One document matched: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas-02.txt
Differences from draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas-01.txt
CCAMP Working Group G. Bernstein (ed.)
Internet Draft Grotto Networking
Updates: RFC 3946 D. Caviglia
Category: Standards Track Ericsson
Expires: September 2007 R. Rabbat
Google
H. van Helvoort
Huawei
March 30, 2007
Operating Virtual Concatenation (VCAT) and the Link Capacity
Adjustment Scheme (LCAS) with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS)
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas-02.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that
any 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 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of
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 September 30, 2007.
Abstract
This document describes requirements for, and use of, the Generalized
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) control plane in conjunction
Bernstein Expires September 30, 2007 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Operating VCAT and LCAS with GMPLS March 2007
with the Virtual Concatenation (VCAT) layer 1 inverse multiplexing
mechanism and its companion Link Capacity Adjustment Scheme (LCAS)
which can be used for hitless dynamic resizing of the inverse
multiplex group. These techniques apply to the Optical Transport
Network (OTN), Synchronous Optical Network (SONET), Synchronous
Digital Hierarchy (SDH), and Plesiochronous Digital Hierarchy (PDH)
signals.
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 RFC-2119 [RFC2119].
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................3
2. Revision History...............................................3
2.1. Changes from draft-ieft-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas-01..........3
2.2. Changes from draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas-00..........4
3. VCAT/LCAS Scenarios and Specific Requirements..................4
3.1. VCAT/LCAS Interface Capabilities..........................4
3.2. Member Signal Configuration Scenarios.....................4
3.3. VCAT Operation With or Without LCAS.......................5
4. GMPLS Mechanisms in Support of VCGs............................6
4.1. VCGs Composed of a Single Co-Signaled Member Set..........7
4.1.1. One-shot VCG Setup with Co-Signaled Members..........7
4.1.2. Incremental VCG Setup with Co-Signaled Members.......7
4.1.3. Procedure for VCG Reduction by Removing a Member.....8
4.1.4. Removing Multiple VCG Members in One Shot............8
4.1.5. Teardown of Whole VCG................................9
4.2. VCGs Composed of Multiple Co-Signaled Member Sets.........9
4.2.1. Signaled VCG Layer Information.......................9
4.2.2. Procedures for VCG Control with Multiple Co-signaled
Member Sets................................................10
4.3. Member Sharing -- Multiple VCGs per Call.................11
5. IANA Considerations...........................................12
6. Security Considerations.......................................12
7. Contributors..................................................13
8. Acknowledgments...............................................13
9. References....................................................14
9.1. Normative References.....................................14
9.2. Informative References...................................14
Author's Addresses...............................................15
Intellectual Property Statement..................................15
Disclaimer of Validity...........................................16
Bernstein Expires September 30, 2007 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Operating VCAT and LCAS with GMPLS March 2007
Copyright Statement..............................................16
Acknowledgment...................................................16
1. Introduction
The Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) suite of
protocols allows the automated control of different switching
technologies including SONET/SDH and OTN. This document describes
extensions to RSVP-TE to support the Virtual Concatenation (VCAT)
layer 1 inverse multiplexing mechanism that has been standardized for
SONET, SDH, OTN and PDH technologies along with its companion Link
Capacity Adjustment Scheme (LCAS).
VCAT is a TDM oriented byte striping inverse multiplexing method that
works with a wide range of existing and emerging TDM framed signals,
including very high bit rate OTN and SDH/SONET signals. Other than
member signal skew compensation layer 1 inverse multiplexing
mechanism add minimal additional signal delay. VCAT permits the
selection of an optimal signals size, extracting bandwidth from mesh
networks and when combined with LCAS hitless dynamic resizing of
bandwidth and fast graceful degradation in the presence of network
faults. To take full advantage of VCAT/LCAS functionality extensions
to GMPLS signaling are given that enable the setup of diversely
routed circuits that are members of the same VCAT group.
2. Revision History
2.1. Changes from draft-ieft-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas-01
o Changed section 3.1 from "Multiple VCAT Groups per GMPLS endpoint"
to "Multiple VCAT Groups per Interface" to improve clarity.
o Changed terminology from "component" signal to "member" signal
where possible (not quoted text) to avoid confusion with link
bundle components.
o Added "Dynamic, member sharing" scenario.
o Clarified requirements with respect to scenarios and the LCAS and
non-LCAS cases.
o Added text describing needed signaling information between the
VCAT endpoints to support required scenarios.
o Added text to describe: co-signaled, co-routed, data plane LSP,
control plane LSP and their relationship to the VCAT/LCAS
application.
Bernstein Expires September 30, 2007 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Operating VCAT and LCAS with GMPLS March 2007
o Change implementation mechanism from one based on the Association
object to one based on "Call concepts" utilizing the Notify
message.
2.2. Changes from draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas-00
o Updated reference from RFC3946bis to issued RFC4606
o Updated section 3.2 based on discussions on the mailing list
3. VCAT/LCAS Scenarios and Specific Requirements
There are a number of specific requirements for the support of
VCAT/LCAS in GMPLS that can be derived from the carriers'
application-specific demands for the use of VCAT/LCAS and from the
flexible nature of VCAT/LCAS. These are set out in the following
section.
3.1. VCAT/LCAS Interface Capabilities
In general, an LSR can be ingress/egress of one or more VCAT groups.
VCAT and LCAS are interface capabilities. An LSR may have, for
example, VCAT-capable interfaces that are not LCAS-capable. It may
at the same time have interfaces that are neither VCAT nor LCAS-
capable.
3.2. Member Signal Configuration Scenarios
We list in this section the different scenarios. Here we use the
term "VCG" to refer to the entire VCAT group and the terminology
"set" and "subset" to refer to the collection of potential VCAT group
member signals.
o Fixed, co-routed: A fixed bandwidth VCG, transported over a co-
routed set of member signals. This is the case where the intended
bandwidth of the VCG does not change and all member signals follow
the same route and minimize differential delay. The intent here
is the capability to allocate an amount of bandwidth close to that
required at the client layer.
o Fixed, diversely routed: A fixed bandwidth VCG, transported over
at least two diversely routed subsets of member signals. In this
case, the subsets are link-disjoint over at least one link of the
route. The intent here is more efficient use of network resources
(no unique route has the required bandwidth).
Bernstein Expires September 30, 2007 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Operating VCAT and LCAS with GMPLS March 2007
o Fixed, member sharing: A fixed bandwidth VCG, transported over a
set of member signals that are allocated from a common pool of
available member signals without requiring member connection
teardown and setup.
o Dynamic, co-routed: A dynamic VCG (bandwidth can be increased or
decreased via the addition or removal of member signals),
transported over a co-routed set of members. The intent here is
dynamic resizing and resilience of bandwidth.
o Dynamic, diversely routed: A dynamic VCG (bandwidth can be
increased or decreased via the addition or removal of member
signals), transported over at least two diversely routed subsets
of member signals. The intent here is efficient use of network
resources, dynamic resizing and resilience of bandwidth.
o Dynamic, member sharing: A dynamic bandwidth VCG, transported over
a set of member signals that are allocated from a common pool of
available member signals without requiring member connection
teardown and setup.
3.3. VCAT Operation With or Without LCAS
VCAT capabilities may be present with or without the presence of
LCAS. The use of LCAS is beneficial to the provision of services,
but in the absence of LCAS, VCAT is still a valid technique.
Therefore GMPLS mechanisms for the operation of VCAT are REQUIRED for
both the case where LCAS is available and the case where it is not
available. The GMPLS procedures for the two cases SHOULD be
identical.
o GMPLS signaling for LCAS-capable interfaces MUST support all
scenarios of section 3.2. with no loss of traffic.
o GMPLS signaling for non-LCAS-capable interfaces MUST support only
the "fixed" scenarios of section 3.2.
To provide for these requirements GMPLS signaling MUST carry the
following information on behalf of the VCAT endpoints:
o The type of the member signal that the VCG will contain, e.g., VC-
3, VC-4, etc.
Bernstein Expires September 30, 2007 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Operating VCAT and LCAS with GMPLS March 2007
o The total number of member to be in the VCG. This provides the
endpoints in both the LCAS and non-LCAS case with information on
which to accept or reject the request, and in the non-LCAS case
will let the receiving endpoint know when all members of the VCG
have been established.
o Identification of the VCG and its associated members. This
provides information that allows the endpoints to differentiate
multiple VCGs and to tell what members (LSPs) to associate with a
particular VCG.
4. GMPLS Mechanisms in Support of VCGs
We describe in this section the signaling mechanisms that already
exist in GMPLS using RSVP-TE [RFC3473] and the extensions needed to
completely support the requirements of section 3.
When utilizing GMPLS with VCAT/LCAS we utilize a number of control
and data plane concepts that we describe below.
1. VCG member -- This is an individual data plane signal of one of the
permitted SDH, SONET, OTN or PDH signal types.
2. Co-signaled member set -- One or more VCG members (or potential
members) set up via the same control plane signaling exchange. Note
that all members in a co-signaled set follow the same route.
3. Co-routed member set - One or more VCG members that follow the same
route. Although VCG members may follow the same path, this does not
imply that they we co-signaled.
4. Data plane LSP -- for our purposes here this is equivalent to an
individual VCG member.
5. Control plane LSP -- A control plane entity that can control
multiple data plane LSPs. For our purposes here this is equivalent
to our co-signaled member set.
Section 4.1 is included for informational purposes only. It
describes existing GMPLS procedures that support a single VCG
composed of a single co-signaled member set.
Section 4.2 describes new procedures to support VCGs composed of more
that one co-signaled member sets. This includes the important
application of a VCG composed of diversely routed members. Where
possible it reuses applicable existing procedures from section 4.1.
Bernstein Expires September 30, 2007 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Operating VCAT and LCAS with GMPLS March 2007
4.1. VCGs Composed of a Single Co-Signaled Member Set
Note that this section is for informational purposes only.
The existing signaling GMPLS signaling protocols support a VCG
composed of a single co-signaled member set. Setup using the NVC
field as explained in section 2.1 of [RFC4606]. In this case, one
single control plane LSP is used in support of the VCG.
There are two options for setting up the VCG, depending on hardware
capability, or management preferences: one-shot setup and incremental
setup.
The following sections explain the procedure based on an example of
setting up a VC-4-7v SDH VCAT group (corresponding to an STS-3c-7v
SONET VCAT group).
4.1.1. One-shot VCG Setup with Co-Signaled Members
An RSVP-TE Path message is used with the following parameters.
With regards to the traffic parameters, the elementary signal is
chosen (6 for VC-4/STS-3c_SPE). The value of NVC is then set to 7.
A Multiplier Transform greater than 1 (say N>1) is used if the
operator wants to set up N VCAT groups that will belong to, and be
assigned to, one LSP.
SDH or SONET labels in turn have to be assigned for each member of
the VCG and concatenated to form a single Generalized Label
constructed as an ordered list of 32-bit timeslot identifiers of the
same format as TDM labels. [RFC4606] requires that the order of the
labels reflect the order of the payloads to concatenate, and not the
physical order of time-slots.
4.1.2. Incremental VCG Setup with Co-Signaled Members
In some cases, it may be necessary or desirable to set up the VCG
members individually, or to add group members to an existing group.
One example of this need is when the hardware that supports VCAT can
only add VCAT elements one at a time or cannot automatically match
the elements at the ingress and egress for the purposes of inverse
multiplexing. Serial or incremental setup solves this problem.
In order to accomplish incremental setup an iterative process is used
to add group members. For each iteration, NVC is incremented up to
Bernstein Expires September 30, 2007 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Operating VCAT and LCAS with GMPLS March 2007
the final value required. The iteration consists of the successful
completion of Path and Resv signaling. At first, NVC = 1 and the
label includes just one timeslot identifier
At each of the next iterations, NVC is set to (NVC +1), one more
timeslot identifier is added to the ordered list in the Generalized
Label (in the Path or Resv message). A node that receives a Path
message that contains changed fields will process the full Path
message and, based on the new value of NVC, it will add a component
signal to the VCAT group, and switch the new timeslot based on the
new label information.
Following the addition of the new label to the LSP, LCAS may be used
in-band to add the new label into the existing VCAT group. LCAS
signaling for this function is described in [ITU-T-G.7042].
4.1.3. Procedure for VCG Reduction by Removing a Member
A VCG member can be permanently removed from the VCG either as the
result of a management command or following a temporary removal (due
to a failure).
The procedure to remove a component signal is similar to that used to
add components as described in Section 4.1.2. The LCAS in-band
signaling step is taken first to take the component out of service
from the group. LCAS signaling is described in [ITU-T-G.7042].
In this case, the NVC value is decremented by 1 and the timeslot
identifier for the dropped component is removed from the ordered list
in the Generalized Label.
Note that for interfaces that are not LCAS-capable, removing one
component of the VCG will result in errors in the inverse-
multiplexing procedure of VCAT and result in the teardown of the
whole group. So, this is a feature that only LCAS-capable VCAT
interfaces can support without management intervention at the end
points.
4.1.4. Removing Multiple VCG Members in One Shot
The procedure is similar to 4.1.3. In this case, the NVC value is
changed to the new value and all relevant timeslot identifiers for
the components to be torn down are removed from the ordered list in
the Generalized Label. This procedure is also not supported for
VCAT-only interfaces without management intervention as removing one
or more components of the VCG will tear down the whole group.
Bernstein Expires September 30, 2007 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Operating VCAT and LCAS with GMPLS March 2007
4.1.5. Teardown of Whole VCG
The entire LSP is deleted in a single step (i.e., all components are
removed in one go) using deletion procedures of [RFC3473].
4.2. VCGs Composed of Multiple Co-Signaled Member Sets
The motivation for VCGs composed of multiple co-signaled member sets
comes from the requirement to support VCGs with diversely routed
members. The initial GMPLS specification did not support diversely
routed signals using the NVC construct. In fact, [RFC4606] says:
[...] The standard definition for virtual concatenation allows
each virtual concatenation components to travel over diverse
paths. Within GMPLS, virtual concatenation components must
travel over the same (component) link if they are part of the
same LSP. This is due to the way that labels are bound to a
(component) link. Note however, that the routing of components
on different paths is indeed equivalent to establishing
different LSPs, each one having its own route. Several LSPs
can be initiated and terminated between the same nodes and
their corresponding components can then be associated together
(i.e., virtually concatenated).
The setup of diversely routed VCG members requires multiple co-
signaled VCG member sets, i.e., multiple control plane LSPs.
To support a VCG with multiple co-signaled VCG members sets requires
being able to identify separate control plane LSPs with a single VCG
and exchange information pertaining to the VCG as a whole. This is
very similar to the "Call" concept described in [CallDraft]. We can
think of our VCAT/LCAS connection, e.g., our VCG, as a higher layer
service that makes use of multiple lower layer (server) connections
that are controlled by one or more control plane LSPs.
4.2.1. Signaled VCG Layer Information
When a VCG is composed of multiple co-signaled member sets, none of
the control plane LSP's signaling information can contain information
pertinent to the entire VCG. In this section we give a list of
information that should be communicated at what we define as the VCG
Call layer, i.e., between the VCG signaling endpoints. To
accommodate this information additional objects or TLVs would need to
be incorporated into the Notify message as it is described for use in
call signaling in [CallDraft].
Bernstein Expires September 30, 2007 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Operating VCAT and LCAS with GMPLS March 2007
VCG Call setup information signaled via the Notify message with the
Call management bit (C-bit) set:
1. Signal Type
2. Number of VCG Members
3. LCAS requirements:
a. LCAS required
b. LCAS desired
c. LCAS not desired (but acceptable)
d. LCAS not acceptable
4. Maximum Number of VCGs per Call-- This is a hook to support the
member sharing scenario. In the non-member sharing case the
value is one.
4.2.2. Procedures for VCG Control with Multiple Co-signaled Member Sets
This section deals only with the case of one VCG per (VCG) Call. To
establish a VCG, the information of section 4.2.1. is exchanged and
agreed upon with the corresponding VCG signaling endpoint. Since only
one VCG is being signaled by this call, all control plane LSPs used
with this call establish members for this VCG and there is no
ambiguity as to which VCG a potential member belongs. Procedures for
addition and removal of bandwidth are the same as the single co-
signaled case except that a VCG Call layer message should precede any
of those changes and indicate the new total number of VCG members.
In general the following order is used to establish and increase the
bandwidth in a VCG:
1. VCG Call layer information is conveyed. Note that during a
"bandwidth" change only the total number of VCG members is
allowed to change.
2. Control Plane LSPs are used to add data plane LSPs (members) to
the VCG.
3. If LCAS is supported on this VCG call it should be instructed by
the endpoints to "activate" the member.
Bernstein Expires September 30, 2007 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Operating VCAT and LCAS with GMPLS March 2007
In general the following order is used when decreasing the bandwidth
in a VCG:
1. VCG Call layer information is conveyed concerning the decreased
number of VCG members.
2. If LCAS is supported on this VCG call it should be instructed by
the endpoints to "deactivate" the members to be removed.
3. Existing control plane LSPs are used to remove the data plane
LSPs (members).
Note that when LCAS is not used or unavailable the VCG will be in an
unknown state between the time the VCG call level information is
updated and the actual data plane LSPs are added or removed.
4.3. Member Sharing -- Multiple VCGs per Call
To support the member sharing scenario of section 3.2. we allow
multiple VCGs within the context of the VCG Call defined here. This
is partially due to the requirement in reference [CallDraft] that
LSPs are associated with a single call over their lifetime. Hence we
propose using the VCG Call mechanism previously described to
establish the common member pool for all the VCGs to be included in
the scope of this particular VCG Call. Note that the maximum number
of VCGs per call is a key parameter to call acceptance or rejection
since VCAT equipment typically puts limits on the total number of
VCGs that can be simultaneously supported.
To assign a data plane LSP to be a member of a particular VCG or to
remove a data plane LSP from being a member of a particular VCG,
requires additional VCG layer communications. LCAS [ITU-T-G.7042]
cannot provide such signaling since it does not to provide a way to
indicate which VCG out of multiple between a source and destination a
member should belong. In particular, although, it seems that LCAS'
Group Identification (GID) bit should be useful for this purpose
reference [ITU-T-G.7042] specifically states:
"The GID provides the receiver with a means of
verifying that all the arriving members originated
from one transmitter. The contents are pseudo-
random, but the receiver is not required to
synchronize with the incoming stream."
Bernstein Expires September 30, 2007 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Operating VCAT and LCAS with GMPLS March 2007
In the following we sketch the outline of such a high level VCG layer
signaling procedure that could make use of the Notify message as in
reference [CallDraft].
After the VCG call has been established, a signaling endpoint of the
VCG call for would then:
1. Choose an identifier for each VCG that will use member signals
from the common pool. Note that these identifiers only need to
be unique with in the context of the VCG Call.
2. Assign member signals from the common pool to each of the VCG
utilizing the previously defined VCG IDs. Member signals are
identified by their tunnel id, LSP id, and label ordinal (labels
for control plane LSPs with multiple members are strictly
ordered so we can specify an individual signal from its label
order). Similarly for removing a member signal from a VCG and
returning it to the common pool.
3. Coordinate with LCAS in that a member signal is first added to a
VCG from the pool before LCAS is notified to "activate" that
signal in the VCG. Similarly LCAS is notified to "deactivate" a
member signal prior to removing it from the VCG and returning it
to the pool.
4. Note that before any LSPs or members of an LSP can be removed
from the (overall) VCG Call, the originator must ensure that
signals have been removed from any of the VCGs. This is the
situation where the entire pool size is lowered.
The exact objects and formats to carry this information is to be
determined. Once again the Notify mechanism would be appropriate
since this is information to be transferred between the VCG Call
endpoints and is not relevant to the intermediate switches.
5. IANA Considerations
This document requests from IANA the assignment of ... (Don't know
yet what we may want)
6. Security Considerations
This document introduces a specific use of the Notify message and
admin status object for GMPLS signaling as originally specified in
[CallDraft]. It does not introduce any new signaling messages, nor
change the relationship between LSRs that are adjacent in the control
plane. The call information associated with diversely routed control
Bernstein Expires September 30, 2007 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Operating VCAT and LCAS with GMPLS March 2007
plane LSPs, in the event of an interception may indicate that there
are members of the same VCAT group that take a different route and
may indicate to an interceptor that the VCG call desires increased
reliability.
Otherwise, this document does not introduce any additional security
considerations.
7. Contributors
Wataru Imajuku (NTT)
1-1 Hikari-no-oka Yokosuka Kanagawa 239-0847
Japan
Phone +81-46-859-4315
Email: imajuku.wataru@lab.ntt.co.jp
Julien Meuric
France Telecom
2, avenue Pierre Marzin
22307 Lannion Cedex
France
Phone: + 33 2 96 05 28 28
Email: julien.meuric@orange-ft.com
Lyndon Ong
Ciena
PO Box 308
Cupertino, CA 95015
United States of America
Phone: +1 408 705 2978
Email: lyong@ciena.com
8. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Maarten Vissers,
Trevor Wilson, Evelyne Roch, Vijay Pandian, Fred Gruman, Dan Li,
Stephen Shew, Jonathan Saddler and Dieter Beller for extensive
reviews and contributions to this draft.
Bernstein Expires September 30, 2007 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Operating VCAT and LCAS with GMPLS March 2007
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions",
RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC4606] Mannie, E. and D. Papadimitriou, "Generalized Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for
Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous
Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control", RFC 4606, December
2005.
[CallDraft] D. Papadimitriou and A. Farrel, "Generalized MPLS
(GMPLS) RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions in support of
Calls", draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-call-04.txt,
January, 2007.
9.2. Informative References
[ANSI-T1.105] American National Standards Institute, "Synchronous
Optical Network (SONET) - Basic Description including
Multiplex Structure, Rates, and Formats", ANSI T1.105-
2001, May 2001.
[ITU-T-G.7042] International Telecommunications Union, "Link Capacity
Adjustment Scheme (LCAS) for Virtual Concatenated
Signals", ITU-T Recommendation G.7042, March 2006.
[ITU-T-G.7043] International Telecommunications Union, "Virtual
Concatenation of Plesiochronous Digital Hierarchy
(PDH) Signals", ITU-T Recommendation G.7043, July
2004.
[ITU-T-G.707] International Telecommunications Union, "Network Node
Interface for the Synchronous Digital Hierarchy
(SDH)", ITU-T Recommendation G.707, December 2003.
[ITU-T-G.709] International Telecommunications Union, "Interfaces
for the Optical Transport Network (OTN)", ITU-T
Recommendation G.709, March 2003.
Bernstein Expires September 30, 2007 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Operating VCAT and LCAS with GMPLS March 2007
Author's Addresses
Greg Bernstein
Grotto Networking
Phone: +1-510-573-2237
Email: gregb@grotto-networking.com
Diego Caviglia
Ericsson
Via A. Negrone 1/A 16153
Genoa Italy
Phone: +39 010 600 3736
Email: diego.caviglia@(marconi.com, ericsson.com)
Richard Rabbat
Google
Email: richard.rabbat@gmail.com
Huub van Helvoort
Huawei Technologies, Ltd.
Kolkgriend 38, 1356 BC Almere
The Netherlands
Phone: +31 36 5315076
Email: hhelvoort@huawei.com
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF 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
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
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR 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
Bernstein Expires September 30, 2007 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Operating VCAT and LCAS with GMPLS March 2007
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
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-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.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Bernstein Expires September 30, 2007 [Page 16]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 01:23:17 |