idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-isis-rfc4205bis-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.1 on line 18. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 524. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 531. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 537. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line, instead of the newer IETF Trust Copyright according to RFC 4748. ** The document seems to lack an RFC 3978 Section 5.5 (updated by RFC 4748) Disclaimer -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Missing expiration date. The document expiration date should appear on the first and last page. == It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 0 form feeds but 12 pages Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** There are 20 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 1 character in excess of 72. -- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC4205, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC3784bis, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year == Line 425 has weird spacing: '...k Group n ...' == Line 435 has weird spacing: '...ability vari...' -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (November 2006) is 6364 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'IEEE' ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3373 (ref. 'ISIS-3way') (Obsoleted by RFC 5303) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3847 (ref. 'ISIS-RESTART') (Obsoleted by RFC 5306) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3784 (ref. 'ISIS-TE') (Obsoleted by RFC 5305) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3567 (ref. 'ISIS-HMAC') (Obsoleted by RFC 5304) Summary: 9 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 9 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group K. Kompella, Ed. 3 Internet Draft Y. Rekhter, Ed. 4 Updates: 3784bis Juniper Networks 5 Obsoletes: 4205 November 2006 6 Category: Standards Track 8 Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions 9 in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) 11 draft-ietf-isis-rfc4205bis-00.txt 13 Status of This Memo 15 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 16 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 17 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 18 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 20 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 21 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other 22 groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. 24 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 25 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 26 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 27 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 29 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 30 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 32 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 33 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 35 Copyright Notice 37 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). 39 Abstract 41 This document specifies encoding of extensions to the IS-IS routing 42 protocol in support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 43 (GMPLS). 45 1. Introduction 47 This document specifies extensions to the IS-IS routing protocol in 48 support of carrying link state information for Generalized Multi- 50 Internet draft IS-IS Extensions for GMPLS November 2006 52 Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS). The set of required enhancements 53 to IS-IS are outlined in [GMPLS-ROUTING]. Support for unnumbered 54 interfaces assumes support for the "Point-to-Point Three-Way 55 Adjacency" IS-IS Option type [ISIS-3way]. 57 In this section we define the enhancements to the Traffic Engineering 58 (TE) properties of GMPLS TE links that can be announced in IS-IS Link 59 State Protocol Data Units. 61 In this document, we enhance the sub-TLVs for the extended IS 62 reachability TLV (see [ISIS-TE]) in support of GMPLS. Specifically, 63 we add the following sub-TLVs: 65 Sub-TLV Type Length Name 66 4 8 Link Local/Remote Identifiers 67 20 2 Link Protection Type 68 21 variable Interface Switching Capability 69 Descriptor 71 Internet draft IS-IS Extensions for GMPLS November 2006 73 We further add one new TLV to the TE TLVs: 75 TLV Type Length Name 76 138 variable Shared Risk Link Group 78 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 79 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 80 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 82 1.1. Link Local/Remote Identifiers 84 A Link Local Interface Identifiers is a sub-TLV of the extended IS 85 reachability TLV. The type of this sub-TLV is 4, and length is eight 86 octets. The value field of this sub-TLV contains four octets of Link 87 Local Identifier followed by four octets of Link Remote Identifier 88 (see Section "Support for unnumbered links" of [GMPLS-ROUTING]). If 89 the Link Remote Identifier is unknown, it is set to 0. 91 The following illustrates encoding of the Value field of the Link 92 Local/Remote Identifiers sub-TLV. 94 0 1 2 3 95 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 96 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 97 | Link Local Identifier | 98 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 99 | Link Remote Identifier | 100 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 102 The Link Local/Remote Identifiers sub-TLV MUST NOT occur more than 103 once within the extended IS reachability TLV. If the Link 104 Local/Remote Identifiers sub-TLV occurs more than once within the 105 extended IS reachability TLV, the receiver SHOULD ignore all these 106 sub-TLVs. 108 1.2. Link Protection Type 110 The Link Protection Type is a sub-TLV (of type 20) of the extended IS 111 reachability TLV, with length two octets. 113 The following illustrates encoding of the Value field of the Link 114 Protection Type sub-TLV. 116 0 1 117 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 118 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 119 |Protection Cap | Reserved | 120 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 122 Internet draft IS-IS Extensions for GMPLS November 2006 124 The first octet is a bit vector describing the protection 125 capabilities of the link (see Section "Link Protection Type" of 126 [GMPLS-ROUTING]). They are: 128 0x01 Extra Traffic 130 0x02 Unprotected 132 0x04 Shared 134 0x08 Dedicated 1:1 136 0x10 Dedicated 1+1 138 0x20 Enhanced 140 0x40 Reserved 142 0x80 Reserved 144 The second octet SHOULD be set to zero by the sender, and SHOULD be 145 ignored by the receiver. 147 The Link Protection Type sub-TLV MUST NOT occur more than once within 148 the extended IS reachability TLV. If the Link Protection Type sub- 149 TLV occurs more than once within the extended IS reachability TLV, 150 the receiver SHOULD ignore all these sub-TLVs. 152 1.3. Interface Switching Capability Descriptor 154 The Interface Switching Capability Descriptor is a sub-TLV (of type 155 21) of the extended IS reachability TLV. The length is the length of 156 value field in octets. The following illustrates encoding of the 157 Value field of the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor sub-TLV. 159 Internet draft IS-IS Extensions for GMPLS November 2006 161 0 1 2 3 162 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 1 163 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 164 | Switching Cap | Encoding | Reserved | 165 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 166 | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 0 | 167 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 168 | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 1 | 169 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 170 | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 2 | 171 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 172 | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 3 | 173 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 174 | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 4 | 175 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 176 | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 5 | 177 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 178 | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 6 | 179 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 180 | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 7 | 181 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 182 | Switching Capability-specific information | 183 | (variable) | 184 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 186 The Switching Capability (Switching Cap) field contains one of the 187 following values: 189 1 Packet-Switch Capable-1 (PSC-1) 190 2 Packet-Switch Capable-2 (PSC-2) 191 3 Packet-Switch Capable-3 (PSC-3) 192 4 Packet-Switch Capable-4 (PSC-4) 193 51 Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC) 194 100 Time-Division-Multiplex Capable (TDM) 195 150 Lambda-Switch Capable (LSC) 196 200 Fiber-Switch Capable (FSC) 198 The Encoding field contains one of the values specified in Section 199 3.1.1 of [GMPLS-SIG]. 201 Maximum LSP Bandwidth is encoded as a list of eight 4 octet fields in 202 the IEEE floating point format [IEEE], with priority 0 first and 203 priority 7 last. The units are bytes (not bits!) per second. 205 The content of the Switching Capability specific information field 206 depends on the value of the Switching Capability field. 208 Internet draft IS-IS Extensions for GMPLS November 2006 210 When the Switching Capability field is PSC-1, PSC-2, PSC-3, or PSC-4, 211 the Switching Capability specific information field includes Minimum 212 LSP Bandwidth and Interface MTU. 214 0 1 2 3 215 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 1 216 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 217 | Minimum LSP Bandwidth | 218 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 219 | Interface MTU | 220 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 222 The Minimum LSP Bandwidth is encoded in a 4 octets field in the IEEE 223 floating point format. The units are bytes (not bits!) per second. 224 The Interface MTU is encoded as a 2 octets integer, and carries the 225 MTU value in the units of bytes. 227 When the Switching Capability field is L2SC, there is no Switching 228 Capability specific information field present. 230 When the Switching Capability field is TDM, the Switching Capability 231 specific information field includes Minimum LSP Bandwidth and an 232 indication whether the interface supports Standard or Arbitrary 233 SONET/SDH. 235 0 1 2 3 236 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 1 237 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 238 | Minimum LSP Bandwidth | 239 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 240 | Indication | 241 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 243 The Minimum LSP Bandwidth is encoded in a 4 octets field in the IEEE 244 floating point format. The units are bytes (not bits!) per second. 245 The indication whether the interface supports Standard or Arbitrary 246 SONET/SDH is encoded as 1 octet. The value of this octet is 0 if the 247 interface supports Standard SONET/SDH, and 1 if the interface 248 supports Arbitrary SONET/SDH. 250 When the Switching Capability field is LSC, there is no Switching 251 Capability specific information field present. 253 To support interfaces that have more than one Interface Switching 254 Capability Descriptor (see Section "Interface Switching Capability 255 Descriptor" of [GMPLS-ROUTING]) the Interface Switching Capability 256 Descriptor sub-TLV MAY occur more than once within the extended IS 257 reachability TLV. 259 Internet draft IS-IS Extensions for GMPLS November 2006 261 1.4. Shared Risk Link Group TLV 263 The SRLG TLV (of type 138) contains a data structure consisting of: 265 6 octets of System ID 266 1 octet of Pseudonode Number 267 1 octet Flag 268 4 octets of IPv4 interface address or 4 octets of a Link Local 269 Identifier 270 4 octets of IPv4 neighbor address or 4 octets of a Link Remote 271 Identifier 272 (variable) list of SRLG values, where each element in the list 273 has 4 octets. 275 The following illustrates encoding of the Value field of the SRLG 276 TLV. 278 0 1 2 3 279 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 1 280 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 281 | System ID | 282 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 283 | System ID (cont.) | Pseudonode num| Flags | 284 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 285 | IPv4 interface address/Link Local Identifier | 286 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 287 | IPv4 neighbors address/Link Remote Identifier | 288 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 289 | Shared Risk Link Group Value | 290 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 291 | ............ | 292 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 293 | Shared Risk Link Group Value | 294 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 296 The neighbor is identified by its System Id (6-octets), plus one 297 octet to indicate the pseudonode number if the neighbor is on a LAN 298 interface. 300 The Least Significant Bit of the Flag octet indicates whether the 301 interface is numbered (set to 1), or unnumbered (set to 0). All 302 other bits are reserved and should be set to 0. 304 The length of this TLV is 16 + 4 * (number of SRLG values). 306 This TLV carries the Shared Risk Link Group information (see Section 307 "Shared Risk Link Group Information" of [GMPLS-ROUTING]). 309 Internet draft IS-IS Extensions for GMPLS November 2006 311 The SRLG TLV MAY occur more than once within the IS-IS Link State 312 Protocol Data Units. 314 1.5. Link Identifier for Unnumbered Interfaces 316 Link Identifiers are exchanged in the Extended Local Circuit ID field 317 of the "Point-to-Point Three-Way Adjacency" IS-IS Option type 318 [ISIS-3way]. 320 2. Implications on Graceful Restart 322 The restarting node SHOULD follow the ISIS restart procedures 323 [ISIS-RESTART], and the RSVP-TE restart procedures [GMPLS-RSVP]. 325 When the restarting node is going to originate its IS-IS Link State 326 Protocol data units for TE links, these Link State Protocol data 327 units SHOULD be originated with 0 unreserved bandwidth, Traffic 328 Engineering Default metric set to 0xffffff, and if the link has LSC 329 or FSC as its Switching Capability then also with 0 as Max LSP 330 Bandwidth, until the node is able to determine the amount of 331 unreserved resources taking into account the resources reserved by 332 the already established LSPs that have been preserved across the 333 restart. Once the restarting node determines the amount of 334 unreserved resources, taking into account the resources reserved by 335 the already established LSPs that have been preserved across the 336 restart, the node SHOULD advertise these resources in its Link State 337 Protocol data units. 339 In addition, in the case of a planned restart prior to restarting, 340 the restarting node SHOULD originate the IS-IS Link State Protocol 341 data units for TE links with 0 as unreserved bandwidth, and if the 342 link has LSC or FSC as its Switching Capability then also with 0 as 343 Max LSP Bandwidth. This would discourage new LSP establishment 344 through the restarting router. 346 Neighbors of the restarting node SHOULD continue to advertise the 347 actual unreserved bandwidth on the TE links from the neighbors to 348 that node. 350 Internet draft IS-IS Extensions for GMPLS November 2006 352 3. Contributors 354 Ayan Banerjee 355 Calient Networks 356 5853 Rue Ferrari 357 San Jose, CA 95138 359 Phone: +1 408 972 3645 360 EMail: abanerjee@calient.net 362 John Drake 363 Calient Networks 364 5853 Rue Ferrari 365 San Jose, CA 95138 367 Phone: +1 408 972 3720 368 EMail: jdrake@calient.net 370 Greg Bernstein 371 Grotto Networking 373 EMail: gregb@grotto-networking.com 375 Don Fedyk 376 Nortel Networks Corp. 377 600 Technology Park Drive 378 Billerica, MA 01821 380 Phone: +1 978 288 4506 381 EMail: dwfedyk@nortelnetworks.com 383 Eric Mannie 384 Independent Consultant 386 EMail: eric_mannie@hotmail.com 388 Debanjan Saha 389 Tellium Optical Systems 390 2 Crescent Place 391 P.O. Box 901 392 Ocean Port, NJ 07757 394 Phone: +1 732 923 4264 395 EMail: dsaha@tellium.com 397 Vishal Sharma 399 EMail: v.sharma@ieee.org 401 Internet draft IS-IS Extensions for GMPLS November 2006 403 4. Acknowledgements 405 The authors would like to thank Jim Gibson, Suresh Katukam, Jonathan 406 Lang and Quaizar Vohra for their comments on the draft. 408 5. Security Considerations 410 This document specifies the contents of GMPLS TE TLVs in ISIS. As 411 these TLVs are not used for SPF computation or normal routing, the 412 extensions specified here have no direct effect on IP routing. 413 Tampering with GMPLS TE TLVs may have an effect on the underlying 414 transport (optical and/or SONET-SDH) network. Mechanisms to secure 415 ISIS Link State PDUs and/or the TE TLVs [ISIS-HMAC] can be used to 416 secure the GMPLS TE TLVs as well. 418 6. IANA Considerations 420 This document defines the following new ISIS TLV type that needs to 421 be reflected in the ISIS TLV code-point registry: 423 Type Description IIH LSP SNP 424 ---- ---------------------- --- --- --- 425 138 Shared Risk Link Group n y n 427 This document also defines the following new sub-TLV types of top- 428 level TLV 22 that need to be reflected in the ISIS sub-TLV registry 429 for TLV 22: 431 Type Description Length 432 ---- ------------------------------ -------- 433 4 Link Local/Remote Identifiers 8 434 20 Link Protection Type 2 435 21 Interface Switching Capability variable 436 Descriptor 438 References 440 Normative References 442 [GMPLS-ROUTING] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing 443 Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol 444 Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005. 446 [GMPLS-RSVP] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label 447 Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation 448 Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", 449 RFC 3473, January 2003. 451 Internet draft IS-IS Extensions for GMPLS November 2006 453 [GMPLS-SIG] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label 454 Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", 455 RFC 3471, January 2003. 457 [IEEE] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Binary Floating-Point 458 Arithmetic", Standard 754-1985, 1985 (ISBN 459 1-5593-7653-8). 461 [ISIS-3way] Katz, D. and R. Saluja, "Three-Way Handshake for 462 Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) 463 Point-to-Point Adjacencies", RFC 3373, September 464 2002. 466 [ISIS-RESTART] Shand, M. and L. Ginsberg, "Restart Signaling for 467 Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS)", 468 RFC 3847, July 2004. 470 [ISIS-TE] Smit, H. and T. Li, "Intermediate System to 471 Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions for Traffic 472 Engineering (TE)", RFC 3784, June 2004. 474 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 475 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 477 [ISIS-HMAC] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "Intermediate System to 478 Intermediate System (IS-IS) Cryptographic 479 Authentication", RFC 3567, July 2003. 481 Authors' Addresses 483 Kireeti Kompella 484 Juniper Networks, Inc. 485 1194 N. Mathilda Ave 486 Sunnyvale, CA 94089 488 EMail: kireeti@juniper.net 490 Yakov Rekhter 491 Juniper Networks, Inc. 492 1194 N. Mathilda Ave 493 Sunnyvale, CA 94089 495 EMail: yakov@juniper.net 497 Internet draft IS-IS Extensions for GMPLS November 2006 499 Full Copyright Statement 501 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). 503 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions 504 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors 505 retain all their rights. 507 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 508 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 509 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET 510 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 511 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFOR- 512 MATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES 513 OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 515 Intellectual Property 517 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 518 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 519 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 520 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 521 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 522 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 523 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 524 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 526 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 527 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 528 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 529 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 530 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 531 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 533 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 534 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 535 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 536 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- 537 ipr@ietf.org. 539 Acknowledgement 541 Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF 542 Administrative Support Activity (IASA).