One document matched: draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-01.txt
Differences from draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-00.txt
Network Working Group Fatai Zhang
Internet Draft Dan Li
Category: Standards Track Huawei
Expires: January 2011 July 12, 2010
GMPLS-based Hierarchy LSP creation
in Multi-Region and Multi-Layer Networks
draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-01.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.
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 12, 2011.
Abstract
This specification describes the hierarchy LSP creation models in the
Multi-Region and Multi-Layer Networks (MRN/MLN), and provides the
extensions to the existing protocol mechanisms described in [RFC4206],
[RFC4206bis] and [MLN-EXT] to create the hierarchy LSP through
multiple layer networks.
Zhang Expires January 2011 [Page 1]
draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-01.txt July 2010
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 [RFC2119].
Table of Contents
1. Introduction..................................................2
2. Terminology...................................................3
3. Provisioning of FA-LSP in Server Layer Network................3
3.1. Selection of Switching Layers............................3
3.2. Selection of Switching Granularity Levels................4
4. Hierarchy LSP Creation Models.................................6
4.1. Model 1: Pre-provisioning of FA-LSP......................7
4.2. Model 2: Signaling trigger server layer path computation.8
4.3. Model 3: Full path computation at source node............8
5. ERO Sub-Object................................................9
5.1. Application of SERVER_LAYER_INFO sub-object.............10
6. Security Considerations......................................11
7. IANA Considerations..........................................11
8. Acknowledgments..............................................11
9. References...................................................11
10. Authors' Addresses..........................................13
1. Introduction
Networks may comprise multiple layers which have different switching
technologies or different switching granularity levels. The GMPLS
technology is required to support control of such network.
[RFC5212] defines the concept of MRN/MLN and describes the framework
and requirements of GMPLS controlled MRN/MLN. The GMPLS extension for
MRN/MLN, including routing aspect and signaling aspect, is described
in [MLN-EXT].
[RFC4206] and [RFC4206bis] describe how to set up a hierarchy LSP
passing through multi-layer network and how to advertise the
forwarding adjacency LSP (FA-LSP) created in the server layer network
as a TE link via GMPLS signaling and routing protocols.
Based on these existing standards, this document further describes
the provisioning of FA-LSP when the region nodes supporting multiple
interface switching capabilities and multiple switching granularities,
and then provides the extensions to the RSVP-TE protocol in order to
Zhang Expires January 2011 [Page 2]
draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-01.txt July 2010
set up hierarchy LSP according to the modes of hierarchy LSP
provisioning.
2. Terminology
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 [RFC2119].
3. Provisioning of FA-LSP in Server Layer Network
3.1. Selection of Switching Layers
As described in [RFC5212], the edge node of a region always has
multiple Interface Switching Capabilities (ISCs), i.e., it contains
multiple matrices which may be connected to each other by internal
links. Nodes with multiple Interface Switching Capabilities are
further classified as "simplex" or "hybrid" nodes by [RFC5212] and
[RFC5339], where the simplex node advertises several TE links each
with a single ISC value carried in its ISCD sub-TLV, while the hybrid
node advertises a single TE link containing more than one ISCD each
with a different ISC value. An example hybrid node with a link having
multiple ISCs is shown in Figure 1, copied from [RFC5339].
Network element
.............................
: -------- :
: | PSC | :
: | | :
: --|#a | :
: | | #b | :
: | -------- :
: | | :
: | ---------- :
: /| | | #c | :
: | |-- | | :
Link1 ========| | | TDM | :
: | |----|#d | :
: \| ---------- :
:............................
Figure 1 - Hybrid node (Copied from [RFC5339])
Zhang Expires January 2011 [Page 3]
draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-01.txt July 2010
It's possible that the edge node of a region is a hybrid node which
has multiple ISCs in the server layer. In this case, selection of
which server layer to create the FA-LSP is necessary.
Figure 2 shows an example multi-layer network, where node B and C are
region edge nodes having three switching matrices which support, for
instance, PSC, TDM and WDM switching, respectively. The three
switching matrices are connected to each other by the internal links.
Both the link between B and E and the link between E and C support
TDM and WDM switching capabilities.
+-------+ +------------+ +------------+ +-------+
| +---+ | | +---+ | FA | +---+ | | +---+ |
| |PSC+-+--+---+PSC|....|...................|....|PSC+---+--+-+PSC| |
| +---+ | | +-+-+-+ | | +-+-+-+ | | +---+ |
+-------+ | | | | | | | | +-------+
Node A | | | | +-------------+ | | | | Node D
| | +-+-+ | | +---+ | | +-+-+ | |
| | |TDM|+ | | +|TDM|+ | | +|TDM| | |
| | +-+-+| | | |+-+-+| | | |+-+-+ | |
| | | ||\ | | /|| | ||\ | | /|| | | |
| | | +| || || |+ | +| || || |+ | | |
| +-+-+-+ | |====| | +-+-+ | |====| | +-+-+-+ |
| |WDM|-| || || |-|WDM|-| || || |-|WDM| |
| +---+ |/ | | \| +---+ |/ | | \| +---+ |
+------------+ +-------------+ +------------+
Node B Node E Node C
Figure 2 - MLN with multiple ISCs at edge node
As can be seen in Figure 2, there are two choices when providing FA
in the PSC layer network between node B and C: one is creating FA-LSP
with TDM switching matrix through node B, E and C, the other is
creating FA-LSP with WDM switching matrix through node B, E and C.
[MLN-EXT] introduces a new SC (Switching Capability) sub-object into
the XRO (ref. to [RFC4874]), which is used to indicate which
switching capability is not expected to be used. When one of the
switching capability is selected, the SC sub-object can be included
in the message to exclude all other SCs.
3.2. Selection of Switching Granularity Levels
Even in the case that the edge node only has one switching capability
in the server layer, there may be still multiple choices for the
server layer network to set up FA-LSP to provide new FA in the client
layer network. This is because the server layer network may have the
Zhang Expires January 2011 [Page 4]
draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-01.txt July 2010
capability of providing different switching granularity levels for
the FA-LSP.
+-------+ +---------+ +---------+ +-------+
| +---+ | | +---+ | FA | +---+ | | +---+ |
| |PSC|-+---+--+PSC|..|.......................|..|PSC+--+---+-|PSC| |
| +---+ | | +-+-+ | | +-+-+ | | +---+ |
+-------+ | | | ODU1/ ODU1/ | | | +-------+
Node A | | | ODU2/ +-------+ ODU2/ | | | Node D
| +-+-+ | ODU3 | +---+ | ODU3 | +-+-+ |
| |TDM+--+-------+-+TDM+-+-------+--+TDM| |
| +---+ | | +---+ | | +---+ |
+---------+ +-------+ +---------+
Node B Node E Node C
Figure 3a - Multiple switching granularities in server layer
Figure 3a shows an example multi-region network, where the edge node
B and C have PSC and TDM switching matrices, and where the TDM
switching matrix supports ODU1, ODU2 and ODU3 switching levels.
Therefore, when an FA between node B and C in the PSC layer network
is needed, either of ODU1, ODU2 or ODU3 connection (FA-LSP) can be
created in the TDM layer network.
|<----------------------- ODU0 Connection ----------------------->|
| |
++------+ +---------+ +---------+ +------++
| +---+ | | +---+ | FA (ODU1/2/3) | +---+ | | +---+ |
| |TDM|-+---+--+ |..|.......................|..| +--+---+-|TDM| |
| +---+ | | | | | | | | | | +---+ |
+-------+ | |TDM| | +-------+ | |TDM| | +-------+
Node A | | | | OTU3 | +---+ | OTU3 | | | | Node D
| | +--+-------+-+TDM+-+-------+--+ | |
| +---+ | | +---+ | | +---+ |
++--------+ +-------+ +--------++
|Node B Node E Node C |
| |
|<--------- FA LSP (ODU1/2/3)------------>|
Figure 3b - TDM nested LSP provisioning
Zhang Expires January 2011 [Page 5]
draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-01.txt July 2010
Figure 3b is another example multi-layer network within the same
region. When there is a need to set up an FA between node B and C for
the client layer ODU0 connection, the server layer has multiple
choices, e.g., ODU1 or ODU2 or ODU3, for the FA-LSP if the multi-
stage multiplexing is supported at node B and C.
|<---------------- Client layer LSP (Bandwidth 1) --------------->|
| |
++------+ +---------+ +---------+ +------++
| +---+ | | +---+ | FA | +---+ | | +---+ |
| |PSC|-+---+--+ |..|.......................|..| +--+---+-|PSC| |
| +---+ | | | | | | | | | | +---+ |
+-------+ | |PSC| | +-------+ | |PSC| | +-------+
Node A | | | | | +---+ | | | | | Node D
| | +--+-------+-+PSC+-+-------+--+ | |
| +---+ | | +---+ | | +---+ |
++--------+ +-------+ +--------++
|Node B Node E Node C |
| |
|<--- Service layer LSP (Bandwidth 2) --->|
Figure 3c - PSC nested LSP provisioning
Figure 3c is a third example showing an LSP nesting scenario in a PSC
signal-layer network (e.g., an MPLS-TP network). A PSC tunnel passing
through node B, E and C is requested to carry the client layer LSP.
There are multiple choices of the bandwidth of the tunnel, on the
premise that the bandwidth of the FA-LSP is equal to or larger than
the client layer LSP.
The selection of server layer switching matrix and switching
granularity is based on both policy and bandwidth resources. The
selection can be performed by planning tool and/or NMS/PCE/VNTM
(Virtual Network Topology Manager, see [RFC5623]) and/or the network
node.
4. Hierarchy LSP Creation Models
[RFC5623], the framework of PCE-based MLN, provides the models of
cross-layer LSP path computation and creation, which are listed below:
- Inter-Layer Path Computation Models:
o Single PCE
Zhang Expires January 2011 [Page 6]
draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-01.txt July 2010
o Multiple PCE with inter-PCE
o Multiple PCE without inter-PCE
- Inter-Layer Path Control Models:
o PCE-VNTM cooperation
o Higher-layer signaling trigger
o NMS-VNTM cooperation (integrated flavor)
o NMS-VNTM cooperation (separate flavor)
This session keeps align with [RFC5623] except that the restriction
of using PCE for path computation is not necessary (i.e., other
element, such as network node, may also have path computation
capability).
In this document, those models in [RFC4206] are reclassified into 3
models on the viewpoint of signaling:
- Model 1: Pre-provisioning of FA-LSP
- Model 2: Signaling trigger server layer path computation
- Model 3: Full path computation at source node
4.1. Model 1: Pre-provisioning of FA-LSP
In this model, the FA-LSP in the server layer is created before
initiating the signaling of the client layer LSP. Two typical
scenarios using this model are:
- Network planning and building at the stage of client network
initialization.
- NMS/VNTM triggering the creation of FA-LSP when computing the path
of client layer LSP. The path control models of PCE-VNTM
cooperation and NMS-VNTM cooperation (both integrated and separate
flavor) in [RFC5623] belong to this scenario.
In such case, the server layer selection and server layer selection
and path computation is performed by planning tool or NMS/PCE/VNTM or
the edge node. The signaling of client layer LSP and server layer FA-
Zhang Expires January 2011 [Page 7]
draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-01.txt July 2010
LSP are separated. The normal LSP creation procedures ([RFC3471] and
[RFC3473]) are performed for these two LSPs.
4.2. Model 2: Signaling trigger server layer path computation
In this model, the source node of client layer LSP only computes the
route in its layer network. When the signaling of the client layer
LSP reaches at the region edge node, the edge node performs server
layer FA-LSP path computation and then creates the FA-LSP. When PCE
is introduced to perform path computation in the multi-layer network,
this model is the same as the model of "Higher-layer signaling
trigger with Multiple PCE without inter-PCE" in [RFC5623].
In such case, the edge node will receive a PATH message with a loose
ERO indicating an FA is requested, and may perform the server layer
selection (e.g., through the server layer PCE or the VNTM) and then
compute and set up the path of the FA-LSP. The signaling procedure of
client layer LSP and server layer FA-LSP is described detailedly in
[RFC4206] and [RFC4206bis].
It's possible that the source node of the client layer LSP selects
the server layer SC and/or granularity when performing path
computation in the client layer, and requests or suggests the edge
node to use an appointed server layer to create the FA-LSP. The XRO
including SC sub-object ([MLN-EXT]) is adopted for the server layer
SC selection, but not for the server layer granularity selection.
4.3. Model 3: Full path computation at source node
In this model, the source node of the client layer LSP performs a
full path computation including the client layer and the server layer
routes. The server layer FA-LSP creation is triggered at the edge
node by the client layer LSP signaling. When PCE is introduced to
perform path computation in the multi-layer network, this model is
the same as the model of "Higher-layer signaling trigger with Single
PCE" or "Higher-layer signaling trigger with Multiple PCE with inter-
PCE" in [RFC5623].
In such case, the server layer selection and server layer path
computation is performed at the source node of the client layer LSP
(e.g., through VNTM or PCE), but not at the edge node.
Zhang Expires January 2011 [Page 8]
draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-01.txt July 2010
In [RFC4206], the ERO which contains the list of nodes and links
(including the client layer and server layer) along the path is used
in the PATH message of the client layer LSP. The edge node can find
out the tail end of the FA-LSP based on the switching capability of
the node using the IGP database (see session 6.2 of [RFC 4206]).
Similar to the problem of mode2, the edge node is not aware of which
switching granularity to be selected for the FA-LSP because the ERO
and/or XRO do not contain such information. Therefore, the edge node
may not be able to create the FA-LSP, or may select another switching
granularity by itself which is different from the one selected
previously at the source node, which makes the creation of hierarchy
LSP out of control.
5. ERO Sub-Object
In order to solve the problems described in the previous sessions, a
new sub-object named SERVER_LAYER_INFO sub-object is introduced in
this document, which is carried in the ERO and is used to indicate
which server layer to create the FA-LSP.
The SERVER_LAYER_INFO sub-object is put immediately behind the node
or link (interface) address sub-object, indicating the related node
is a region edge node on the LSP in the ERO.
The format of the SERVER_LAYER_INFO sub-object is shown below:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type | Length |M| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LSP Enc. Type |Switching Type | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Traffic Parameters |
~ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- L bit: MUST be zero and MUST be ignored when received.
- Type: The SERVER_LAYER_INFO sub-object has a type of xx (TBD).
Zhang Expires January 2011 [Page 9]
draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-01.txt July 2010
- Length: The total length of the sub-object in bytes, including the
Type and Length fields. The value of this field is always a
multiple of 4.
- M (Mandatory) bit: When set, it means the edge node MUST set up
the FA-LSP in the appointed server layer; otherwise, the appointed
server layer is suggested and the edge node may select other
server layer by local policy.
- LSP Encoding Type and Switching Type: These two fields are used to
point out which switching layer is requested to set up the FA-LSP.
The values of these two fields are inherited from the Generalized
Label Request in GMPLS signaling, referring to [RFC3471], [RFC3473]
and other related standards and drafts. Note that the G-PID of the
Server layer FA-LSP can be deduced from the type of client layer
LSP by these two fields.
- Traffic Parameters: The traffic parameters field is used to
indicate the switching granularity of the FA-LSP. The format of
this field depends on the switching technology of the server layer
(which can be deduced from the LSP Encoding Type and Switching
Type fields in this sub-object) and is consistent with the
existing standards and drafts. For example, the Traffic Parameters
of Ethernet, SONET/SDH and OTN are defined by the [ETH-TP],
[RFC4606] and [OTN-ctrl] respectively.
5.1. Application of SERVER_LAYER_INFO sub-object
When a node receives a PATH message containing ERO and finds that
there is a SERVER_LAYER_INFO sub-object immediately behind the node
or link address sub-object related to itself, the node determines
that it's a region edge node. Then, the edge node finds out the
server layer selection information from the sub-object:
- Determine the switching layer by the LSP Encoding Type and
Switching Type fields;
- Determine the switching granularity of the FA-LSP by the Traffic
Parameters field.
The edge node MUST then determine the other edge of the region, i.e.,
the tail end of the FA-LSP, with respect to the subsequence of hops
of the ERO. The node that satisfies the following conditions will be
treated as the tail end of the FA-LSP:
Zhang Expires January 2011 [Page 10]
draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-01.txt July 2010
- There is a SERVER_LAYER_INFO sub-object that immediately behind
the node or link address sub-object which is related to that node;
- The LSP Encoding Type, Switching Type and the Traffic Parameters
fields of this SERVER_LAYER_INFO sub-object is the same as the
SERVER_LAYER_INFO sub-object corresponding to the head end;
- The node is the first one that satisfies the two conditions above
in the subsequence of hops of the ERO.
If a match of tail end is found, the head end now has the clear
server layer information of the FA-LSP and then initiates an RSVP-TE
session to create the FA-LSP in the appointed server layer between
the head end and the tail end.
6. Security Considerations
TBD.
7. IANA Considerations
TBD.
8. Acknowledgments
TBD.
9. References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3945] Mannie, E., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004.
[RFC3209] D. Awduche et al, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC3209, December 2001.
[RFC3471] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC
3471, January 2003.
Zhang Expires January 2011 [Page 11]
draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-01.txt July 2010
[RFC3473] L. Berger, Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC
3473, January 2003.
[RFC5212] K. Shiomoto et al, "Requirements for GMPLS-Based Multi-
Region and Multi-Layer Networks (MRN/MLN)", RFC5212, July
2008.
[RFC5339] JL. Le Roux et al, "Evaluation of Existing GMPLS
Protocols against Multi-Layer and Multi-Region Networks
(MLN/MRN)", RFC5339, September 2008.
[RFC4206] K. Kompella et al, "Label Switched Paths (LSP) Hierarchy
with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC4206, October 2005.
[RFC4206bis] K. Shiomoto, A. Farrel, "Procedures for Dynamically
Signaled Hierarchical Label Switched Paths", draft-ietf-
ccamp-lsp-hierarchy-bis-08.txt, February 2010.
[MLN-EXT] Dimitri 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-12.txt, February 21, 2010.
[RFC5623] E. Oki et al, "Framework for PCE-Based Inter-Layer MPLS
and GMPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC 5623, September 2009.
[RFC4606] E. Mannie, D. Papadimitriou, "Generalized Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for Synchronous
Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous Digital Hierarchy
(SDH) Control", RFC 4606, August 2006.
[OTN-ctrl] Fatai Zhang et al, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
witching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for the evolving
G.709 Optical Transport Networks Control", draft-zhang-
ccamp-gmpls-evolving-g709-04.txt, February 27, 2010.
[ETH-TP] D. Papadimitriou, "Ethernet Traffic Parameters", draft-
ietf-ccamp-ethernet-traffic-parameters-10.txt, January 20,
2010.
[IEEE] "IEEE Standard for Binary Floating-Point Arithmetic",
ANSI/IEEE Standard 754-1985, Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers, August 1985.
Zhang Expires January 2011 [Page 12]
draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-01.txt July 2010
10. Authors' Addresses
Fatai Zhang
Huawei Technologies
F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base
Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China
Phone: +86-755-28972912
Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com
Dan Li
Huawei Technologies
F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base
Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China
Phone: +86-755-28970230
Email: danli@huawei.com
Yi Lin
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base
Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China
Phone: +86-755-28972914
Email: linyi_hw@huawei.com
Intellectual Property
The IETF Trust 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 any IETF 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.
Zhang Expires January 2011 [Page 13]
draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-01.txt July 2010
Copies of Intellectual Property 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
any standard or specification contained in an IETF Document. Please
address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
The definitive version of an IETF Document is that published by, or
under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of IETF Documents that are
published by third parties, including those that are translated into
other languages, should not be considered to be definitive versions
of IETF Documents. The definitive version of these Legal Provisions
is that published by, or under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of
these Legal Provisions that are published by third parties, including
those that are translated into other languages, should not be
considered to be definitive versions of these Legal Provisions.
For the avoidance of doubt, each Contributor to the IETF Standards
Process licenses each Contribution that he or she makes as part of
the IETF Standards Process to the IETF Trust pursuant to the
provisions of RFC 5378. No language to the contrary, or terms,
conditions or rights that differ from or are inconsistent with the
rights and licenses granted under RFC 5378, shall have any effect and
shall be null and void, whether published or posted by such
Contributor, or included with or in such Contribution.
Disclaimer of Validity
All IETF Documents and the information contained therein are provided
on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE
IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL
WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY
WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION THEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE
ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Zhang Expires January 2011 [Page 14]
draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-01.txt July 2010
Copyright Notice
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.
Zhang Expires January 2011 [Page 15]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 12:21:16 |