One document matched: draft-vasseur-isis-te-caps-00.txt
IS-IS Working Group JP Vasseur (Ed.)
Cisco System Inc.
Internet Draft JL Le Roux (Ed.)
France Telecom
Stefano Previdi
Cisco Systems
Paul Mabey
Qwest
Category: Standard Track
Expires: January 2005 July 2004
IS-IS MPLS Traffic Engineering capabilities
draft-vasseur-isis-te-caps-00.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
RFC 3668.
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 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 document specifies IS-IS traffic engineering capability sub-TLVs
related to various router MPLS Traffic Engineering capabilities.
These sub-TLVs are carried within the IS-IS CAPABILITY TLV.
Vasseur, Le Roux et al. [Page 1]
Internet Draft draft-vasseur-isis-te-caps-00.txt July 2004
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.
Table of Contents
1. Terminology.....................................................2
2. Introduction....................................................3
3. TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV format....................3
3.1. The DATA-PLANE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV.............................4
3.2. The CONTROL-PLANE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV..........................4
4. PCED sub-TLV format.............................................5
4.1. PCE-ADDRESS sub-TLV...........................................5
4.2. PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV........................................6
4.3. AS-DOMAIN sub-TLV.............................................7
5. TE-Mesh-Group sub-TLV format....................................8
6. Element of procedure............................................8
6.1. TE-NODE-CAP sub-TLV...........................................9
6.2. PCED sub-TLV..................................................9
6.3. TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV........................................11
7. Interoperability with routers not supporting the IS-IS MPLS TE
capabilities......................................................12
8. Security considerations........................................12
9. Intellectual Property Statement................................12
10. References....................................................12
11. Authors' Address:.............................................13
1. Terminology
Terminology used in this document
LSR: Label Switch Router.
PCE: Path Computation Element whose function is to compute the
path of a TE LSP it is not the head-end for. The PCE may be
an LSR or an offline tool not forwarding packet.
PCC: Path Computation Client (any head-end LSR) requesting a TE
LSP path computation to the Path Computation Element.
TE LSP: Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path.
TE LSP head-end: head/source of the TE LSP.
TE LSP tail-end: tail/destination of the TE LSP.
Intra-area TE LSP: TE LSP whose path does not transit across
areas.
Vasseur, Le Roux et al. [Page 2]
Internet Draft draft-vasseur-isis-te-caps-00.txt July 2004
Inter-area TE LSP: A TE LSP whose path transits across at least
two different IGP areas.
Inter-AS MPLS TE LSP: A TE LSP whose path transits across at least
two different ASes or sub-ASes (BGP confederations).
2. Introduction
This document defines IS-IS protocol extensions and procedures for
the advertisement TE node capabilities. The functional description of
these extensions is defined in [TE-INFO], and is not repeated here.
This document describes the usage of several IS-IS TE capabilities
sub-TLVs: the PCED (PCE Discovery), the TE-MESH-GROUP and the TE-
NODE-CAP sub-TLVs. These IS-IS TE capability sub-TLVs are carried
within the IS-IS CAPABILITY TLV specified in [IS-IS-CAP].
Each sub-TLV defined in this document is composed of 1 octet for the
type, 1 octet specifying the TLV length and a value field.
The format of each sub-TLV is identical to the TLV format used by the
Traffic Engineering Extensions to IS-IS [IS-IS-TE].
The TE-NODE-CAP sub-TLV is used for the advertisement of both
control plane and data plane TE node capabilities. The TE-NODE-CAP
sub-TLV is made of a set of non-ordered sub-TLVs each having the
format as described above.
The PCED sub-TLV is used for the advertisement of Path
Computation Element capabilities. The PCED sub-TLV is made of a set
of non-ordered sub-TLVs each having the format as described above.
The TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV is used to advertise the desire to
join/leave a given MPLS-TE mesh group. The TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV does
not have any sub-TLV currently defined.
3. TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV format
This section specifies the sub-TLVs carried within the TE-NODE-CAP
sub-TLV payload which define the TE node capabilities.
The TE-NODE-CAP sub-TLV type is 1.
The TE-NODE-CAP sub-TLV is made of various non ordered sub-TLVs.
Currently two sub-TLVs are defined.
TLV type Length Name
1 variable DATA-PLANE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV
2 variable CONTROL-PLANE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV
Any non recognized sub-TLV MUST be silently ignored.
Vasseur, Le Roux et al. [Page 3]
Internet Draft draft-vasseur-isis-te-caps-00.txt July 2004
More sub-TLV could be added in the future to handle new capabilities.
3.1. The DATA-PLANE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV
The DATA-PLANE-CAPABILITY is a series of bit flags and has a variable
length.
CODE: 1
LENGTH: Variable (N*8)
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|B|E| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
TE-NODE-CAP sub-TLV format
Two bits are currently defined:
-B bit: When set this indicates that the LSR can act as a branch node
on a P2MP LSP.
-E bit: When set, this indicates that the LSR can act as a bud LSR on
a P2MP LSP, i.e. and LSR that is both transit and egress.
See [P2MP-REQ]) and [RSVP-P2MP] for more details on the usage of
these bits.
Note that more flags may be defined in the future.
3.2. The CONTROL-PLANE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV
The CONTROL-PLANE-CAPABILITY is a series of bit flags and has a
variable length.
CODE: 2
LENGTH: Variable (N*8)
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|M|G|P| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
TE-NODE-CAP sub-TLV format
Vasseur, Le Roux et al. [Page 4]
Internet Draft draft-vasseur-isis-te-caps-00.txt July 2004
Currently three flags are defined:
-M bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports MPLS-TE
signalling ([RSVP-TE]).
-G bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports GMPLS signalling
([RSVP-G]).
-P bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports P2MP MPLS-TE
signalling ([RSVP-P2MP]).
Note that more flags may be defined in the future.
4. PCED sub-TLV format
This section specifies the sub-TLVs carried within the PCED sub-TLV
payload which describes the PCE capabilities.
The PCED sub-TLV type is 2.
The PCED sub-TLV is made of various non ordered sub-TLVs defined
below:
TLV type Length Name
1 variable PCE-ADDRESS sub-TLV
2 8 PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV
3 8 AS-DOMAIN sub-TLV
Any non recognized sub-TLV MUST be silently ignored and unchanged.
4.1. PCE-ADDRESS sub-TLV
The PCE-ADDRESS sub-TLV specifies the IP address to be used to reach
the PCE described by this PCED sub-TLV. This address will typically
be a loop-back address that is always reachable, provided the router
is not isolated. The PCE-ADDRESS sub-TLV is mandatory.
PCE-ADDRESS sub-TLV type is 1, length is 4 octets for an IPv4
address and 20 octets for an IPv6 address, and the value is the PCE
IPv4 or IPv6 address.
CODE: 1
LENGTH: Variable (4 or 20)
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| address-type | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// PCE IP address //
| |
Vasseur, Le Roux et al. [Page 5]
Internet Draft draft-vasseur-isis-te-caps-00.txt July 2004
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
PCE-ADDRESS sub-TLV format
Address-type:
1 IPv4
2 IPv6
The PCE-ADDRESS sub-TLV MUST appear exactly once in the PCED sub-TLV
originated by a router. The only exception is when the PCE has both
an IPv4 and IPv6 address; in this case, two Path Computation Element
address sub-TLVs might be inserted: one for the IPv4 address, one for
the IPv6 address, in this order.
4.2. PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV
The PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV is used by the PCE to signal its Path
Computation Element capabilities. This could then be used by an LSR
to select the appropriate PCE among a list of PCE candidates. This
sub-TLV is optional.
The PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV type is 2 and the length is 8 octets.
CODE: 2
LENGTH: 4
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 |D|M|P|A|I|L|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV format
The first 3 bits L, I and A defines the PCE scope for which the
Path Computation Element is capable of performing the TE LSP path
computation.
L bit:
Local scope. When set, this flag indicates that the PCE can compute
paths for the IS-IS level the ISIS CAPABILITY TLV is flooded into
(the PCE can compute TE LSP paths for intra-area TE LSPs).
I bit:
Inter-area scope. When set, the PCE can perform TE LSP path
computation for inter-area TE LSPs but within the same AS.
A bit:
Multi-domain scope. When set, the PCE can perform path computation
for inter-AS TE LSPs. In this case, the PCED sub-TLV MUST contain one
or more AS-DOMAIN sub-TLV(s), each describing the domain for which
the PCE can compute TE LSPs paths having their destination address in
Vasseur, Le Roux et al. [Page 6]
Internet Draft draft-vasseur-isis-te-caps-00.txt July 2004
the respective AS.
Note that those flags are not exclusive (a PCE may set one or more
flags).
P bit:
The notion of request priority allows a PCC to specify how urgent the
request is, by setting a flag in the REQUEST_ID object of the Path
computation request message. See [PATH-COMP] for more details.
P=1: the PCE takes into account the ¬¬request priority¬¬ in its
scheduling of the various requests.
P=0: the PCE does not take the request priority into account.
M bit
M=1: the PCE is capable of computing more than one path obeying a set
of specified constraints (in a single pass), provided that they
exist.
M=0: the PCE cannot compute more than one path in a single pass
obeying a set of specified constraints.
D bit
The PCC may request the PCE to compute N diversely routed paths
obeying a set of specified constraints. Such N paths may not exist of
course depending on the current state of the network. S
D=1: the PCE is capable of computing diversely (link, node, SRLG)
routed paths.
D=0: the PCE is not capable of computing diversely routed paths.
The D bit is relevant if and only if the M bit has been set to 1. It
MUST be set to 0 if the M bit is set to 0.
Note that for future capabilities, it may be desirable to introduce
new flags or may be new sub-TLV to be carried in the PCED capability
sub-TLV if the capability needs more than just a single flag to be
described.
4.3. AS-DOMAIN sub-TLV
When the PCE can perform path computation for an inter-AS TE LSP, the
A bit of the PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV MUST be set. Moreover, one or
more sub-TLVs MUST be included within the PCED sub-TLV, each sub-TLV
identifying an AS number. Each AS-DOMAIN sub-TLV has the following
form:
CODE: 3
LENGTH: 4
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AS Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Vasseur, Le Roux et al. [Page 7]
Internet Draft draft-vasseur-isis-te-caps-00.txt July 2004
AS-DOMAIN sub-TLV format
The AS-DOMAIN sub-TLV type is 3, length is 4 octets, and the value is
the AS number identifying the AS for which the PCE can compute inter-
AS TE LSP paths (TE LSP having their destination address in this AS).
When coded on four bytes, the AS Number field MUST have its
left two bytes set to 0.
The set of AS-DOMAIN sub-TLVs specifies a list of ASes (AS1,à,
ASn). This means that the PCE can compute TE LSP path such that the
destination address of the TE LSP belongs to this set of ASes.
5. TE-Mesh-Group sub-TLV format
The TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV has the following format:
CODE: 2
LENGTH: Variable (N*8 octets)
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| mesh-group-number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tail-end address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tail-end name |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV format
N is the number of mesh-groups.
For each Mesh-group announced by an LSR, the TLV contains:
- A mesh-group-number: identifies the mesh-group number,
- A Tail-end address: user configurable IP address to be used as a
tail-end address by other LSRs belonging to the same mesh-group.
- A Tail-end name: 32-bits string which facilitates the TE LSP
identification which can be very useful in inter-area/AS MPLS TE
environments.
6. Element of procedure
The sub-TLVs defined in this document are carried within the IS-IS
CAPABILITY TLV defined in [IS-IS-CAP].
An IS-IS router MUST originate a new IS-IS LSP whenever the content
of the any of the carried sub-TLV changes or whenever required by the
regular IS-IS procedure (LSP refresh).
Vasseur, Le Roux et al. [Page 8]
Internet Draft draft-vasseur-isis-te-caps-00.txt July 2004
If the flooding scope of an MPLS Traffic Engineering capability is
limited to an IS-IS level/area, the S flag of the CAPABILITY TLV MUST
be cleared. Conversely,if the flooding scope of an MPLS Traffic
Engineering capability is the entire routing domain, the S flag of
the CAPABILITY TLV MUST be set.
In both cases the flooding rules as specified in [IS-IS-CAP] apply.
As specified in [IS-IS-CAP], a router may generate multiple IS-IS
CAPABILITY TLVs within an IS-IS LSP with different flooding scopes.
6.1. TE-NODE-CAP sub-TLV
The flooding scope is defined on a per capability basis.
If the capability must be flooded within a single IS-IS area/level,
the TE-NODE-CAP sub-TLV MUST be carried within a CAPABILITY TLV
having the S flag cleared. Conversely, if the capability must be
flooded throughout the entire routing domain, the TE-NODE-CAP sub-TLV
MUST be carried within a CAPABILITY TLV having the S flag set.
Capabilities with an identical flooding scope MUST be flooded within
the same TE-NODE-CAP sub-TLV.
6.2. PCED sub-TLV
If the PCE can compute an intra-area TE LSP path, the L bit of the
PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV of the PCED TLV MUST be set. The PCED sub-TLV
MUST be carried within a CAPABILITY TLV having the S flag cleared.
If the PCE can compute an inter-area TE LSP path, the I bit of the
PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV of the PCED TLV MUST be set. The PCED sub-TLV
MUST be carried:
- Within a CAPABILITY TLV having the S flag cleared if the PCE can
compute an inter-area TE LSP path for the LSRs in the area(s) it
resides in (for instance the PCE is an ABR computing an inter-
area TE LSP path for its area).
- Within a CAPABILITY TLV having the S flag set if the PCE can
compute an inter-area TE LSP path for the whole domain.
If the PCE can compute an inter-AS TE LSP path, the A bit of the PCE-
CAPABILITY sub-TLV of the PCED TLV MUST be set and the PCED TLV MUST
be carried within CAPABILITY TLV having the S flag set.
Note: if the PCE can compute both intra and inter-area TE LSP paths,
both the L and I bits of the PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV MUST be set. The
flags are not exclusive.
If the PCE can compute inter-as TE-LSPs path, both the A bit of the
Vasseur, Le Roux et al. [Page 9]
Internet Draft draft-vasseur-isis-te-caps-00.txt July 2004
PCED TLV MUST and the S bit of CAPABILITY TLV MUST be set.
Example
-----------------AS1-----------------
R1(L1)------R3(L1L2)*-----R4(L1L2)*----| ------------
| | | | | |
| S1(L1) | S2(L1) | ASBR1*(L1)--eBGP--ASBR2-| AS2 |
| | | | | |
R2(L1)------R5(L1L2)*-----R6(L1L2)-----| ------------
The areas contents are not detailed.
Assumptions:
- the * indicates a Path Computation Element capability
- R3 is a PCE for level 1 only
- R5 is a PCE for intra and inter-area TE LSP path computation for
both levels
- R4 is a PCE for inter-area TE LSP path computation only for both
levels
- S1 is a PCE for level 1 only
- S2 is a PCE for the whole AS
- ASBR1 is a PCE for inter-AS TE LSPs whose destination resides in
AS2 (not for intra or inter-area area TE LSPs).
In the example above:
- S1 originates a level 1 LSP containing a PCED sub-TLV with:
o The L bit of the PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV set,
o The I and A bits of the PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV cleared.
The S bit of the CAPABILITY TLV MUST be cleared.
- S2 originates a level 2 LSP containing
-an IS-IS CAPABILITY TLV with the S flag cleared carrying:
a PCED TLV with:
- The L, and I bits of the PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV set,
- The A bit of the PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV cleared
-an IS-IS CAPABILITY TLV with the S flag set carrying:
a PCED TLV with
-The I bit set
-The L and A bit cleared
- ASBR1 originates a level1 LSP containing a PCED TLV with:
o The L and I bits of the PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV cleared,
o The A bit of the PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV set,
o One AS-domain sub-TLV within the PCED sub-TLV with AS number =
AS2
The S bit of the CAPABILITY TLV MUST be set
- R3 originates:
Vasseur, Le Roux et al. [Page 10]
Internet Draft draft-vasseur-isis-te-caps-00.txt July 2004
* a level 1 LSP containing
- an IS-IS CAPABILITY TLV with the S flag cleared carrying:
o a PCED TLV describing its own PCE capability with:
- The L bit of the PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV set,
- The I and A bits of the PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV
cleared,
- an IS-IS CAPABILITY TLV with the S flag set carrying:
o the S2's PCED TLV (with I and A bit unchanged)
o the ASBR1s PCED TLV (unchanged), leaked from level-2 LSP (S
bit set).
* a level 2 LSP including no PCED TLV
- R5 originates:
* a level1 LSP containing:
- an IS-IS CAPABILITY TLV with the S flag cleared carrying:
o a PCED TLV describing its own PCE capability with:
- The L and I bits of the PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV set,
- The A bit of the PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV cleared,
- an IS-IS CAPABILITY TLV with the S flag set carrying:
o the S2's PCED TLV (with the I, A and L bits of the PCE-
CAPABILITY sub-TLV unchanged)
o the ASBR1's PCED TLV (unchanged)
* a level 2 LSP containing an IS-IS CAPABILITY TLV with the S flag
cleared carrying:
o a PCED sub-TLV describing its own PCED capability with:
- Both the L and I bit of the PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV set,
- The A bit of the PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV cleared.
The receipt of an IS-IS LSP containing a new PCED TLV never triggers
an SPF calculation.
When a PCE is newly configured, the corresponding PCED TLV MUST be
immediately flooded.
When a PCE looses its capability or when one of its PCED capabilities
changes, the IS-IS LSP MUST be immediately flooded.
6.3. TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV
If the MPLS TE mesh-group is contained within a single IS-IS
level (all the LSRs have their head-end and tail-end LSR within
the same IS-IS level), the TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV MUST be carried
within a CAPABILITY TLV having the S flag cleared. Conversely, if the
MPLS TE mesh-group spans multiple IS-IS levels, the TE-
MESH-GROUP sub-TLV MUST be carried within a CAPABILITY TLV having the
S flag set.
Vasseur, Le Roux et al. [Page 11]
Internet Draft draft-vasseur-isis-te-caps-00.txt July 2004
7. Interoperability with routers not supporting the IS-IS MPLS TE
capabilities
There is no interoperability issue as a router not supporting the
PCED, TE-MESH-GROUP or TE-NODE-CAP sub-TLVs SHOULD just silently
ignore those sub-TLVs.
8. Security considerations
No new security issues are raised in this document.
9. 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
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.
10. References
Normative references
[RFC] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to indicate
requirements levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3667] Bradner, S., "IETF Rights in Contributions", BCP 78,
RFC 3667, February 2004.
[RFC3668] Bradner, S., Ed., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
Technology", BCP 79, RFC 3668, February 2004.
[ISIS] "Intermediate System to Intermediate System Intra-Domain
Routing Exchange Protocol " ISO 10589.
Vasseur, Le Roux et al. [Page 12]
Internet Draft draft-vasseur-isis-te-caps-00.txt July 2004
[ISIS-IP] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990.
[ISIS-TE] Li, T., Smit, H., "IS-IS extensions for Traffic
Engineering", RFC 3784, June 2004.
[ISIS-CAP] Vasseur, J.P., Aggarwal, R., Shen, N. et al. "IS-IS
extensions for advertising router information", draft-vasseur-isis-
caps-02.txt, work in progress.
[TE-INFO] Vasseur, J.P., Le Roux, J.L., et al., "Routing extensions
for discovery of TE router information", draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-
router-info-00.txt, work in progress.
Informative References
[ISIS-G] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "IS-IS extensions in support of
Generalized Multi-protocol Label Switching", draft-ietf-isis-gmpls-
extensions-19.txt, work in progress.
[INT-AREA-REQ] Le Roux, J.L., Vasseur, J.P., Boyle, J., "Requirements
for inter-area MPLS Traffic Engineering", draft-ietf-tewg-interarea-
mpls-te-req-02.txt, work in progress.
[INT-AS-REQ] Zhang, R., Vasseur, J.P., "MPLS Inter-AS Traffic
Engineering Requirements", draft-ietf-tewg-interas-mpls-te-req-
07.txt, work in progress.
[INT-DOMAIN-FRWK] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.P., Ayyangar, A., "A
Framework for Inter-Domain MPLS Traffic Engineering", draft-farrel-
ccamp-inter-domain-framework-01.txt, work in progress.
[P2MP-Req] Yasukawa, S., et. al., "Requirements for point-to-
multipoint extension to RSVP-TE", draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-requirement-
02.txt, work in progress.
[RSVP-TE] Awduche, D., et. al., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RSVP-G] Berger, L, et. al., "GMPLS Signaling RSVP-TE extensions",
RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RSVP-P2MP] Aggarwal, Papadimitriou, Yasukawa, et. al. "Extensions to
RSVP-TE for point-to-multipoint TE LSPs", draft-dry-mpls-rsvp-te-
p2mp-00.txt, work in progress.
11. Authors' Address:
Jean-Philippe Vasseur
Cisco Systems, Inc.
300 Beaver Brook Road
Vasseur, Le Roux et al. [Page 13]
Internet Draft draft-vasseur-isis-te-caps-00.txt July 2004
Boxborough , MA - 01719
USA
Email: jpv@cisco.com
Jean-Louis Le Roux
France Telecom
2, avenue Pierre-Marzin
22307 Lannion Cedex
FRANCE
Email: jeanlouis.leroux@francetelecom.com
Stefano Previdi
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Via Del Serafico 200
00142 - Roma
ITALY
Email: sprevidi@cisco.com
Paul Mabey
Qwest Communications
950 17th Street,
Denver, CO 80202
USA
Email: pmabey@qwest.com
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject to
the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as
set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR
IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY 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.
Vasseur, Le Roux et al. [Page 14] | PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-22 14:58:36 |