MPLS Label Switching Router (LSR). The GMPLS network terminates on an MPLS Label Switching Router (LSR). The GMPLS network
provides transparent transport for the end-to-end MPLS-TE LSP. provides transparent transport for the end-to-end MPLS-TE LSP.
This document describes a framework and Service Provider requirements This document describes a framework and Service Provider requirements
for operating MPLS-TE networks over GMPLS networks. for operating MPLS-TE networks over GMPLS networks.
draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-reqts-04 January 2008
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................2 1. Introduction.....................................................2
1.1 Terminology................................................3 1.1 Terminology..................................................3
2. Reference model................................................4 2. Reference Model..................................................4
3. Detailed Requirements..........................................4 3. Detailed Requirements............................................5
3.1 End-to-End Signaling.......................................5 3.1 End-to-End Signaling.........................................5
3.2 Triggered Establishment of GMPLS LSPs......................5 3.2 Triggered Establishment of GMPLS LSPs........................5
3.3 Diverse Paths for End-to-End MPLS-TE LSPs..................5 3.3 Diverse Paths for End-to-End MPLS-TE LSPs....................5
3.4 Advertisement of MPLS-TE Information via the GMPLS Network.5 3.4 Advertisement of MPLS-TE Information via the GMPLS Network...6
3.5 Selective Advertisement of MPLS-TE Information via a Border 3.5 Selective Advertisement of MPLS-TE Information via a
Node...........................................................5 Border Node..................................................6
3.6 Interworking of MPLS-TE and GMPLS Protection...............6 3.6 Interworking of MPLS-TE and GMPLS Protection.................6
3.7 Independent Failure Recovery and Reoptimization............6 3.7 Independent Failure Recovery and Reoptimization..............6
3.8 Complexity and Risks.......................................6 3.8 Complexity and Risks.........................................7
3.9 Scalability Considerations.................................6 3.9 Scalability Considerations...................................7
3.10 Performance Considerations................................7 3.10 Performance Considerations..................................7
3.11 Management Considerations.................................7 3.11 Management Considerations...................................7
4. Security Considerations........................................7 4. Security Considerations..........................................8
5. Recommended Solution Architecture..............................8 5. Recommended Solution Architecture................................8
5.1 Use of Contiguous, Hierarchical, and Stitched LSPs.........9 5.1 Use of Contiguous, Hierarchical, and Stitched LSPs...........9
5.2 MPLS-TE Control Plane Connectivity.........................9 5.2 MPLS-TE Control Plane Connectivity...........................9
5.3 Fast Reroute Protection....................................9 5.3 Fast Reroute Protection.....................................10
5.4 GMPLS LSP Advertisement...................................10 5.4 GMPLS LSP Advertisement.....................................10
5.5 GMPLS Deployment Considerations...........................10 5.5 GMPLS Deployment Considerations.............................10
6. IANA Considerations...........................................10 6. IANA Considerations.............................................11
7. Acknowledgments...............................................10 7. Acknowledgments.................................................11
8. References....................................................10 8. References......................................................11
8.1 Normative References......................................10 8.1 Normative References........................................11
8.2 Informative References....................................11 8.2 Informative References......................................11
9. Author's Address..............................................11 9. Author's Address................................................12
10. Contributors' Addresses......................................12 10. Contributors' Addresses........................................12
11. Intellectual Property Statement..............................12 11. Full Copyright Statement.......................................13
12. Intellectual Property..........................................13
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Multiprotocol Label Switching traffic engineering (MPLS-TE) networks Multiprotocol Label Switching traffic engineering (MPLS-TE) networks
are often deployed over transport networks such that the transport are often deployed over transport networks such that the transport
networks provide connectivity between the Label Switching Routers networks provide connectivity between the Label Switching Routers
(LSRs) in the MPLS-TE network. Increasingly, these transport networks (LSRs) in the MPLS-TE network. Increasingly, these transport networks
are operated using a Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching are operated using a Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) control plane, and label Switched Paths (LSPs) in the GMPLS (GMPLS) control plane, and label Switched Paths (LSPs) in the GMPLS
network provide connectivity as virtual data links advertised as TE network provide connectivity as virtual data links advertised as TE
links in the MPLS-TE network. links in the MPLS-TE network.
GMPLS protocols were developed as extensions to MPLS-TE protocols. GMPLS protocols were developed as extensions to MPLS-TE protocols.
MPLS-TE is limited to the control of packet switching networks, but MPLS-TE is limited to the control of packet switching networks, but
GMPLS can also control technologies at layers one and two. GMPLS can also control technologies at layers one and two.
draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-reqts-04 January 2008
The GMPLS network may be managed by an operator as a separate network The GMPLS network may be managed by an operator as a separate network
(as it may have been when it was under management plane control (as it may have been when it was under management plane control
before the use of GMPLS as a control plane), but optimizations of before the use of GMPLS as a control plane), but optimizations of
management and operation may be achieved by coordinating the use of management and operation may be achieved by coordinating the use of
the MPLS-TE and GMPLS networks and operating the two networks with a the MPLS-TE and GMPLS networks and operating the two networks with a
close client/server relationship. close client/server relationship.
GMPLS LSP setup may triggered by the signaling of MPLS-TE LSPs in the GMPLS LSP setup may triggered by the signaling of MPLS-TE LSPs in the
MPLS-TE network so that the GMPLS network is reactive to the needs of MPLS-TE network so that the GMPLS network is reactive to the needs of
the MPLS-TE network. The triggering process can be under the control the MPLS-TE network. The triggering process can be under the control
skipping to change at page 4, line 5 skipping to change at page 4, line 5
GMPLS server network, and provides a framework for such operations. GMPLS server network, and provides a framework for such operations.
1.1 Terminology 1.1 Terminology
Although this Informational document is not a protocol specification, Although this Informational document is not a protocol specification,
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] for clarity document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] for clarity
of exposure of the requirements. of exposure of the requirements.
2. Reference model draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-reqts-04 January 2008
2. Reference Model
The reference model used in this document is shown in Figure 1. It The reference model used in this document is shown in Figure 1. It
can easily be seen that the interworking between MPLS-TE and GMPLS can easily be seen that the interworking between MPLS-TE and GMPLS
protocols must occur on a node and not on a link. Nodes on the protocols must occur on a node and not on a link. Nodes on the
interface between the MPLS-TE and GMPLS networks must be responsible interface between the MPLS-TE and GMPLS networks must be responsible
for handling both protocol sets and for providing any protocol for handling both protocol sets and for providing any protocol
interworking that is required. We call these nodes Border Routers. interworking that is required. We call these nodes Border Routers.
-------------- ------------------------- -------------- -------------- ------------------------- --------------
| MPLS Client | | GMPLS Server Network | | MPLS Client | | MPLS Client | | GMPLS Server Network | | MPLS Client |
skipping to change at page 4, line 45 skipping to change at page 5, line 5
MPLS-TE network connectivity is provided through a GMPLS LSP which is MPLS-TE network connectivity is provided through a GMPLS LSP which is
created between Border Routers. End-to-end connectivity between MPLS created between Border Routers. End-to-end connectivity between MPLS
LSRs in the client MPLS-TE networks is provided by an MPLS-TE LSP LSRs in the client MPLS-TE networks is provided by an MPLS-TE LSP
that is carried across the MPLS-TE network by the GMPLS LSP using that is carried across the MPLS-TE network by the GMPLS LSP using
hierarchical LSP techniques [RFC4206], LSP stitching segments hierarchical LSP techniques [RFC4206], LSP stitching segments
[STITCH], or a contiguous LSP. LSP stitching segments and contiguous [STITCH], or a contiguous LSP. LSP stitching segments and contiguous
LSPs are only available where the GMPLS network is a packet switching LSPs are only available where the GMPLS network is a packet switching
network. network.
draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-reqts-04 January 2008
3. Detailed Requirements 3. Detailed Requirements
This section describes detailed requirements for MPLS-TE/GMPLS This section describes detailed requirements for MPLS-TE/GMPLS
interworking in support of the reference model shown in Figure 1. interworking in support of the reference model shown in Figure 1.
The functional requirements for GMPLS-MPLS interworking described in
this section must be met by any device participating in the
interworking. This may include routers, servers, network management
devices, path computation elements, etc.
3.1 End-to-End Signaling 3.1 End-to-End Signaling
The solution MUST be able to preserve MPLS signaling information The solution MUST be able to preserve MPLS signaling information
signaled within the MPLS-TE client network at the start of the MPLS- signaled within the MPLS-TE client network at the start of the MPLS-
TE LSP, and deliver it on the other side of the GMPLS server network TE LSP, and deliver it on the other side of the GMPLS server network
for use within the MPLS-TE client network at the end of the MPLS-TE for use within the MPLS-TE client network at the end of the MPLS-TE
LSP. This may require protocol mapping (and re-mapping), protocol LSP. This may require protocol mapping (and re-mapping), protocol
tunneling, or the use of remote protocol adjacencies. tunneling, or the use of remote protocol adjacencies.
3.2 Triggered Establishment of GMPLS LSPs 3.2 Triggered Establishment of GMPLS LSPs
The solution MUST provide the ability to establish end-to-end MPLS- The solution MUST provide the ability to establish end-to-end MPLS-
TE LSPs over a GMPLS server network. It SHOULD be possible for GMPLS TE LSPs over a GMPLS server network. It SHOULD be possible for GMPLS
LSPs across the core network to be set up between Border Routers LSPs across the core network to be set up between Border Routers
triggered by the signaling of MPLS-TE LSPs in the client network, and triggered by the signaling of MPLS-TE LSPs in the client network, and
in this case, policy controls MUST be made available at the border in this case, policy controls MUST be made available at the border
routers so that the operator of the GMPLS network can manage how core routers so that the operator of the GMPLS network can manage how core
network resources are utilized. GMPLS LSPs MAY also be pre- network resources are utilized. GMPLS LSPs MAY also be pre-
established as the result of management plane control. established as the result of management plane control.
Note that multiple GMPLS LSPs may be set up between a given pair of
Border Routers in support of connectivity in the MPLS client network.
If these LSPs are advertised as TE links in the client network, the
use of link bundling [RFC4201] can reduce any scaling concerns
associated with the advertisements.
The application of the Path Computation Element (PCE) [RFC4655] in
the context of an inter-layer network [PCE-INTER-LAYER] may be
considered to determine an end-to-end LSP with triggered GMPLS
segment or tunnel.
3.3 Diverse Paths for End-to-End MPLS-TE LSPs 3.3 Diverse Paths for End-to-End MPLS-TE LSPs
The solution SHOULD provide the ability to establish end-to-end MPLS- The solution SHOULD provide the ability to establish end-to-end MPLS-
TE LSPs having diverse paths for protection of the LSP traffic. This TE LSPs having diverse paths for protection of the LSP traffic. This
means that MPLS-TE LSPs SHOULD be kept diverse both within the client means that MPLS-TE LSPs SHOULD be kept diverse both within the client
MPLS-TE network and as they cross the server GMPLS network. This MPLS-TE network and as they cross the server GMPLS network. This
means that there SHOULD be a mechanism to request the provision of means that there SHOULD be a mechanism to request the provision of
diverse GMPLS LSPs between a pair of Border Routers to provide diverse GMPLS LSPs between a pair of Border Routers to provide
draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-reqts-04 January 2008
protection of the GMPLS span, but also that there SHOULD be a way to protection of the GMPLS span, but also that there SHOULD be a way to
keep GMPLS LSPs between different Border Routers disjoint. keep GMPLS LSPs between different Border Routers disjoint.
3.4 Advertisement of MPLS-TE Information via the GMPLS Network 3.4 Advertisement of MPLS-TE Information via the GMPLS Network
The solution SHOULD provide the ability to exchange advertisements of The solution SHOULD provide the ability to exchange advertisements of
TE information between MPLS-TE client networks across the GMPLS TE information between MPLS-TE client networks across the GMPLS
server network. server network.
The advertisement of TE information from within an MPLS-TE client The advertisement of TE information from within an MPLS-TE client
skipping to change at page 6, line 15 skipping to change at page 6, line 37
information from the GMPLS server network to MPLS-TE networks information from the GMPLS server network to MPLS-TE networks
selectively. This information is useful for the LSRs in the MPLS-TE selectively. This information is useful for the LSRs in the MPLS-TE
networks to compute paths that cross the GMPLS server network and to networks to compute paths that cross the GMPLS server network and to
select the correct Border Routers to provide connectivity. select the correct Border Routers to provide connectivity.
The solution MUST NOT distribute TE information from within a non-PSC The solution MUST NOT distribute TE information from within a non-PSC
(Packet Switch Capable) GMPLS server network to any client MPLS-TE (Packet Switch Capable) GMPLS server network to any client MPLS-TE
network as that information may cause confusion and selection of network as that information may cause confusion and selection of
inappropriate paths. inappropriate paths.
The use of PCE [RFC4655] may provide a solution for non-PSC GMPLS
networks supporting PSC MPLS networks.
3.6 Interworking of MPLS-TE and GMPLS Protection 3.6 Interworking of MPLS-TE and GMPLS Protection
If an MPLS-TE LSP is protected using MPLS Fast Reroute (FRR) If an MPLS-TE LSP is protected using MPLS Fast Reroute (FRR)
[RFC4090], then similar protection MUST be provided over the GMPLS [RFC4090], then similar protection MUST be provided over the GMPLS
island. Operator and policy controls SHOULD be made available at the island. Operator and policy controls SHOULD be made available at the
Border Router to determine how suitable protection is provided in the Border Router to determine how suitable protection is provided in the
GMPLS island. GMPLS island.
3.7 Independent Failure Recovery and Reoptimization 3.7 Independent Failure Recovery and Reoptimization
The solution SHOULD provide failure recovery and reoptimization in The solution SHOULD provide failure recovery and reoptimization in
the GMPLS server network without impacting the MPLS-TE client network the GMPLS server network without impacting the MPLS-TE client network
and vice versa. That is, it SHOULD be possible to recover from a and vice versa. That is, it SHOULD be possible to recover from a
fault within the GMPLS island or to reoptimize the path across the fault within the GMPLS island or to reoptimize the path across the
GMPLS island without requiring signaling activity within the MPLS-TE GMPLS island without requiring signaling activity within the MPLS-TE
client network. Similarly, it SHOULD be possible to perform recovery client network. Similarly, it SHOULD be possible to perform recovery
draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-reqts-04 January 2008
or reoptimization within the MPLS-TE client network without requiring or reoptimization within the MPLS-TE client network without requiring
signaling activity within the GMPLS server networks. signaling activity within the GMPLS server networks.
If a failure in the GMPLS server network can not be repaired If a failure in the GMPLS server network can not be repaired
transparently, some kind of notification of the failure SHOULD be transparently, some kind of notification of the failure SHOULD be
transmitted to MPLS-TE network. transmitted to MPLS-TE network.
3.8 Complexity and Risks 3.8 Complexity and Risks
The solution SHOULD NOT introduce unnecessary complexity to the The solution SHOULD NOT introduce unnecessary complexity to the
skipping to change at page 7, line 33 skipping to change at page 8, line 5
Manageability of the deployment of an MPLS-TE client network over Manageability of the deployment of an MPLS-TE client network over
GMPLS server network MUST addresses the following considerations. GMPLS server network MUST addresses the following considerations.
- Need for coordination of MIB modules used for control plane - Need for coordination of MIB modules used for control plane
management and monitoring in the client and server networks. management and monitoring in the client and server networks.
- Need for diagnostic tools that can discover and isolate faults - Need for diagnostic tools that can discover and isolate faults
across the border between the MPLS-TE client and GMPLS server across the border between the MPLS-TE client and GMPLS server
networks. networks.
draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-reqts-04 January 2008
4. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
Border routers in the model described in this document are present on Border routers in the model described in this document are present on
administrative domain boundaries. That is, the administrative administrative domain boundaries. That is, the administrative
boundary does not lie on a link as it might in the inter-Autonomous boundary does not lie on a link as it might in the inter-Autonomous
System case seen in IP networks. Thus, many security concerns for the System case seen in IP networks. Thus, many security concerns for the
inter-domain exchange of control plane messages do not arise in this inter-domain exchange of control plane messages do not arise in this
model - the border router participates fully in both the MPLS and the model - the border router participates fully in both the MPLS and the
GMPLS network and must participate in the security procedures of both GMPLS network and must participate in the security procedures of both
networks. Security considerations for MPLS-TE and GMPLS protocols are networks. Security considerations for MPLS-TE and GMPLS protocols are
skipping to change at page 8, line 32 skipping to change at page 9, line 5
The recommended solution architecture to meet the requirements set The recommended solution architecture to meet the requirements set
out in Section 3 is known as the Border Peer Model. This architecture out in Section 3 is known as the Border Peer Model. This architecture
is a variant of the Augmented Model described in [RFC3945]. The is a variant of the Augmented Model described in [RFC3945]. The
remainder of this document presents an overview of this architecture. remainder of this document presents an overview of this architecture.
In the Augmented Model, routing information from the lower layer In the Augmented Model, routing information from the lower layer
(server) network is filtered at the interface to the higher layer (server) network is filtered at the interface to the higher layer
(client) network and a subset of the information is distributed (client) network and a subset of the information is distributed
within the higher layer network. within the higher layer network.
draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-reqts-04 January 2008
In the Border Peer Model, the interface between the client and server In the Border Peer Model, the interface between the client and server
networks is the Border Router. This router has visibility of the networks is the Border Router. This router has visibility of the
routing information in the server network yet also participates as a routing information in the server network yet also participates as a
peer in the client network. Thus the Border Router has full peer in the client network. Thus the Border Router has full
visibility into both networks. However, the Border Router does not visibility into both networks. However, the Border Router does not
distribute server routing information into the client network, nor distribute server routing information into the client network, nor
does it distribute client routing information into the server network. does it distribute client routing information into the server
network.
The Border Peer Model may also be contrasted with the Overlay Model The Border Peer Model may also be contrasted with the Overlay Model
[RFC3945]. In this model there is a protocol request/response [RFC3945]. In this model there is a protocol request/response
interface (the user network interface - UNI) between the client and interface (the user network interface - UNI) between the client and
server networks. [RFC4208] shows how this interface may be supported server networks. [RFC4208] shows how this interface may be supported
by GMPLS protocols operated between client edge and server edge by GMPLS protocols operated between client edge and server edge
routers while retaining the routing information within the server routers while retaining the routing information within the server
network. That is, in the Overlay Model there is no exchange of network. That is, in the Overlay Model there is no exchange of
routing or reachability information between client and server routing or reachability information between client and server
networks, and no network element has visibility into both client and networks, and no network element has visibility into both client and
skipping to change at page 9, line 33 skipping to change at page 10, line 4
discussion of Fast Reroute protection in Section 5.3. discussion of Fast Reroute protection in Section 5.3.
5.2 MPLS-TE Control Plane Connectivity 5.2 MPLS-TE Control Plane Connectivity
Control plane connectivity between MPLS-TE LSRs connected by a GMPLS Control plane connectivity between MPLS-TE LSRs connected by a GMPLS
island in the Border Peer Model MAY be provided by the control island in the Border Peer Model MAY be provided by the control
channels of the GMPLS network. If this is done, a tunneling mechanism channels of the GMPLS network. If this is done, a tunneling mechanism
(such as GRE [RFC2784]) SHOULD be used to ensure that MPLS-TE (such as GRE [RFC2784]) SHOULD be used to ensure that MPLS-TE
information is not consumed by the GMPLS LSRs. But care is required information is not consumed by the GMPLS LSRs. But care is required
to avoid swamping the control plane of the GMPLS network with MPLS-TE to avoid swamping the control plane of the GMPLS network with MPLS-TE
draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-reqts-04 January 2008
control plane (particularly routing) messages. control plane (particularly routing) messages.
In order to ensure scalability, control plane messages for the MPLS- In order to ensure scalability, control plane messages for the MPLS-
TE client network MAY be carried between Border Routers in a single TE client network MAY be carried between Border Routers in a single
hop MPLS-TE LSP routed through the data plane of the GMPLS server hop MPLS-TE LSP routed through the data plane of the GMPLS server
network. network.
5.3 Fast Reroute Protection 5.3 Fast Reroute Protection
If the GMPLS network is packet switching, Fast Reroute protection can If the GMPLS network is packet switching, Fast Reroute protection can
skipping to change at page 10, line 35 skipping to change at page 11, line 5
The Border Peer Model does not require the existing MPLS-TE client The Border Peer Model does not require the existing MPLS-TE client
network to be GMPLS aware and does not affect on the operation and network to be GMPLS aware and does not affect on the operation and
management of the existing MPLS-TE client network. Only border management of the existing MPLS-TE client network. Only border
routers need to be upgraded with the GMPLS functionality. In this routers need to be upgraded with the GMPLS functionality. In this
fashion, the Border Peer Model renders itself for incremental fashion, the Border Peer Model renders itself for incremental
deployment of the GMPLS server network, without requiring deployment of the GMPLS server network, without requiring
reconfiguration of existing areas/ASes, changing operation of IGP and reconfiguration of existing areas/ASes, changing operation of IGP and
BGP or software upgrade of the existing MPLS-TE client network. BGP or software upgrade of the existing MPLS-TE client network.
draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-reqts-04 January 2008
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
This requirements document makes no requests for IANA action. This requirements document makes no requests for IANA action.
[RFC Editor: please remove this section before publication.]
7. Acknowledgments 7. Acknowledgments
The author would like to express thanks to Raymond Zhang, Adrian The author would like to express thanks to Raymond Zhang, Adrian
Farrel, and Deborah Brungard for their helpful and useful comments Farrel, and Deborah Brungard for their helpful and useful comments
and feedback. and feedback.
8. References 8. References
8.1 Normative References 8.1 Normative References
skipping to change at page 11, line 15 skipping to change at page 11, line 34
[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.
[RFC3945] Mannie, E., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching [RFC3945] Mannie, E., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Architecture", RFC3945, October 2004. (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC3945, October 2004.
[RFC4090] Pan, P., Swallow, G. and A. Atlas, "Fast Reroute [RFC4090] Pan, P., Swallow, G. and A. Atlas, "Fast Reroute
Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090, May 2005. Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090, May 2005.
[RFC4201] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., and L. Berger, "Link Bundling in
MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4201, October 2005.
[RFC4206] Kompella, K., and Rekhter, Y., "Label Switched Paths (LSP) [RFC4206] Kompella, K., and Rekhter, Y., "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.
[RFC4208] Swallow, G., et al., "Generalized Multiprotocol Label [RFC4208] Swallow, G., et al., "Generalized Multiprotocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) User-Network Interface (UNI): Resource Switching (GMPLS) User-Network Interface (UNI): Resource
ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Support ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Support
for the Overlay Model", RFC 4208, October 2005. for the Overlay Model", RFC 4208, October 2005.
[STITCH] Ayyangar, A., Vasseur, JP. "Label Switched Path Stitching [STITCH] Ayyangar, A., Vasseur, JP. "Label Switched Path Stitching
with Generalized MPLS Traffic Engineering", draft-ietf- with Generalized MPLS Traffic Engineering", draft-ietf-
ccamp-lsp-stitching, work in progress. ccamp-lsp-stitching, work in progress.
8.2 Informative References 8.2 Informative References
[RFC2784] Farinacci, D., et al., "Generic Routing Encapsulation [RFC2784] Farinacci, D., et al., "Generic Routing Encapsulation
(GRE)", RFC 2784, March 2000. (GRE)", RFC 2784, March 2000.
[RFC4655] A. Farrel, JP. Vasseur and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006.
draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-reqts-04 January 2008
[RFC4736] Vasseur, JP., Ikejiri, Y., and Zhang, R., "Reoptimization [RFC4736] Vasseur, JP., Ikejiri, Y., and Zhang, R., "Reoptimization
of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering
(TE) loosely routed Label Switch Path (LSP)", RFC4736, (TE) loosely routed Label Switch Path (LSP)", RFC4736,
November 2006. November 2006.
[MIGRATE] Shiomoto, K., et al., "Framework for MPLS-TE to GMPLS [MIGRATE] Shiomoto, K., et al., "Framework for MPLS-TE to GMPLS
migration", draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-fmwk, migration", draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-fmwk,
work in progress. work in progress.
[MLN] Shiomoto, K., Papadimitriou, D., Le Roux, J.L., Vigoureux, M., [MLN] Shiomoto, K., Papadimitriou, D., Le Roux, J.L., Vigoureux,
Brungard, D., "Requirements for GMPLS-based multi-region and M., Brungard, D., "Requirements for GMPLS-based
multi-layer networks (MRN/MLN)", draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln- multi-region and multi-layer networks (MRN/MLN)",
reqs, work in progress. draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-reqs, work in progress.
[SECURITY] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks", [PCE-INTER-LAYER] Oki, E., Le Roux , J-L,. and Farrel, A., "Framework
draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework, work in for PCE-Based Inter-Layer MPLS and GMPLS Traffic
Engineering," draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-frwk, work in
progress. progress.
[SECURITY] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-
framework, work in progress.
9. Author's Address 9. Author's Address
Kenji Kumaki Kenji Kumaki
KDDI Corporation KDDI Corporation
Garden Air Tower Garden Air Tower
Iidabashi, Chiyoda-ku, Iidabashi, Chiyoda-ku,
Tokyo 102-8460, JAPAN Tokyo 102-8460, JAPAN
Email: ke-kumaki@kddi.com Email: ke-kumaki@kddi.com
10. Contributors' Addresses 10. Contributors' Addresses
Tomohiro Otani Tomohiro Otani
KDDI R&D Laboratories, Inc. KDDI R&D Laboratories, Inc.
2-1-15 Ohara Kamifukuoka Phone: +81-49-278-7357 2-1-15 Ohara Kamifukuoka
Saitama, 356-8502. Japan Email: otani@kddilabs.jp Saitama, 356-8502. Japan
Phone: +81-49-278-7357
Email: otani@kddilabs.jp
Shuichi Okamoto Shuichi Okamoto
NICT JGN II Tsukuba Reserach Center NICT JGN II Tsukuba Reserach Center
1-8-1, Otemachi Chiyoda-ku, Phone : +81-3-5200-2117 1-8-1, Otemachi Chiyoda-ku,
Tokyo, 100-0004, Japan E-mail :okamoto-s@nict.go.jp Tokyo, 100-0004, Japan
Phone: +81-3-5200-2117
Email: okamoto-s@nict.go.jp
draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-reqts-04 January 2008
Kazuhiro Fujihara Kazuhiro Fujihara
NTT Communications Corporation NTT Communications Corporation
Tokyo Opera City Tower 3-20-2 Nishi Shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku Tokyo Opera City Tower 3-20-2 Nishi Shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku
Tokyo 163-1421, Japan Tokyo 163-1421, Japan EMail: kazuhiro.fujihara@ntt.com
EMail: kazuhiro.fujihara@ntt.com
Yuichi Ikejiri Yuichi Ikejiri
NTT Communications Corporation NTT Communications Corporation
Tokyo Opera City Tower 3-20-2 Nishi Shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku Tokyo Opera City Tower 3-20-2 Nishi Shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku
Tokyo 163-1421, Japan Tokyo 163-1421, Japan EMail: y.ikejiri@ntt.com
EMail: y.ikejiri@ntt.com
11. Intellectual Property Statement 11. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein 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 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
12. Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
skipping to change at page 13, line 10 skipping to change at line 655
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr. http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org. ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein 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 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY
RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
 End of changes. 30 change blocks. 
54 lines changed or deleted 124 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.34. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/