One document matched: draft-jacquenet-ip-te-cops-04.txt
Differences from draft-jacquenet-ip-te-cops-03.txt
Network Working Group C. Jacquenet
Internet Draft France Telecom
Document: draft-jacquenet-ip-te-cops-04.txt January 2003
Category: Experimental
Expires July 2003
A COPS client-type for IP traffic engineering
<draft-jacquenet-ip-te-cops-04.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.
Abstract
This draft specifies a COPS (Common Open Policy Service) client-type
designed for the enforcement of IP Routing and Traffic Engineering
(TE) policies. The usage of this IP TE COPS client-type is based upon
the activation of the COPS protocol for policy provisioning purposes.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction................................................2
2. Changes since the previous version..........................3
3. Conventions used in this Document...........................3
4. Terminology Considerations..................................3
5. The generic model of an IP routing/TE policy
enforcement scheme........................................4
6. IP TE Client-Type Specific Information to be carried in
COPS Messages.............................................6
6.1. Client-Type Field of the Common Header of every COPS
Message...................................................7
6.2. COPS Message Content........................................7
6.2.1. Request Messages (REQ)......................................7
Jacquenet Experimental - Expires July 2003 [Page 1]
Internet Draft COPS Usage for IP Traffic Engineering January 2003
6.2.2. Decision Messages (DEC).....................................8
6.2.3. Report messages (RPT).......................................8
6.3. Backward Compatibility Issues...............................9
7. COPS-PR Usage of the IP TE Client-Type.....................10
8. IANA Considerations........................................11
9. Security Considerations....................................11
10. References.................................................11
11. Acknowledgments............................................12
12. Author's Address...........................................12
13. Full Copyright Statement...................................13
1. Introduction
The deployment of value-added IP services (such as quality-of-
service-based IP Virtual Private Networks) over the Internet has
become one of the most competing challenges for service providers, as
well as a complex technical issue, from a (dynamic) resource
provisioning perspective.
From this perspective, the COPS protocol ([2]) and its usage for the
support of Policy Provisioning ([3]) is one of the ongoing
specification efforts of the Resource Allocation Protocol (rap)
Working Group of the IETF that should help service providers by
introducing a high level of automation for the dynamic production of
a wide range of services and policies.
Such policies include routing and traffic engineering policies. Such
policies aim at appropriately provisioning, allocating/de-allocating,
and using the switching and the transmission resources of an IP
network (i.e. the routers and the links that connect these routers,
respectively), according to a set of constraints like Quality of
Service (QoS) requirements (e.g. rate, one-way delay, inter-packet
delay variation, etc.) that have been possibly negotiated between the
customers and the service providers, as well as routing metrics,
which can reflect the network conditions.
Within the context of this document, the actual enforcement of IP
routing and traffic engineering policies is primarily based upon the
activation of both intra- and inter-domain routing protocols (e.g.
[4], [5], not to mention the use of multicast routing protocols [6])
that will be activated in the network to appropriately select,
install, maintain and possibly withdraw routes that will comply with
the aforementioned QoS requirements and/or specific routing
constraints, depending on the type of traffic that will be conveyed
along these routes.
It is therefore necessary to provide the route selection processes
with the information that will depict the routing policies that are
to be enforced within a domain and, whenever appropriate, the
aforementioned constraints and metrics, given the dynamic routing
protocols actually support traffic engineering capabilities for the
calculation and the selection of such routes.
Jacquenet Experimental - Expires July 2003 [Page 2]
Internet Draft COPS Usage for IP Traffic Engineering January 2003
These capabilities are currently being specified in [7] and [8] for
the OSPF (Open Shortest Path First, [4]) and the IS-IS (Intermediate
System to Intermediate System routing protocol, [9]) interior routing
protocols respectively, while there is an equivalent specification
effort for the BGP4 (Border Gateway Protocol, version 4) protocol, as
described in [10], for example.
To provide the routers that will participate in the dynamic
enforcement of an IP routing and/or traffic engineering policy with
the appropriate configuration information (such as metrics' values),
one possibility is to use the COPS protocol and its usage for policy
provisioning. To do so, a new COPS client-type is specified, called
the "IP Traffic Engineering" (IP TE) client-type, and this
specification effort is the purpose of this draft.
This document is organized into the following sections:
- Section 4 introduces terminology as well as basic assumptions,
- Section 5 introduces the generic architecture,
- Section 6 defines the contents of the COPS messages that MUST
include the IP TE client-type specific information,
- Section 7 defines the usage of the IP TE client-type, including
its mode of operation with the PDP (Policy Decision Point, [11])
with whom a COPS communication has been established,
- Finally, sections 8 and 9 introduce IANA and some security
considerations, respectively.
2. Changes since the previous version
The current version of this draft reflects the following changes:
- Updated bibliography,
- Re-wording of sections 1 and 6, to reflect the support of any kind
of routing and/or traffic engineering policy more explicitly,
- Correction of remaining typos.
3. 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 [12].
4. Terminology Considerations
The enforcement of an IP routing/TE policy is based upon the
processing of configuration information that reflects the
characteristics of these policies (IGP metric values, BGP attributes'
values, QoS requirements and/or constraints, etc.).
Jacquenet Experimental - Expires July 2003 [Page 3]
Internet Draft COPS Usage for IP Traffic Engineering January 2003
This information is called the "QoS-related" information within the
context of this draft.
Then, this QoS-related information must be taken into account by the
routing processes that will participate in the calculation, the
selection, the installation and the maintenance of the routes that
will comply with the aforementioned requirements. The algorithms
invoked by the routing processes take into account the cost metrics
(whose corresponding values can possibly be inferred by a DSCP
(DiffServ Code Point, [13]) value) that have been assigned by the
network administrators.
This metric-related information is called the "IP TE"-related
information within the context of this draft.
Thus, this draft makes a distinction between QoS-related information
and IP TE-related information, where:
- QoS-related information is negotiated between customers and
service providers,
- IP TE-related configuration information is dynamically provided to
routers, and is exchanged between routers so that they can
compute, select, install, and maintain the (traffic-engineered)
routes accordingly.
From this perspective, QoS-related information provides information
on the traffic (both unicast and multicast) to be forwarded in the
network (such as source address, destination address, protocol
identification, DSCP marking, etc.), whereas IP TE-related
information provides information for the routing processes that will
indicate the routers of the network how to forward the aforementioned
traffic, i.e. compute and select the routes that will convey such
traffic.
Given these basic assumptions, this draft aims at specifying a COPS-
based IP-TE client-type that has the following characteristics:
- The IP-TE client-type is supported by the PEP (Policy Enforcement
Point) capability that allows a router to enforce a collection of
policies, thanks to a COPS communication that has been established
between the PEP and the PDP,
- The actual enforcement of an IP routing/TE policy is based upon
the TE-related configuration information that will be exchanged
between the PDP and the PEP, and that will be used by the router
for selecting, installing, maintaining and possibly withdrawing IP
TE routes.
5. The generic model of an IP routing/TE policy enforcement scheme
Jacquenet Experimental - Expires July 2003 [Page 4]
Internet Draft COPS Usage for IP Traffic Engineering January 2003
The use of the COPS protocol for dynamically enforcing an IP
routing/TE policy yields the generic model depicted in figure 1.
+----------------+
| |
| IP Router |
| |
| +-----+ | COPS-PR +-----+ +-----------+
| | PEP |<---|-------------->| PDP |<-->| IP TE PIB |
| +-----+ | +-----+ +-----------+
| | |
| | |
| +-----+ |
| | LPDP| |
| +-----+ |
| | |
| | |
| /-------\ |
| | | |
| +-----+ +-----+|
| | RIB |.| RIB ||
| +-----+ +-----+|
| | | |
| | | |
| \-------/ |
| | |
| +-----+ |
| | FIB | |
| +-----+ |
+----------------+
Figure 1: Generic model of an IP routing/TE policy enforcement
scheme.
As depicted in figure 1, the routers embed the following components:
- A PEP capability, which supports the IP TE client-type. The
support of the IP TE client-type is notified by the PEP to the
PDP, and is unique for the area covered by the IP routing/traffic
engineering policy, so that the PEP can treat all the COPS client-
types it supports as non-overlapping and independent namespaces,
- A Local Policy Decision Point (LPDP), which can be assimilated to
the routing processes that have been activated in the router. The
LPDP will therefore contribute to the computation and the
selection of the IP routes (see section 6 of this draft),
- Several instances of Routing Information Bases (RIB), according to
the different (unicast and multicast) routing processes that have
been activated - one can easily assume the activation of at least
one IGP (Interior Gateway Protocol, like OSPF) and BGP4,
Jacquenet Experimental - Expires July 2003 [Page 5]
Internet Draft COPS Usage for IP Traffic Engineering January 2003
- Conceptually one Forwarding Information Base (FIB), which will
store the routes that have been selected by the routing processes,
but this draft makes no assumption about the number of FIBs that
can be supported by a router (e.g. within the context of an IP VPN
(Virtual Private Network) service offering).
As suggested in [14], the enforcement of an IP routing/traffic
engineering policy is based upon the use of a policy server (the PDP
in the above figure) that sends IP TE-related information towards the
PEP capability embedded in the IP router.
The IP TE-related information is stored and maintained in an IP TE
Policy Information Base ([15]), which will be accessed by the PDP to
retrieve and update the IP TE-related information whenever necessary
(see section 6 of this draft).
The IP TE-related information is conveyed between the PDP and the PEP
thanks to the establishment of a COPS-PR connection between these two
entities. The COPS-PR protocol assumes a named data structure (the
PIB), so as to identify the type and purpose of the policy
information that is sent by the PDP to the PEP for the provisioning
of a given policy.
Within the context of this draft, the data structure of the PIB
refers to the IP routing/TE policy that is described in the PIB as a
collection of PRovisioning Classes (PRC). Furthermore, these classes
contain attributes that actually describe the IP TE-related policy
provisioning data that will be sent by the PDP to the PEP. Some of
these attributes consist of the link and traffic engineering metrics
that will be manipulated by the routing processes being activated in
the routers to compute the IP routes.
The IP TE classes are instantiated as multiple PRI (PRovisioning
Instance) instances, each of which being identified by PRovisioning
Instance iDentifier (PRID). A given PRI specifies the data content
carried in the IP TE client specific objects. An IP TE PRI typically
contains a value for each attribute that has been defined for the IP
TE PRC.
Currently, the IP TE PIB has identified a per-DSCP IP TE PRC
instantiation scheme, because the DSCP value conveyed in each IP
datagram that will be processed by the routers privileges the notion
of "DSCP-based" routing. Such a routing scheme aims at reflecting the
IP routing/TE policies that have been defined by a service provider,
assuming a restricted number of DSCP-identified classes of service
that will service the customers' requirements.
6. IP TE Client-Type Specific Information to be carried in COPS Messages
This section describes the formalism that is specific to the use of
an IP TE client-type, given that only the COPS messages that require
an IP TE client-type specific definition are described in this
Jacquenet Experimental - Expires July 2003 [Page 6]
Internet Draft COPS Usage for IP Traffic Engineering January 2003
section, i.e. the other COPS messages to be exchanged between a PEP
that supports the IP TE client-type and a PDP, and which do not need
to carry IP TE client-type specific information, are those described
in the corresponding [2] and [3] documents, without any further
elaboration.
It must be noted that, whatever the contents of the COPS messages
that MAY be exchanged between the PEP supporting the IP TE client-
type and the PDP, the actual calculation, selection, installation,
maintenance and possible withdrawal of IP routes in the router's FIB
is left to the routers.
Nevertheless, the information contained in the router's FIB MUST be
consistent with the information contained in the IP TE PIB: this is
done thanks to the synchronization features of the COPS architecture,
as defined in [2].
6.1. Client-Type Field of the Common Header of every COPS Message
All of the IP TE client-type COPS messages MUST contain the COPS
Common Header with the 2-byte encoded Client-Type field valued with
the yet-to-be assigned IANA number (see section 8 of this draft) for
the IP TE client-type.
6.2. COPS Message Content
6.2.1. Request Messages (REQ)
The REQ message is sent by the IP TE client-type to issue a
configuration request to the PDP, as specified in the COPS Context
Object. The REQ message includes the current configuration
information related to the enforcement of an IP routing/TE policy.
Such configuration information is encoded according to the ClientSI
format that is defined for the Named ClientSI object of the REQ
message.
The configuration information is encoded as a collection of bindings
that associate a PRID object and an Encoded Provisioning Instance
Data (EPD).
Such information MAY consist of:
- The identification information of the router, e.g. the
identification information that is conveyed in OSPF LSA (Link
State Advertisement) Type 1 messages. The use of a loopback
interface's IP address is highly recommended for the instantiation
of the corresponding EPD,
- The link metric values that have been currently assigned to each
(physical/logical) interface of the router, as described in [4]
for example. Such values MAY vary with an associated DSCP value,
i.e. the link metric assigned to an interface is a function of the
Jacquenet Experimental - Expires July 2003 [Page 7]
Internet Draft COPS Usage for IP Traffic Engineering January 2003
DSCP value encoded in each IP datagram that this router may have
to forward,
- The traffic engineering metric values that specify the link metric
values for traffic engineering purposes, as defined in [7], for
example. These values MAY be different from the above-mentioned
link metric values and they MAY also vary according to DSCP
values.
6.2.2. Decision Messages (DEC)
The DEC messages are used by the PDP to send IP TE policy
provisioning data to the IP TE client-type. DEC messages are sent in
response to a REQ message received from the PEP, or they can be
unsolicited, e.g. subsequent DEC messages can be sent at any time
after, to supply the PEP with additional or updated IP TE policy
configuration information without the solicited message flag set in
the COPS message header, since such messages correspond to
unsolicited decisions.
DEC messages typically consist of "install" and/or "remove"
decisions, and, when there is no Decision Flags set, the DEC message
includes the Named Decision Data (Provisioning) object.
Apart from the aforementioned identification information, and
according to the kind of (PRID, EPD) bindings that MAY be processed
by the PEP (see section 6.2.1. of the draft), DEC messages MAY refer
to the following decision examples:
- Assign new link/traffic engineering metric values each time a new
interface is installed/created on the router. These new values
will obviously yield the generation of LSA messages in the case of
the activation of the OSPF protocol, and/or the generation of BGP4
UPDATE messages (e.g. in the case of a new instantiation of the
MULTI_EXIT_DISC (MED) attribute). This will in turn yield the
computation of (new) IP routes that MAY be installed in the
router's FIB,
- Modify previously assigned metric values, thanks to a
remove/install decision procedure (this may yield a modification
of the router's FIB as well, obviously),
- Remove assigned metric values, e.g. the corresponding interfaces
may not be taken into consideration by the routing algorithms
anymore (or during a specific period of time, e.g. for maintenance
purposes).
6.2.3. Report messages (RPT)
The Report message allows the PEP to notify the PDP with a particular
set of IP routing/TE policy provisioning instances that have been
successfully or unsuccessfully installed/removed.
Jacquenet Experimental - Expires July 2003 [Page 8]
Internet Draft COPS Usage for IP Traffic Engineering January 2003
When the PEP receives a DEC message from the PDP, it MUST send back a
RPT message towards the PDP. The RPT message will contain one of the
following Report-Types:
"Failure": Notification of errors that occurred during the
processing of the (PRID, EPD) bindings contained in
the DEC message. Such a notification procedure can
include a failure report in assigning an updated value
of a given metric for example,
"Success": Notification of successful assignment of metric
values, and/or successful installation of IP routes in
the router's FIB. From this perspective, there MAY be
routes that will be installed in the router's FIB
without any explicit decision sent by the PDP to the
PEP w.r.t. the calculation/installation of the
aforementioned route. This typically reflects a normal
dynamic routing procedure, whenever route
advertisement messages are received by the router,
including messages related to a topology change. In
any case (i.e. whatever the effect that yielded the
installation of a route in the router's FIB), a RPT
message MUST be sent by the PEP towards the PDP to
notify such an event, so that the IP TE PIB will be
updated by the PDP accordingly.
"Accounting": The accounting RPT message will carry statistical
information related to the traffic that will transit
through the router. This statistical information MAY
be used by the PDP to possibly modify the metric
values that have been assigned when thresholds have
been crossed: for example, if the RPT message reports
that x % of the available rate associated to a given
interface have been reached, then the PDP MAY send an
unsolicited DEC message in return, so that potential
bottlenecks be avoided.
6.3. Backward Compatibility Issues
In the case where the IP network is composed of COPS-aware routers
(which embed a PEP capability that supports the IP TE client-type),
as well as COPS-unaware routers, the activation of a link state
routing protocol (like OSPF) together with the reporting mechanism
that has been described in section 6.2. of this draft addresses the
backward compatibility issue.
Indeed, the flooding mechanism that is used by the OSPF protocol for
the propagation of the LSA messages assumes that, in particular, the
COPS-aware routers will receive these update messages. Upon receipt
of such messages, the PEP will have the ability to notify the PDP
with the corresponding changes (e.g. by using a "Success" report-type
Jacquenet Experimental - Expires July 2003 [Page 9]
Internet Draft COPS Usage for IP Traffic Engineering January 2003
that will reflect the installation of new routes in the router's
FIB), so that the IP TE PIB can be updated accordingly.
The same observation can be made within the context of the activation
of the BGP4 protocol, because of the iBGP full-mesh topology that is
required to allow the routers of a given domain to get a homogeneous
view of the "outside" world.
7. COPS-PR Usage of the IP TE Client-Type
After having opened a COPS connection with the PDP, the PEP sends a
REQ message towards the PDP that will contain a Client Handle. The
Client Handle is used to identify a specific request state associated
to the IP TE client-type supported by the PEP. The REQ message will
contain a "Configuration Request" context object.
This REQ message will also carry the named client specific
information (including the (default) configuration information), as
described in section 6.2.1.of the draft. Default configuration
information includes the information available during the bootstrap
procedures of the routers.
The routes that have been installed in the router's FIB MAY be
conveyed in specific (PRID, EPD) bindings in the REQ message as well.
Upon receipt of the REQ message, the PDP will send back a DEC message
towards the PEP. This DEC message will carry IP TE Named Decision
Data object that will convey all the appropriate installation/removal
of (PRID, EPD), as described in section 6.2.2 of this draft. One of
the basic goals of this named Decision objects consists in making the
routers enforce a given IP routing/TE policy.
Upon receipt of a DEC message, the IP TE-capable PEP will (try to)
apply the corresponding decisions, by making the network device (and
its associated implementation-specific Command Line Interface, if
necessary) install the named IP TE policy data (e.g. assign a metric
value to a recently-installed interface).
Then, the PEP will notify the PDP about the actual enforcement of the
named IP TE policy decision data, by sending the appropriate RPT
message back to the PDP. Depending on the report-type that will be
carried in the RPT message, the contents of the message MAY include:
- Successfully/unsuccessfully assigned new/updated metric values,
- Successfully installed routes from the router's FIB. Note that the
notion of "unsuccessfully installed routes" is meaningless,
- Successfully/unsuccessfully withdrawn routes from the router's
FIB. Route withdrawal is not only subject to the normal IGP and
BGP4 procedures (thus yielding the generation of the corresponding
advertisement messages), but also subject to named IP TE policy
Jacquenet Experimental - Expires July 2003 [Page 10]
Internet Draft COPS Usage for IP Traffic Engineering January 2003
decision data (carried in a specific DEC message), like those data
related to the lifetime of a service.
The RPT message MAY also carry the "Accounting" report-type, as
described in section 6.2.3.of this draft.
8. IANA Considerations
Section 6.1 of this draft has identified the need for the assignment
of a specific number that will uniquely identify the IP TE client-
type in every COPS message to be exchanged between a PEP and a PDP.
This value SHOULD be chosen in the range of 0x8000 - 0xFFFF,according
to a First Come First Served policy, as mentioned in both [2] and
[16].
9. Security Considerations
This draft specifies a new client-type that will make use of the COPS
protocol for the provisioning and the enforcement of IP routing/TE
policies. As such, it introduces no new security issues over the COPS
protocol itself, or its usage for policy provisioning.
Nevertheless, it is recommended that the IP-TE client-type
systematically uses the Message Integrity Object (Integrity) for the
authentication and the validation of every COPS message it may
exchange with the PDP with whom it has established a COPS
communication. The Message Integrity Object also prevents from replay
attacks.
In addition, the IP Security ([17]) protocol suite may be activated,
and the IPSec Authentication Header (AH) should be used for the
validation of the COPS connection, while the Encapsulated Security
Payload (ESP) may be used to provide both validation and secrecy, as
stated in [2].
10. References
[1] Bradner, S.,"The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP
9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[2] Boyle, J., Cohen, R., Durham, D., Herzog, S., Raja R., Sastry
A., "The COPS (Common Open Policy Service) Protocol", RFC 2748,
Proposed Standard, January 2000.
[3] Ho Chan, K., Durham, D., Gai, S., Herzog, S., McLoghrie, K.,
Reichmeyer, F., Seligson, J., Smith, A., Yavatkar, R., "COPS Usage
for Policy Provisioning (COPS-PR)", RFC 3084, March 2001.
[4] Moy, J.,"OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998.
[5] Rekhter, Y., Li T., "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC
1771, March 1995.
Jacquenet Experimental - Expires July 2003 [Page 11]
Internet Draft COPS Usage for IP Traffic Engineering January 2003
[6] Jacquenet, C., Proust, C., "An Introduction to IP Multicast
Traffic Engineering", Proceedings of the ECUMN 2002 conference.
See http://iutsun1.colmar.uha.fr/ECUMN02.html for further details.
[7] Katz, D., Yeung, D., Kompella, K., "Traffic Engineering
Extensions to OSPF", draft-katz-yeung-ospf-traffic-09.txt, Work in
Progress, October 2002.
[8] Smit, H., Li T., "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering",
draft-ietf-isis-traffic-04.txt, Work in Progress, December 2002.
[9] ISO/IEC 10589, "Intermediate System to Intermediate System,
Intra-Domain Routing Exchange Protocol for use in Conjunction with
the Protocol for Providing the Connectionless-mode Network Service
(ISO 8473)", June 1992.
[10] Jacquenet, C., "Providing Quality of Service Indication by the
BGP-4 Protocol: the QOS_NLRI Attribute", draft-jacquenet-qos-nrli-
04.txt, Work in Progress, March 2002.
[11] Yavatkar, R., Pendarakis, D., Guerin, R., "A Framework for
Policy-Based Admission Control", RFC 2753, January 2000.
[12] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[13] 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.
[14] Apostopoulos G., Guerin R., Kamat S., Tripathi S. K., "Server
Based QOS Routing", Proceedings of the 1999 GLOBCOMM Conference.
[15] Boucadair, M., Jacquenet, C., "An IP Forwarding Policy
Information Base", draft-jacquenet-ip-fwd-pib-00.txt, Work in
Progress, January 2003.
[16] Alvestrand H., Narten T., "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998.
[17] Atkinson R., "Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol",
RFC 2401, 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 so far
within the context of the traffic engineering specification effort of
the project, as well as MM. Boucadair and Brunner for their valuable
input.
12. Author's Address
Christian Jacquenet
France Telecom Long Distance
Jacquenet Experimental - Expires July 2003 [Page 12]
Internet Draft COPS Usage for IP Traffic Engineering January 2003
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 (2003). 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 - Expires July 2003 [Page 13]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 03:21:43 |