One document matched: draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext-04.txt
Differences from draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext-03.txt
Network Working Group E. Oki
Internet Draft UEC Tokyo
Category: Standards Track Tomonori Takeda
Created: July 2010 NTT
Expires: January 2011 J-L Le Roux
France Telecom
A. Farrel
Old Dog Consulting
Extensions to the Path Computation Element communication Protocol
(PCEP) for Inter-Layer MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering
draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext-04.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.
Abstract
The Path Computation Element (PCE) provides path computation
functions in support of traffic engineering in Multiprotocol Label
Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks.
MPLS and GMPLS networks may be constructed from layered service
networks. It is advantageous for overall network efficiency to
provide end-to-end traffic engineering across multiple network
layers through a process called inter-layer traffic engineering.
PCE is a candidate solution for such requirements.
The PCE communication Protocol (PCEP) is designed as a
communication protocol between Path Computation Clients (PCCs) and
Oki, Takeda, Le Roux, and Farrel [Page 1]
PCEP Extensions for Inter-Layer TE July 2010
PCEs. This document presents PCEP extensions for inter-layer
traffic engineering.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction.................................................2
2. Overview of PCE-Based Inter-Layer Path Computation...........3
3. Protocol Extensions..........................................4
3.1. INTER-LAYER Object........................................4
3.2. SWITCH-LAYER Object.......................................6
3.3. REQ-ADAP-CAP Object.......................................8
3.4. New Metric Type...........................................9
4. Procedure....................................................9
4.1. Path Computation Request..................................9
4.2. Path Computation Reply...................................10
5. Updated Format of PCEP Messages.............................10
6. Manageability Considerations................................11
7. IANA Considerations.........................................12
7.1. New PCEP Objects.........................................12
7.2. New Registry for INTER-LAYER Object Flags................12
7.3. METRIC Type..............................................13
8. Security Considerations.....................................13
9. Acknowledgments.............................................13
10. References.................................................13
10.1. Normative Reference......................................13
10.2. Informative Reference....................................14
11. Authors' Addresses.........................................14
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].
1. Introduction
The Path Computation Element (PCE) defined in [RFC4655] is an
entity that is capable of computing a network path or route based
on a network graph, and applying computational constraints. A Path
Computation Client (PCC) may make requests to a PCE for paths to be
computed.
A network may comprise multiple layers. These layers may represent
separations of technologies (e.g., packet switch capable (PSC),
Oki, Takeda, Le Roux, and Farrel [Page 2]
PCEP Extensions for Inter-Layer TE July 2010
time division multiplex (TDM), lambda switch capable (LSC))
[RFC3945], separation of data plane switching granularity levels
(e.g., PSC-1 and PSC-2, or VC4 and VC12) [RFC5212], or a
distinction between client and server networking roles (e.g.,
commercial or administrative separation of client and server
networks). In this multi-layer network, Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
in lower layers are used to carry higher-layer LSPs. The network
topology formed by lower-layer LSPs and advertised as traffic
engineering links (TE links) in the higher layer is called a
Virtual Network Topology (VNT) [RFC5212].
It is important to optimize network resource utilization globally,
i.e., taking into account all layers, rather than optimizing
resource utilization at each layer independently. This allows
better network efficiency to be achieved. This is what we call
inter-layer traffic engineering. This includes mechanisms allowing
the computation of end-to-end paths across layers (known as inter-
layer path computation), and mechanisms for control and management
of the VNT by setting up and releasing LSPs in the lower layers
[RFC5212].
PCE can provide a suitable mechanism for resolving inter-layer path
computation issues. The framework for applying the PCE-based path
computation architecture to inter-layer traffic engineering is
described in [RFC5623].
The PCE communication protocol (PCEP) is designed as a
communication protocol between PCCs and PCEs and is defined in
[RFC5440]. A set of requirements for PCEP extensions to support
inter-layer traffic engineering is described in [PCE-INTER-LAYER-
REQ].
This document presents PCEP extensions for inter-layer traffic
engineering that satisfy the requirements described in [PCE-INTER-
LAYER-REQ].
2. Overview of PCE-Based Inter-Layer Path Computation
[RFC4206] defines a way to signal a higher-layer LSP which has an
explicit route that includes hops traversed by LSPs in lower layers.
The computation of end-to-end paths across layers is called Inter-
Layer Path Computation.
A Label Switching Router (LSR) in the higher-layer might not have
information on the lower-layer topology, particularly in an overlay
or augmented model [RFC3945], and hence may not be able to compute
an end-to-end path across layers.
Oki, Takeda, Le Roux, and Farrel [Page 3]
PCEP Extensions for Inter-Layer TE July 2010
PCE-based inter-layer path computation consists of using one or
more PCEs to compute an end-to-end path across layers. This could
be achieved by relying on a single PCE that has topology
information about multiple layers and can directly compute an end-
to-end path across layers considering the topology of all of the
layers. Alternatively, the inter-layer path computation could be
performed using multiple cooperating PCEs where each PCE has
information about the topology of one or more layers (but not all
layers) and where the PCEs collaborate to compute an end-to-end
path.
[RFC5623] describes models for inter-layer path computation in more
detail.
3. Protocol Extensions
This section describes PCEP extensions for inter-layer path
computation. Three new objects are defined: the INTER-LAYER object,
the SWITCH-LAYER object, and the REQ-ADAP-CAP object. Also, a new
metric type is defined.
3.1. INTER-LAYER Object
The INTER-LAYER object is optional and can be used in PCReq and
PCRep messages.
In a PCReq message, the INTER-LAYER object indicates whether inter-
layer path computation is allowed, the type of path to be computed,
and whether triggered signaling (hierarchical LSPs per [RFC4206] or
stitched LSPs per [RFC5150] depending on physical network
technologies) is allowed. When the INTER-LAYER object is absent
from a PCReq message, the receiving PCE MUST process as though
inter-layer path computation had been explicitly disallowed (I-bit
set to zero - see below).
In a PCRep message, the INTER-LAYER object indicates whether inter-
layer path computation has been performed, the type of path that
has been computed, and whether triggered signaling is used.
When a PCReq message includes more than one request, an INTER-LAYER
object is used per request. When a PCRep message includes more than
one path per request that is responded to, an INTER-LAYER object is
used per path.
INTER-LAYER Object-Class is to be assigned by IANA (recommended
value=18)
Oki, Takeda, Le Roux, and Farrel [Page 4]
PCEP Extensions for Inter-Layer TE July 2010
INTER-LAYER Object-Type is to be assigned by IANA (recommended
value=1)
The format of the INTER-LAYER object body is as follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved |T|M|I|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
I flag (1 bit): The I flag is used by a PCC in a PCReq message to
indicate to a PCE whether an inter-layer path is allowed. When the
I flag is set (one), the PCE MAY perform inter-layer path
computation and return an inter-layer path. When the flag is clear
(zero), the path that is returned MUST NOT be an inter-layer path.
The I flag is used by a PCE in a PCRep message to indicate to a PCC
whether the path returned is an inter-layer path. When the I flag
is set (one), the path is an inter-layer path. When it is clear
(zero), the path is contained within a single layer either because
inter-layer path computation was not performed or because a mono-
layer path (without any virtual TE link and without any loose hop
that spans the lower-layer network) was found notwithstanding the
use of inter-layer path computation.
M flag (1 bit): The M flag is used by a PCC in a PCReq message to
indicate to a PCE whether mono-layer path or multi-layer path is
requested. When the M flag is set (one), multi-layer path is
requested. When it is clear (zero), mono-layer path is requested.
The M flag is used by a PCE in a PCRep message to indicate to a PCC
whether mono-layer path or multi-layer path is returned. When M
flag is set (one), multi-layer path is returned. When M flag is set
(zero), mono-layer path is returned.
If the I flag is clear (zero), the M flag has no meaning and MUST
be ignored.
[PCE-INTER-LAYER-REQ] describes two sub-options for mono-layer path.
- A mono-layer path that is specified by strict hops. The path may
include virtual TE links.
- A mono-layer path that includes loose hops that span the lower-
layer network.
Oki, Takeda, Le Roux, and Farrel [Page 5]
PCEP Extensions for Inter-Layer TE July 2010
The choice of this sub-option can be specified by the use of O flag
in the RP object specified in [RFC5440].
T flag (1 bit): The T flag is used by a PCC in a PCReq message to
indicate to a PCE whether triggered signaling is allowed. When the
T flag is set (one), triggered signaling is allowed. When it is
clear (zero), triggered signaling is not allowed.
The T flag is used by a PCE in a PCRep message to indicate to a PCC
whether triggered signaling is required to support the returned
path. When the T flag is set (one), triggered signaling is required.
When it is clear (zero), triggered signaling is not required.
Note that triggered signaling is used to support hierarchical
[RFC4206] or stitched [RFC5150] LSPs according to the physical
attributes of the network layers.
If the I flag is clear (zero), the T flag has no meaning and MUST
be ignored.
Note that the I flag and M flag differ in the following ways.
- When the I flag is clear (zero), virtual TE links must not be
used in path computation. In addition, loose hops that span the
lower-layer network must not be specified. Only regular TE links
from the same layer may be used.
- When the I flag is set (one), the M flag is clear (zero), and the
T flag is set (one), virtual TE links are allowed in path
computation. In addition, when the O flag of the RP object is set,
loose hops that span the lower-layer network may be specified. This
will initiate lower-layer LSP setup, thus inter-layer path is setup
even though the path computation result from a PCE to a PCC include
hops from the same layer only.
- However, when the I flag is set (one), the M flag is clear (zero),
and the T flag is clear (zero), since triggered signaling is not
allowed, virtual TE links must not be used in path computation. In
addition, loose hops that span the lower-layer network must not be
specified. Therefore, this is equivalent to the I flag being clear
(zero).
Reserved bits of the INTER-LAYER object SHOULD be transmitted as
zero and SHOULD be ignored on receipt. A PCE that forwards a path
computation request to other PCEs SHOULD preserve the settings of
reserved bits in the PCReq messages it sends and in the PCRep
messages it forwards to PCCs.
3.2. SWITCH-LAYER Object
Oki, Takeda, Le Roux, and Farrel [Page 6]
PCEP Extensions for Inter-Layer TE July 2010
The SWITCH-LAYER object is optional on a PCReq message and
specifies switching layers in which a path MUST, or MUST NOT, be
established. A switching layer is expressed as a switching type and
encoding type. The SWITCH-LAYER object MUST NOT be used on a PCReq
unless an INTER-LAYER object is also present on the PCReq message.
The SWITCH-LAYER object is optional on a PCRep message, where it is
used with the NO-PATH object in the case of unsuccessful path
computation to indicate the set of constraints that could not be
satisfied.
SWITCH-LAYER Object-Class is to be assigned by IANA (recommended
value=19)
SWITCH-LAYER Object-Type is to be assigned by IANA (recommended
value=1)
The format of the SWITCH-LAYER object body is as follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LSP Enc. Type |Switching Type | Reserved |I|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| . |
// . //
| . |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LSP Enc. Type |Switching Type | Reserved |I|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Each row indicates a switching type and encoding type that must or
must not be used for specified layer(s) in the computed path.
The format is based on [RFC3471], and has equivalent semantics.
LSP Encoding Type (8 bits): see [RFC3471] for a description of
parameters.
Switching Type (8 bits): see [RFC3471] for a description of
parameters.
I flag (1 bit): the I flag indicates whether a layer with the
specified switching type and encoding type must or must not be used
by the computed path. When the I flag is set (one), the computed
path MUST traverse a layer with the specified switching type and
encoding type. When the I flag is clear (zero), the computed path
Oki, Takeda, Le Roux, and Farrel [Page 7]
PCEP Extensions for Inter-Layer TE July 2010
MUST NOT enter or traverse any layer with the specified switching
type and encoding type.
When a combination of switching type and encoding type is not
included in SWITCH-LAYER object, the computed path MAY traverse a
layer with that combination of switching type and encoding type.
A PCC may want to specify only a Switching Type and not an LSP
Encoding Type. In this case, the LSP Encoding Type is set to zero.
3.3. REQ-ADAP-CAP Object
The REQ-ADAP-CAP object is optional and is used to specify a
requested adaptation capability for both ends of the lower layer
LSP. The REQ-ADAP-CAP object is used in a PCReq message for inter-
PCE communication, where the PCE that is responsible for computing
higher layer paths acts as a PCC to request a path computation from
a PCE that is responsible for computing lower layer paths.
The REQ-ADAP-CAP object is used in a PCRep message in case of
unsuccessful path computation (in this case, the PCRep message also
contains a NO-PATH object, and the REQ-ADAP-CAP object is used to
indicate the set of constraints that could not be satisfied).
The REQ-ADAP-CAP object MAY be used in a PCReq message in a mono-
layer network to specify a requested adaptation capability for both
ends of the LSP. In this case, it MAY be carried without INTER-
LAYER Object.
REQ-ADAP-CAP Object-Class is to be assigned by IANA (recommended
value=20)
REQ-ADAP-CAP Object-Type is to be assigned by IANA (recommended
value=1)
The format of the REQ-ADAP-CAP object body is as follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Switching Cap | Encoding | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The format is based on [MLN-SOL] and has equivalent semantics.
Switching Capability (8 bits): see [RFC4203] for a description of
parameters.
Oki, Takeda, Le Roux, and Farrel [Page 8]
PCEP Extensions for Inter-Layer TE July 2010
Encoding (8 bits): see [RFC3471] for a description of parameters.
A PCC may want to specify a Switching Capability, but not an
Encoding. In this case, the Encoding MUST be set zero.
3.4. New Metric Type
A new metric type is defined for the METRIC object in PCEP.
Type 11 (suggested value, to be assigned by IANA): Number of
adaptations on a path.
4. Procedure
4.1. Path Computation Request
A PCC requests or allows inter-layer path computation in a PCReq
message by including the INTER-LAYER object with the I flag set.
The INTER-LAYER object indicates whether inter-layer path
computation is allowed, which path type is requested, and whether
triggered signaling is allowed.
The SWITCH-LAYER object, which MUST NOT be present unless the
INTER-LAYER object is also present, is optionally used to specify
the switching types and encoding types that define layers that must,
or must not, be used in the computed path. When the SWITCH-LAYER
object is used with the INTER-LAYER object I flag clear (zero),
inter-layer path computation is not allowed, but constraints
specified in the SWITCH-LAYER object apply. Example usage includes
path computation in a single layer GMPLS network.
The REQ-ADAP-CAP object is optionally used to specify the interface
switching capability of both ends of the lower layer LSP. The REQ-
ADAP-CAP object is used in inter-PCE communication, where the PCE
that is responsible for computing higher layer paths makes a
request as a PCC to a PCE that is responsible for computing lower
layer paths. Alternatively, the REQ-ADAP-CAP object may be used in
the NMS-VNTM model, where the VNTM makes a request as a PCC to a
PCE that is responsible for computing lower-layer paths.
The METRIC object is optionally used to specify metric types to be
optimized or bounded. When metric type 11 (TBC by IANA) is used, it
indicates that path computation MUST minimize or bound the number
of adaptations on a path.
Furthermore, in order to allow different objective functions to be
applied within different network layers, multiple OF objects MAY be
present. In such a case, the first OF object specifies an objective
Oki, Takeda, Le Roux, and Farrel [Page 9]
PCEP Extensions for Inter-Layer TE July 2010
function for the higher-layer network, and subsequent OF objects
specify objection functions of the subsequent lower-layer networks.
4.2. Path Computation Reply
In the case of successful path computation, the requested PCE
replies to the requesting PCC for the inter-layer path computation
result in a PCRep message that MAY include the INTER-LAYER object.
When the INTER-LAYER object is included in a PCRep message, the I
flag, M flag, and T flag indicate semantics of the path as
described in Section 3.1. Furthermore, when the C flag of the
METRIC object in a PCReq is set, the METRIC object MUST be included
in the PCRep to provide the computed metric value, as specified in
[RFC5440].
In the case of unsuccessful path computation, the PCRep message
also contains a NO-PATH object, and the SWITCH-TYPE object and/or
the REQ-ADAP-CAP MAY be used to indicate the set of constraints
that could not be satisfied.
5. Updated Format of PCEP Messages
Message formats in this section, as those in [RFC5440] are
presented using Backus-Naur Format as specified in [RFC5511].
The format of the PCReq message is updated as follows:
<PCReq Message>::= <Common Header>
[<SVEC-list>]
<request-list>
where:
<svec-list>::=<SVEC>
[<svec-list>]
<request-list>::=<request>[<request-list>]
<request>::= <RP>
<END-POINTS>
[<of-list>]
[<LSPA>]
[<BANDWIDTH>]
[<metric-list>]
[<RRO>[<BANDWIDTH>]]
[<IRO>]
Oki, Takeda, Le Roux, and Farrel [Page 10]
PCEP Extensions for Inter-Layer TE July 2010
[<LOAD-BALANCING>]
[<INTER-LAYER> [<SWITCH-LAYER>]]
[<REQ-ADAP-CAP>]
where:
<of-list>::=<OF>[<of-list>]
<metric-list>::=<METRIC>[<metric-list>]
The format of the PCRep message is updated as follows:
<PCRep Message> ::= <Common Header>
<response-list>
where:
<response-list>::=<response>[<response-list>]
<response>::=<RP>
[<NO-PATH>]
[<attribute-list>]
[<path-list>]
<path-list>::=<path>[<path-list>]
<path>::= <ERO><attribute-list>
where:
<attribute-list>::=[<of-list>]
[<LSPA>]
[<BANDWIDTH>]
[<metric-list>]
[<IRO>]
[<INTER-LAYER>]
[<SWITCH-LAYER>]
[<REQ-ADAP-CAP>]
<of-list>::=<OF>[<of-list>]
<metric-list>::=<METRIC>[<metric-list>]
6. Manageability Considerations
TBD
Manageability of inter-layer traffic engineering with PCE must
Oki, Takeda, Le Roux, and Farrel [Page 11]
PCEP Extensions for Inter-Layer TE July 2010
address the following consideration for section 5.1.
- need for a MIB module for control and monitoring
- need for built-in diagnostic tools
- configuration implication for the protocol
7. IANA Considerations
7.1. New PCEP Objects
Three new objects: the INTER-LAYER object, the SWITCH-LAYER object,
and the REQ-ADAP-CAP object.
INTER-LAYER Object-Class is to be assigned by IANA (recommended
value=18)
INTER-LAYER Object-Type is to be assigned by IANA (recommended
value=1)
SWITCH-LAYER Object-Class is to be assigned by IANA (recommended
value=19)
SWITCH-LAYER Object-Type is to be assigned by IANA (recommended
value=1)
REQ-ADAP-CAP Object-Class is to be assigned by IANA (recommended
value=20)
REQ-ADAP-CAP Object-Type is to be assigned by IANA (recommended
value=1)
7.2. New Registry for INTER-LAYER Object Flags
IANA is requested to create a registry to manage the Flag field of
the INTER-Layer object.
New bit numbers may be allocated only by an IETF Consensus action.
Each bit should be tracked with the following qualities:
o Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit)
o Capability Description
o Defining RFC
Several bits are defined for the INTER-LAYER object flag fields in
this document. The following values have been assigned:
Oki, Takeda, Le Roux, and Farrel [Page 12]
PCEP Extensions for Inter-Layer TE July 2010
Bit Number Description Reference
29 T flag this document
30 M flag this document
31 I flag this document
7.3. METRIC Type
A new metric type is defined in this document for the METRIC object
(specified in [RFC5440]). The IANA is requested to make the
following allocation (suggested value):
- Type 11 : Number of adaptations on a path
8. Security Considerations
TBD
Inter-layer traffic engineering with PCE may raise new security
issues when PCE-PCE communication is done between different layer
networks for inter-layer path computation. Security issues may also
exist when a single PCE is granted full visibility of TE
information that applies to multiple layers.
It is expected that solutions for inter-layer protocol extensions
will address these issues in detail using security techniques such
as authentication.
9. Acknowledgments
10. References
10.1. Normative Reference
[RFC2119] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to indicate
requirements levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3471] L. Burger, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 3471, January 2003.
[RFC3945] E. Mannie, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004.
[RFC4203] K. Kompella and Y. Rekhter, "OSPF Extensions in Support
of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)",
RFC 4203, October 2005.
Oki, Takeda, Le Roux, and Farrel [Page 13]
PCEP Extensions for Inter-Layer TE July 2010
[RFC4206] K. Kompella, and Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths (LSP)
Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206, October 2005.
[RFC5440] JP. Vasseur et al, "Path Computation Element (PCE)
Communication Protocol (PCEP)" RFC 5440, March 2009.
[PCE-INTER-LAYER-REQ] E. Oki et al., "PCC-PCE Communication
Requirements for Inter-Layer Traffic Engineering", draft-
ietf-pce-inter-layer-req, work in progress.
[RFC5623] E. Oki et al., "Framework for PCE-Based
Inter-Layer MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering",
September 2009.
10.2. Informative Reference
[RFC4655] A. Farrel, JP. Vasseur and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, September
2006.
[RFC5212] K. Shiomoto et al., "Requirements for GMPLS-based multi-
region and multi-layer networks (MRN/MLN)", RFC 5212,
July 2008.
[MLN-SOL] D. Papadimitriou et al., " Generalized Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (GMPLS) Protocol Extensions for Multi-
Layer and Multi-Region Networks (MLN/MRN)", draft-ietf-
ccamp-gmpls-mln-extensions, work in progress.
[RFC5150] A. Ayyangar et al., "Label Switched Path Stitching
with Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic
Engineering (GMPLS TE)", RFC 5150, February 2008.
[RFC5511] Farrel, A., "Reduced Backus-Naur Form (RBNF) A Syntax
Used in Various Protocol Specifications", April 2009.
11. Authors' Addresses
Eiji Oki
University of Electro-Communications
Tokyo
Japan
Email: oki@ice.uec.ac.jp
Tomonori Takeda
NTT
Oki, Takeda, Le Roux, and Farrel [Page 14]
PCEP Extensions for Inter-Layer TE July 2010
3-9-11 Midori-cho,
Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180-8585, Japan
Email: takeda.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp
Jean-Louis Le Roux
France Telecom R&D,
Av Pierre Marzin,
22300 Lannion, France
Email: jeanlouis.leroux@orange-ftgroup.com
Adrian Farrel
Old Dog Consulting
Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (c) 2010 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Oki, Takeda, Le Roux, and Farrel [Page 15]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 18:43:56 |