One document matched: draft-jacquenet-bgp-qos-00.txt
Network Working Group G. Cristallo
Internet Draft Alcatel
Document: draft-jacquenet-bgp-qos-00.txt C. Jacquenet
Category: Experimental France Telecom
Expires August 2004 February 2004
The BGP QOS_NLRI Attribute
<draft-jacquenet-bgp-qos-00.txt>
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026 [1].
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.
NOTE: a PDF version of this document (which includes the figures
mentioned in section 7) can be accessed at http://www.mescal.org.
Abstract
This draft specifies an additional BGP4 (Border Gateway Protocol,
version 4) attribute, named the "QOS_NLRI" attribute, which aims at
propagating QoS (Quality of Service)-related information associated
to the NLRI (Network Layer Reachability Information) information
conveyed in a BGP UPDATE message.
Table of Contents
1. Conventions Used in this Document..........................2
2. Introduction...............................................2
3. Basic Requirements.........................................3
4. The QOS_NLRI Attribute (Type Code tbd*)....................3
5. Operation..................................................7
6. Use of Capabilities Advertisement with BGP-4...............8
7. Simulation Results.........................................8
Jacquenet Experimental - Expires August 2004 [Page 1]
Internet Draft The QOS_NLRI Attribute February 2004
7.1. A Phased Approach..........................................8
7.2. A Case Study..............................................10
7.3. Additional Results........................................11
7.4. Next Steps................................................12
8. IANA Considerations.......................................12
9. Security Considerations...................................12
10. References................................................13
11. Acknowledgments...........................................13
12. Authors' Addresses........................................14
13. Full Copyright Statement..................................14
1. 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 [2].
2. Introduction
Providing end-to-end quality of service is one of the most important
challenges of the Internet, not only because of the massive
development of value-added IP service offerings, but also because of
the various QoS policies that are currently enforced within an
autonomous system, and which may well differ from one AS (Autonomous
System) to another.
For the last decade, value-added IP service offerings have been
deployed over the Internet, thus yielding a dramatic development of
the specification effort, as far as quality of service in IP networks
is concerned. Nevertheless, providing end-to-end quality of service
across administrative domains still remains an issue, mainly because:
- QoS policies may dramatically differ from one service provider to
another,
- The enforcement of a specific QoS policy may also differ from one
domain to another, although the definition of a set of common
quality of service indicators may be shared between the service
providers.
Activate the BGP4 protocol ([3]) for exchanging reachability
information between autonomous systems has been a must for many
years. Therefore, disseminating QoS information coupled with
reachability information in a given BGP UPDATE message appears to be
helpful in enforcing an end-to-end QoS policy.
This draft aims at specifying a new BGP4 attribute, the QOS_NLRI
attribute, which will convey QoS-related information associated to
the routes described in the corresponding NLRI field of the
attribute.
Jacquenet Experimental - Expires August 2004 [Page 2]
Internet Draft The QOS_NLRI Attribute February 2004
This document is organized according to the following sections:
- Section 3 describes the basic requirements that motivate the
approach,
- Section 4 describes the attribute,
- Section 5 elaborates on the mode of operation,
- Section 6 elaborates on the use of the capabilities advertisement
feature of the BGP4 protocol,
- Section 7 depicts the results of a simulation work,
- Finally, sections 8 and 9 introduce IANA and some security
considerations, respectively.
3. Basic Requirements
The choice of using the BGP4 protocol for exchanging QoS information
between domains is not only motivated by the fact BGP is currently
the only inter-domain (routing) protocol activated in the Internet,
but also because the manipulation of attributes is a powerful means
for service providers to disseminate QoS information with the desired
level of precision.
The approach presented in this draft has identified the following
requirements:
- Keep the approach scalable. The scalability of the approach can be
defined in many ways that include the convergence time taken by the
BGP peers to reach a consistent view of the network connectivity,
the number of route entries that will have to be maintained by a
BGP peer, the dynamics of the route announcement mechanism (e.g.,
how frequently and under which conditions should an UPDATE message
containing QoS information be sent?), etc.
- Keep the BGP4 protocol operation unchanged. The introduction of a
new attribute should not affect the way the protocol operates, but
the information contained in this attribute may very well influence
the BGP route selection process.
- Allow for a smooth migration. The use of a specific BGP attribute
to convey QoS information should not constrain network operators to
migrate the whole installed base at once, but rather help them in
gradually deploying the QoS information processing capability.
4. The QOS_NLRI Attribute (Type Code tbd*)
(*): "tbd" is subject to the IANA considerations section of this
draft.
Jacquenet Experimental - Expires August 2004 [Page 3]
Internet Draft The QOS_NLRI Attribute February 2004
The QOS_NLRI attribute is an optional transitive attribute that can
be used:
1. To advertise a QoS route to a peer. A QoS route is a route that
meets one or a set of QoS requirement(s) to reach a given (set of)
destination prefixes. Such QoS requirements can be expressed in
terms of minimum one-way delay ([4]) to reach a destination, the
experienced delay variation for IP datagrams that are destined to
a given destination prefix ([5]), the loss rate experienced along
the path to reach a destination, and/or the identification of the
traffic that is expected to use this specific route
(identification means for such traffic include DSCP (DiffServ Code
Point, [6]) marking). These QoS requirements can be used as an
input for the BGP route calculation process,
2. To provide QoS-related information along with the NLRI information
in a single BGP UPDATE message. It is assumed that this
information will be related to the route (or set of routes)
described in the NLRI field of the attribute.
From a service provider's perspective, the choice of defining the
QOS_NLRI attribute as an optional transitive attribute is motivated
by the fact that this kind of attribute allows for gradual deployment
of the dissemination of QoS-related information by BGP4: not all the
BGP peers are supposed to be updated accordingly, while partial
deployment of such QoS extensions can already provide an added value,
e.g. in the case where a service provider manages multiple domains,
and/or has deployed a BGP confederation ([7]).
This draft makes no specific assumption about the means to actually
value this attribute, since this is mostly a matter of
implementation, but the reader is suggested to have a look on
document [8], as an example of a means to feed the BGP peer with the
appropriate information. The QOS_NLRI attribute is encoded as
follows:
+---------------------------------------------------------+
| QoS Information Code (1 octet) |
+---------------------------------------------------------+
| QoS Information Sub-code (1 octet) |
+---------------------------------------------------------+
| QoS Information Value (2 octets) |
+---------------------------------------------------------+
| QoS Information Origin (1 octet) |
+---------------------------------------------------------+
| Address Family Identifier (2 octets) |
+---------------------------------------------------------+
| Subsequent Address Family Identifier (1 octet) |
+---------------------------------------------------------+
| Network Address of Next Hop (4 octets) |
+---------------------------------------------------------+
| Flags (1 octet) |
Jacquenet Experimental - Expires August 2004 [Page 4]
Internet Draft The QOS_NLRI Attribute February 2004
+---------------------------------------------------------+
| Identifier (2 octets) |
+---------------------------------------------------------+
| Length (1 octet) |
+---------------------------------------------------------+
| Prefix (variable) |
+---------------------------------------------------------+
The use and meaning of the fields of the QOS_NLRI attribute are
defined as follows:
- QoS Information Code:
This field carries the type of the QOS information. The following
types have been identified so far:
(0) Reserved
(1) Packet rate, i.e. the number of IP datagrams that can be
transmitted (or have been lost) per unit of time, this number
being characterized by the elaboration provided in the QoS
Information Sub-code (see below)
(2) One-way delay metric
(3) Inter-packet delay variation
(4) PHB Identifier
- QoS Information Sub-Code:
This field carries the sub-type of the QoS information. The
following sub-types have been identified so far:
(0) None (i.e. no sub-type, or sub-type unavailable, or unknown sub-
type)
(1) Reserved rate
(2) Available rate
(3) Loss rate
(4) Minimum one-way delay
(5) Maximum one-way delay
(6) Average one-way delay
The instantiation of this sub-code field MUST be compatible with the
value conveyed in the QoS Information code field, as stated in the
following table (the rows represent the QoS Information Code possible
values, the columns represent the QoS Information Sub-code values
identified so far, while the "X" sign indicates incompatibility).
Jacquenet Experimental - Expires August 2004 [Page 5]
Internet Draft The QOS_NLRI Attribute February 2004
+---------------------------------------+
| | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
+---------------------------------------+
| 0 | | | | | | | |
+---------------------------------------+
| 1 | | | | | X | X | X |
+---------------------------------------+
| 2 | | X | X | X | | | |
+---------------------------------------+
| 3 | | X | X | X | X | X | X |
+---------------------------------------+
| 4 | | X | X | X | X | X | X |
+---------------------------------------+
- QoS Information Value:
This field indicates the value of the QoS information. The
corresponding units obviously depend on the instantiation of the
QoS Information Code. Namely, if:
(a) QoS Information Code field is "0", no unit specified,
(b) QoS Information Code field is "1", unit is kilobits per second
(kbps), and the rate encoding rule is composed of a 3-bit
exponent (with an assumed base of 8) followed by a 13-bit
mantissa, as depicted in the figure below:
0 8 16
| | |
-----------------
|Exp| Mantissa |
-----------------
This encoding scheme advertises a numeric value that is (2^16 -1
- exponential encoding of the considered rate), as depicted in
[9].
(c) QoS Information Code field is "2", unit is milliseconds,
(d) QoS Information Code field is "3", unit is milliseconds,
(e) QoS Information Code field is "4", no unit specified.
- QoS Information Origin:
This field provides indication on the origin of the path
information, as defined in section 4.3.of [3].
- Address Family Identifier (AFI):
This field carries the identity of the Network Layer protocol
associated with the Network Address that follows. Currently
defined values for this field are specified in [10] (see the
Address Family Numbers section of this reference document).
Jacquenet Experimental - Expires August 2004 [Page 6]
Internet Draft The QOS_NLRI Attribute February 2004
- Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI):
This field provides additional information about the type of the
prefix carried in the QOS_NLRI attribute.
- Network Address of Next Hop:
This field contains the IPv4 Network Address of the next router
on the path to the destination prefix, (reasonably) assuming that
such routers can at least be addressed according to the IPv4
formalism.
- Flags, Identifier, Length and Prefix fields:
These four fields actually compose the NLRI field of the QOS_NLRI
attribute, and their respective meanings are as defined in
section 2.2.2 of [11].
5. Operation
When advertising a QOS_NLRI attribute to an external peer, a router
may use one of its own interface addresses in the next hop component
of the attribute, given the external peer to which one or several
route(s) is (are) being advertised shares a common subnet with the
next hop address. This is known as a "first party" next hop
information.
A BGP speaker can advertise to an external peer an interface of any
internal peer router in the next hop component, provided the external
peer to which the route is being advertised shares a common subnet
with the next hop address. This is known as a "third party" next hop
information.
A BGP speaker that sends an UPDATE message with the QOS_NLRI
attribute has the ability to advertise multiple QoS routes, since the
Identifier field of the attribute is part of the NLRI description. In
particular, the same prefix can be advertised more than once without
subsequent advertisements that would replace previous announcements.
Since the resolution of the NEXT_HOP address that is always conveyed
in a BGP UPDATE message is left to the responsibility of the IGP that
has been activated within the domain, the best path according to the
BGP route selection process depicted in [3] SHOULD also be
advertised. As long as the routers on the path towards the address
depicted in the NEXT_HOP attribute of the message have the additional
paths depicted in the QOS_NLRI attribute, the propagation of QoS
routes within a domain where all the routers are QOS_NLRI aware
should not yield inconsistent routing.
A BGP UPDATE message that carries the QOS_NLRI MUST also carry the
ORIGIN and the AS_PATH attributes (both in eBGP and in iBGP
exchanges). Moreover, in iBGP exchanges such a message MUST also
Jacquenet Experimental - Expires August 2004 [Page 7]
Internet Draft The QOS_NLRI Attribute February 2004
carry the LOCAL_PREF attribute. If such a message is received from an
external peer, the local system shall check whether the leftmost AS
in the AS_PATH attribute is equal to the autonomous system number of
the peer than sent the message. If that is not the case, the local
system shall send the NOTIFICATION message with Error Code UPDATE
Message Error, and the Error Sub-code set to Malformed AS_PATH.
Finally, an UPDATE message that carries no NLRI, other than the one
encoded in the QOS_NLRI attribute, should not carry the NEXT_HOP
attribute. If such a message contains the NEXT_HOP attribute, the BGP
speaker that receives the message should ignore this attribute.
6. Use of Capabilities Advertisement with BGP-4
A BGP speaker that uses the QOS_NLRI attribute SHOULD use the
Capabilities Advertisement procedures, as defined in [12], so that it
might be able to determine if it can use such an attribute with a
particular peer.
The fields in the Capabilities Optional Parameter are defined as
follows:
- The Capability Code field is set to N (127 < N < 256, when
considering the "Private Use" range, as specified in [13]), while
the Capability Length field is set to "1".
- The Capability Value field is a one-octet field, which contains
the Type Code of the QOS_NLRI attribute, as defined in the
introduction of section 5 of the present draft.
In addition, the multiple path advertisement capability MUST be
supported, as defined in section 2.1 of [4].
7. Simulation Results
7.1. A Phased Approach
The simulation work basically aims at qualifying the scalability of
the usage of the QOS_NLRI attribute for propagating QoS-related
information across domains.
This effort also focused on the impact on the stability of the BGP
routes, by defining a set of basic engineering rules for the
introduction of additional QoS information, as well as design
considerations for the computation and the selection of "QoS routes".
This ongoing development effort is organized into a step-by-step
approach, which consists in the following phases:
1. Model an IP network composed of several autonomous systems.
Since this simulation effort is primarily focused on the
Jacquenet Experimental - Expires August 2004 [Page 8]
Internet Draft The QOS_NLRI Attribute February 2004
qualification of the scalability related to the use of the
QOS_NLRI attribute for exchanging QoS-related information
between domains, it has been decided that the internal
architecture of such domains should be kept very simple, i.e.
without any specific IGP interaction,
2. Within this IP network, there are BGP peers that are QOS_NLRI
aware, i.e. they have the ability to process the information
conveyed in the attribute, while the other routers are not: the
latter do not recognize the QOS_NLRI attribute by definition,
and they will forward the information to other peers, by setting
the Partial bit in the attribute, meaning that the information
conveyed in the message is incomplete. This approach contributes
to the qualification of a progressive deployment of QOS_NLRI-
aware BGP peers,
3. As far as QOS_NLRI aware BGP peers are concerned, they will
process the information contained in the QOS_NLRI attribute to
possibly influence the route decision process, thus yielding the
selection (and the announcement) of distinct routes towards a
same destination prefix, depending on the QoS-related
information conveyed in the QOS_NLRI attribute,
4. Modify the BGP route decision process: at this stage of the
simulation, the modified decision process relies upon the one-
way delay information (which corresponds to the QoS Information
Code field of the attribute valued at "2"), and it also takes
into account the value of the Partial bit of the attribute.
Once the creation of these components of the IP network has been
completed (together with the modification of the BGP route selection
process), the behavior of a QOS_NLRI-capable BGP peer is as follows.
Upon receipt of a BGP UPDATE message that contains the QOS_NLRI
attribute, the router will first check if the corresponding route is
already stored in its local RIB, according to the value of the one-
way delay information contained in both QoS Information Code and Sub-
code fields of the attribute.
If not, the BGP peer will install the route in its local RIB.
Otherwise (i.e. an equivalent route already exists in its database),
the BGP peer will select the best of both routes according to the
following criteria:
- If both routes are said to be either incomplete (Partial bit has
been set) or complete (Partial bit is unset), the route with the
lowest delay will be selected,
- Otherwise, a route with the Partial bit unset is always preferred
over any other route, even if this route reflects a higher transit
delay.
Jacquenet Experimental - Expires August 2004 [Page 9]
Internet Draft The QOS_NLRI Attribute February 2004
If ever both Partial bit and transit delay information are not
sufficient to make a decision, the standard BGP decision process
(according to the breaking ties mechanism depicted in [3]) is
performed.
7.2. A Case Study
REMINDER: a PDF version of this document (which includes the figures
mentioned in this section) can be accessed at http://www.mescal.org.
As stated in the previous section 7.1, the current status of the
simulation work basically relies upon the one-way transit delay
information only, as well as the complete/incomplete indication of
the Partial bit conveyed in the QOS_NLRI attribute.
The following figures depict the actual processing of the QoS-related
information conveyed in the QOS_NLRI attribute, depending on whether
the peer is QOS_NRLI-aware or not.
[Fig. 1: A Case Study.]
Figure 1 depicts the IP network that has been modelled, while figure
2 depicts the propagation of a BGP UPDATE message that contains the
QOS_NLRI attribute, in the case where the contents of the attribute
are changed, because of complete/incomplete conditions depicted by
the Partial bit of the QOS_NLRI attribute.
[Fig. 2: Propagation of One-way Delay Information via BGP4.]
Router S in figure 2 is a QOS_NRLI-capable speaker. It takes 20
milliseconds for node S to reach network 192.0.20.0: this information
will be conveyed in a QOS_NLRI attribute that will be sent by node S
in a BGP UPDATE message with the Partial bit of the QOS_NLRI
attribute unset.
Router A is another QOS_NLRI BGP peer, and it takes 3 milliseconds
for A to reach router S. Node A will update the QoS-related
information of a QOS_NLRI attribute, indicating that, to reach
network 192.0.20.0, it takes 23 milliseconds. Router A will install
this new route in its database, and will propagate the corresponding
UPDATE message to its peers.
On the other hand, router B is not capable of processing the
information conveyed in the QOS_NLRI attribute, and it will therefore
set the Partial bit of the QOS_NLRI attribute in the corresponding
UPDATE message, leaving the one-way delay information detailed in
both QoS Information Code and Sub-code unchanged.
Upon receipt of the UPDATE message sent by router A, router E will
update the one-way delay information since it is a QOS_NRLI-capable
peer. Finally, router D receives the UPDATE message, and selects a
Jacquenet Experimental - Expires August 2004 [Page 10]
Internet Draft The QOS_NLRI Attribute February 2004
route with a 40 milliseconds one-way delay to reach network
192.0.20.0, as depicted in figure 3.
[Fig. 3: Selecting QoS Routes Across Domains.]
This simulation result shows that the selection of a delay-inferred
route over a BGP route may not yield an optimal decision. In the
above example, the 40 ms-route goes through routers D-E-A-S, while a
"truly optimal" BGP route would be through routers D-E-F-A-S, hence a
38 ms-route. This is because of a BGP4 rule that does not allow
router F to send an UPDATE message towards router E, because router F
received the UPDATE message from router A thanks to the iBGP
connection it has established with A.
7.3. Additional Results
The following table reflects the results obtained from a simulation
network composed of 9 autonomous systems and 20 BGP peers. The
numbers contained in the columns reflect the percentage of serviced
requirements, where the requirements are expressed in terms of delay.
Three parameters have been taken into account:
- The percentage of BGP peers that have the ability to process the
information conveyed in the QOS_NLRI attribute (denoted as "x% Q-
BGP" in the following table),
- The transit delays "observed" (and artificially simulated) on each
transmission link: the higher the delays, the lower the percentage
of serviced QoS requirements,
- The QoS requirements themselves, expressed in terms of delay: as
such, the strongest requirements (i.e. the lowest delays) have less
chance to be satisfied.
+-------------------------------------------+
| Delay | 0% Q-BGP | 50% Q-BGP | 100% Q-BGP |
+-------------------------------------------+
| 3 | 11 | 8,3 | 11 |
+-------------------------------------------+
| 5 | 30,5 | 30,5 | 36,1 |
+-------------------------------------------+
| 6 | 40 | 47,2 | 55,5 |
+-------------------------------------------+
| 7 | 47 | 59,7 | 72,2 |
+-------------------------------------------+
| 8 | 62,5 | 79 | 91,6 |
+-------------------------------------------+
| 9 | 63 | 84,7 | 97,2 |
+-------------------------------------------+
| 10 | 70,8 | 90,2 | 98,6 |
+-------------------------------------------+
Jacquenet Experimental - Expires August 2004 [Page 11]
Internet Draft The QOS_NLRI Attribute February 2004
| 11 | 76,3 | 93 | 98,6 |
+-------------------------------------------+
| 12 | 86,1 | 97,2 | 100 |
+-------------------------------------------+
| 13 | 88,8 | 98,6 | 100 |
+-------------------------------------------+
| 14 | 94,4 | 100 | 100 |
+-------------------------------------------+
| 15 | 94,4 | 100 | 100 |
+-------------------------------------------+
| 16 | 94,4 | 100 | 100 |
+-------------------------------------------+
| 17 | 97,2 | 100 | 100 |
+-------------------------------------------+
| 18 | 98,6 | 100 | 100 |
+-------------------------------------------+
| 19 | 98,6 | 100 | 100 |
+-------------------------------------------+
| 20 | 98,6 | 100 | 100 |
+-------------------------------------------+
| 21 | 98,6 | 100 | 100 |
+-------------------------------------------+
| 22 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
+-------------------------------------------+
This table clearly demonstrates the technical feasibility of the
approach, and how the use of the QOS_NLRI attribute can improve the
percentage of serviced QoS requirements.
7.4. Next Steps
This simulation effort is currently pursued in order to better
qualify the interest of using the BGP4 protocol to convey QoS-related
information between domains, from a scalability perspective, i.e. the
growth of BGP traffic vs. the stability of the network.
The stability of the IP network is probably one of the most important
aspects, since QoS-related information is subject to very dynamic
changes, thus yielding non-negligible risks of flapping.
8. IANA Considerations
Section 4 of this draft documents an optional transitive BGP-4
attribute named "QOS_NLRI" whose type value will be assigned by IANA.
Section 5 of this draft also documents a Capability Code whose value
should be assigned by IANA as well.
9. Security Considerations
This additional BGP-4 attribute specification does not change the
underlying security issues inherent in the existing BGP-4 protocol
specification [14].
Jacquenet Experimental - Expires August 2004 [Page 12]
Internet Draft The QOS_NLRI Attribute February 2004
10. References
[1] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP
9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[2] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[3] Rekhter, Y., Li T., "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC
1771, March 1995.
[4] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., "A One-Way-Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC
2679, September 1999.
[5] Demichelis, C., Chimento, P., "IP Packet Delay Variation Metric
for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393, November 2002.
[6] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., Black, D., "Definition of the
Differentiated Services Field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6
Headers", RFC 2474, December 1998.
[7] Traina, P., McPherson, D., Scudder, J., "Autonomous System
Confederations for BGP", RFC 3065, February 2001.
[8] Jacquenet, C., "A COPS Client-Type for Traffic Engineering",
draft-jacquenet-cops-te-00.txt, Work in Progress, February 2004.
[9] Apostolopoulos, G. et al, "QoS Routing Mechanisms and OSPF
Extensions", RFC 2676, August 1999.
[10] Reynolds, J., Postel, J., "ASSIGNED NUMBERS", RFC 1700, October
1994.
[11] Walton, D., et al., "Advertisement of Multiple Paths in BGP",
draft-walton-bgp-add-paths-01.txt, Work in Progress, November
2002.
[12] Chandra, R., Scudder, J., "Capabilities Advertisement with BGP-
4", RFC 3392, November 2002.
[13] Narten, T., Alvestrand, H., "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 2434, October 1998.
[14] Heffernan, A., "Protection of BGP sessions via the TCP MD5
Signature Option", RFC 2385, August 1998.
11. Acknowledgments
Part of this work is funded by the European Commission, within the
context of the MESCAL (Management of End-to-End Quality of Service
Across the Internet At Large, http://www.mescal.org) project, which
is itself part of the IST (Information Society Technologies) research
program.
The author would also like to thank all the partners of the MESCAL
project for the fruitful discussions that have been conducted within
the context of the traffic engineering specification effort of the
project, as well as O. Bonaventure and B. Carpenter for their
valuable input.
Jacquenet Experimental - Expires August 2004 [Page 13]
Internet Draft The QOS_NLRI Attribute February 2004
12. Authors' Addresses
Geoffrey Cristallo
Alcatel
Francis Wellesplein, 1
2018 Antwerp
Belgium
Phone: +32 (0)3 240 7890
E-Mail: geoffrey.cristallo@alcatel.be
Christian Jacquenet
France Telecom
3, avenue François Château
CS 36901
35069 Rennes Cedex
France
Phone: +33 2 99 87 63 31
Email: christian.jacquenet@francetelecom.com
13. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright(C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and
distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind,
provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.
Jacquenet Experimental - Exp. August 2004 [Page 14]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 07:17:28 |