| < draft-srisuresh-ospf-te-05.txt | draft-srisuresh-ospf-te-06.txt > | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Network Working Group P. Srisuresh | Network Working Group P. Srisuresh | |||
| INTERNET-DRAFT Consultant | INTERNET-DRAFT Caymas Systems, Inc. | |||
| Expires as of August 7, 2003 P. Joseph | Expires as of September 3, 2004 P. Joseph | |||
| Force10 Networks | Force10 Networks | |||
| February 7, 2003 | March 3, 2004 | |||
| OSPF-xTE: An experimental extension to OSPF for Traffic Engineering | OSPF-xTE: An experimental extension to OSPF for Traffic Engineering | |||
| <draft-srisuresh-ospf-te-05.txt> | <draft-srisuresh-ospf-te-06.txt> | |||
| Status of this Memo | Status of this Memo | |||
| This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with | This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with | |||
| all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. | all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. | |||
| Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | |||
| Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that | Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that | |||
| other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- | other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- | |||
| Drafts. | Drafts. | |||
| skipping to change at page 1, line 36 ¶ | skipping to change at page 1, line 36 ¶ | |||
| The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at | The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at | |||
| http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt | http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt | |||
| The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at | The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at | |||
| http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. | http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. | |||
| Abstract | Abstract | |||
| This document defines OSPF-xTE, an experimental traffic engineering | This document defines OSPF-xTE, an experimental traffic engineering | |||
| (TE) extension to the link-state routing protocol OSPF. New TE LSAs | (TE) extension to the link-state routing protocol OSPF. OSPF-xTE | |||
| are defined to disseminate TE metrics within an autonomous | defines new TE LSAs to disseminate TE metrics within an autonomous | |||
| System (AS) - intra-area as well as inter-area. An Autonomous | System (AS), which may consist of multiple areas. Further, When an | |||
| System may consist of TE and non-TE nodes. Non-TE nodes are | AS consists of TE and non-TE nodes, OSPF-xTE ensures that Non-TE | |||
| uneffected by the distribution of TE LSAs. A stand-alone TE Link | nodes in the AS are uneffected by the TE LSAs. OSPF-xTE generates | |||
| State Database (TE-LSDB), separate from the native OSPF LSDB, is | a stand-alone TE Link State Database (TE-LSDB), distinct from the | |||
| generated for the computation of TE circuit paths. OSPF-xTE is | native OSPF LSDB, for computation of TE circuit paths. OSPF-xTE is | |||
| also extendible to non-packet networks such as SONET/TDM and | versatile and extendible to non-packet networks such as SONET/TDM | |||
| optical networks. A transition path is provided for those using | and optical networks. | |||
| [OPQLSA-TE] and wish to adapt OSPF-xTE. | ||||
| Table of Contents | Table of Contents | |||
| 1. Introduction ................................................3 | 1. Introduction ................................................3 | |||
| 2. Principles of traffic engineering ...........................3 | 2. Principles of traffic engineering ...........................3 | |||
| 3. Terminology .................................................4 | 3. Terminology .................................................4 | |||
| 3.1. Native OSPF terms ......................................4 | 3.1. Native OSPF terms ......................................4 | |||
| 3.2. OSPF-xTE terms .........................................5 | 3.2. OSPF-xTE terms .........................................5 | |||
| 4. Motivations behind the design of OSPF-xTE ...................8 | 4. Motivations behind the design of OSPF-xTE ...................8 | |||
| 4.1. Scalable design ........................................8 | 4.1. Scalable design ........................................8 | |||
| 4.2. Operable in mixed and peer networks ....................9 | 4.2. Operable in mixed and peer networks ....................9 | |||
| 4.3. Efficient in flooding reach ............................9 | 4.3. Efficient in flooding reach ............................9 | |||
| 4.4. Ability to reserve TE-exclusive links .................10 | 4.4. Ability to reserve TE-exclusive links ..................9 | |||
| 4.5. Extendible design .....................................10 | 4.5. Extendible design .....................................10 | |||
| 4.6. Unified for packet and non-packet networks ............10 | 4.6. Unified for packet and non-packet networks ............10 | |||
| 4.7. Networks benefiting from the OSPF-xTE design ..........11 | 4.7. Networks benefiting from the OSPF-xTE design ..........10 | |||
| 5. OSPF-xTE solution overview .................................12 | 5. OSPF-xTE solution overview .................................11 | |||
| 5.1. OSPF-xTE Solution .....................................12 | 5.1. OSPF-xTE Solution .....................................11 | |||
| 5.2. Assumptions ...........................................13 | 5.2. Assumptions ...........................................13 | |||
| 6. Opaque LSAs to OSPF-xTE transition strategy ................14 | 6. Opaque LSAs to OSPF-xTE transition strategy ................14 | |||
| 7. OSPF-xTE router adjacency - TE topology discovery ..........14 | 7. OSPF-xTE router adjacency - TE topology discovery ..........14 | |||
| 7.1. The OSPF Options field ................................15 | 7.1. The OSPF Options field ................................15 | |||
| 7.2. The Hello Protocol ....................................15 | 7.2. The Hello Protocol ....................................15 | |||
| 7.3. Flooding and the Synchronization of Databases .........16 | 7.3. Flooding and the Synchronization of Databases .........16 | |||
| 7.4. The Designated Router .................................16 | 7.4. The Designated Router .................................16 | |||
| 7.5. The Backup Designated Router ..........................16 | 7.5. The Backup Designated Router ..........................16 | |||
| 7.6. The graph of adjacencies ..............................17 | 7.6. The graph of adjacencies ..............................17 | |||
| 8. TE LSAs for packet network .................................18 | 8. TE LSAs for packet network .................................18 | |||
| skipping to change at page 3, line 18 ¶ | skipping to change at page 3, line 18 ¶ | |||
| engineering (TE) extension to the link-state routing protocol | engineering (TE) extension to the link-state routing protocol | |||
| OSPF. The objective of OSPF-xTE is to discover TE network | OSPF. The objective of OSPF-xTE is to discover TE network | |||
| topology and disseminate TE metrics within an autonomous system | topology and disseminate TE metrics within an autonomous system | |||
| (AS). A stand-alone TE Link State Database (TE-LSDB), different | (AS). A stand-alone TE Link State Database (TE-LSDB), different | |||
| from the native OSPF LSDB, is created to facilitate computation | from the native OSPF LSDB, is created to facilitate computation | |||
| of TE circuit paths. Devising algorithms to compute TE circuit | of TE circuit paths. Devising algorithms to compute TE circuit | |||
| paths is not an objective of this document. | paths is not an objective of this document. | |||
| OSPF-xTE is different from the Opaque-LSA-based design outlined | OSPF-xTE is different from the Opaque-LSA-based design outlined | |||
| in [OPQLSA-TE]. Section 4 describes the motivations behind the | in [OPQLSA-TE]. Section 4 describes the motivations behind the | |||
| design of OSPF-xTE. Section 6 outlines a strategy to transition | design of OSPF-xTE. Section 6 outlines a transition path for | |||
| Opaque-LSA based implementations to adapt OSPF-xTE. | those currently using [OPQLSA-TE] and wish to experiment with | |||
| OSPF-xTE. | ||||
| Readers interested in TE extensions for the packet networks | Readers interested in TE extensions for the packet networks | |||
| only may skip section 9.0. | alone may skip section 9.0. | |||
| 2. Principles of traffic engineering | 2. Principles of traffic engineering | |||
| The objective of traffic engineering (TE) is to set up circuit | The objective of traffic engineering (TE) is to set up circuit | |||
| path(s) between a pair of nodes or links and to forward traffic | path(s) between a pair of nodes or links and to forward traffic | |||
| of a certain forwarding equivalency class (FEC) through the | of a certain forwarding equivalency class (FEC) through the | |||
| circuit path. Only the unicast circuit paths are considered | circuit path. Only the unicast circuit paths are considered | |||
| in this section. Multicast variations are outside the scope. | in this section. Multicast variations are outside the scope. | |||
| A traffic engineered circuit path is uni-directional and may | A traffic engineered circuit path is uni-directional and may | |||
| skipping to change at page 9, line 12 ¶ | skipping to change at page 9, line 12 ¶ | |||
| OSPF-xTE area level abstraction provides the scaling required | OSPF-xTE area level abstraction provides the scaling required | |||
| for the TE topology in a large autonomous system (AS). | for the TE topology in a large autonomous system (AS). | |||
| An OSPF-xTE area border router will advertise summary LSAs for | An OSPF-xTE area border router will advertise summary LSAs for | |||
| TE and non-TE topologies independent of each other. Readers | TE and non-TE topologies independent of each other. Readers | |||
| may refer to section 10 for a topological view of the AS from | may refer to section 10 for a topological view of the AS from | |||
| the perspective of a OSPF-xTE node in an area. | the perspective of a OSPF-xTE node in an area. | |||
| 4.2. Operable in mixed and peer networks | 4.2. Operable in mixed and peer networks | |||
| OSPF-xTE regards an AS as constituted of a TE and non-TE networks | OSPF-xTE assumes that an AS may be constituted of coexisting | |||
| coexisting within the same bounds. OSPF-xTE dynamically discovers | TE and non-TE networks. OSPF-xTE dynamically discovers TE | |||
| TE topology and the associated TE metrics of the nodes and links | topology and the associated TE metrics of the nodes and links | |||
| within, just as the native OSPF does of a non-TE network. An | that form the TE network. As such, OSPF-xTE generates a | |||
| independent TE-LSDB, representative of the TE topology is | stand-alone TE-LSDB that is fully representative of the TE | |||
| generated as a result. A stand-alone TE-LSDB allows for speedy | network. Stand-alone TE-LSDB allows for speedy TE computations. | |||
| searches through the database. | ||||
| In [OPQLSA-TE], the TE-LSDB is derived from the combination of | In [OPQLSA-TE], the TE-LSDB is derived from the combination of | |||
| opaque LSAs and native LSDB. Further, the TE-LSDB thus derived has | opaque LSAs and native LSDB. Further, the TE-LSDB thus derived has | |||
| no knowledge of the TE capabilities of the routers in the network. | no knowledge of the TE capabilities of the routers in the network. | |||
| 4.3. Efficient in flooding reach | 4.3. Efficient in flooding reach | |||
| OSPF-xTE is able to identify the TE topology in a mixed network | OSPF-xTE is able to identify the TE topology in a mixed network | |||
| and will limit the flooding of TE LSAs to just the TE-nodes. | and will limit the flooding of TE LSAs to just the TE-nodes. | |||
| Non-TE nodes are not bombarded with TE LSAs. | Non-TE nodes are not bombarded with TE LSAs. | |||
| skipping to change at page 9, line 51 ¶ | skipping to change at page 9, line 50 ¶ | |||
| just a subset of the metrics that are prone to rapid changes. | just a subset of the metrics that are prone to rapid changes. | |||
| The more frequent and wider the flooding frequency, the larger | The more frequent and wider the flooding frequency, the larger | |||
| the number of retransmissions and acknowledgements. The same | the number of retransmissions and acknowledgements. The same | |||
| information (needed or not) may reach a router through multiple | information (needed or not) may reach a router through multiple | |||
| links. Even if the router did not forward the information past | links. Even if the router did not forward the information past | |||
| the node, it would still have to send acknowledgements across | the node, it would still have to send acknowledgements across | |||
| all the various links on which the LSAs tried to converge. | all the various links on which the LSAs tried to converge. | |||
| It is undesirable to flood non-TE nodes with TE information. | It is undesirable to flood non-TE nodes with TE information. | |||
| [OPQLSA-TE] uses Opaque LSAs for advertising TE information. | ||||
| Opaque LSAs reach all nodes within the network - TE-nodes and | ||||
| non-TE nodes alike. [OPQLSA-TE] also does not have provision | ||||
| to advertise just the TLVs that changed. A change in any TLV | ||||
| of a link will mandate the entire LSA to be transmitted. | ||||
| 4.4. Ability to reserve TE-exclusive links | 4.4. Ability to reserve TE-exclusive links | |||
| OSPF-xTE draws a clear distinction between TE and non-TE | OSPF-xTE draws a clear distinction between TE and non-TE | |||
| links. A TE link may be configured to permit TE traffic | links. A TE link may be configured to permit TE traffic | |||
| alone, and not permit best-effort IP traffic on the link. | alone, and not permit best-effort IP traffic on the link. | |||
| This permits TE enforceability on the TE links. | This permits TE enforceability on the TE links. | |||
| When links of a TE-topology do not overlap the links of a | When links of a TE-topology do not overlap the links of a | |||
| native IP network, OSPF-xTE allows for virtual isolation of | native IP network, OSPF-xTE allows for virtual isolation of | |||
| the two networks. Best-effort IP network and TE network often | the two networks. Best-effort IP network and TE network often | |||
| skipping to change at page 10, line 39 ¶ | skipping to change at page 10, line 32 ¶ | |||
| inundate the link with best-effort IP traffic, thereby | inundate the link with best-effort IP traffic, thereby | |||
| rendering the link unusable for TE purposes. | rendering the link unusable for TE purposes. | |||
| 4.5. Extendible design | 4.5. Extendible design | |||
| OSPF-xTE design is based on the tried and tested OSPF paradigm, | OSPF-xTE design is based on the tried and tested OSPF paradigm, | |||
| and inherits all the benefits of the OSPF, present and future. | and inherits all the benefits of the OSPF, present and future. | |||
| TE-LSAs are extendible, just as the native OSPF on which | TE-LSAs are extendible, just as the native OSPF on which | |||
| OSPF-xTE is founded. | OSPF-xTE is founded. | |||
| [OPQLSA-TE], on the other hand, is constrained by the semantics | ||||
| of the Opaque LSA on which it is founded. The content within an | ||||
| Opaque LSA is restricted to being in the form of TLVs and | ||||
| sub-TLVs, some of which are mandatory. Opaque LSAs are also | ||||
| restrictive when the flooding scope is required to be different | ||||
| from the scope of the opaque LSA itself. | ||||
| 4.6. Unified for packet and non-packet networks | 4.6. Unified for packet and non-packet networks | |||
| OSPF-xTE is usable within a packet network or a non-packet | OSPF-xTE is usable within a packet network or a non-packet | |||
| network or a combination peer network. | network or a combination peer network. | |||
| Signaling protocols such as RSVP and LDP work the same across | Signaling protocols such as RSVP and LDP work the same across | |||
| packet and non-packet networks. Signaling protocols merely need | packet and non-packet networks. Signaling protocols merely need | |||
| the TE characteristics of nodes and links so they can signal the | the TE characteristics of nodes and links so they can signal the | |||
| nodes to formulate TE circuit paths. In a peer network, the | nodes to formulate TE circuit paths. In a peer network, the | |||
| underlying control protocol must be capable of providing a | underlying control protocol must be capable of providing a | |||
| unified LSDB for all TE nodes (nodes with packet-TE links as well | unified LSDB for all TE nodes (nodes with packet-TE links as well | |||
| as non-packet-TE links) in the network. OSPF-xTE meets this | as non-packet-TE links) in the network. OSPF-xTE meets this | |||
| requirement. | requirement. | |||
| [OPQLSA-TE] is limited in scope for packet networks and does | ||||
| not have provision to distinguish between node types within | ||||
| a TE network. | ||||
| 4.7. Networks benefiting from the OSPF-xTE design | 4.7. Networks benefiting from the OSPF-xTE design | |||
| Below are examples of some real-world network scenarios that | Below are examples of some real-world network scenarios that | |||
| benefit from OSPF-xTE. | benefit from OSPF-xTE. | |||
| 4.7.1. IP providers transitioning to provide TE services | 4.7.1. IP providers transitioning to provide TE services | |||
| Providers needing to support MPLS based TE in their IP network | Providers needing to support MPLS based TE in their IP network | |||
| may choose to transition gradually. Perhaps, add new TE links | may choose to transition gradually. Perhaps, add new TE links | |||
| or convert existing links into TE links within an area first | or convert existing links into TE links within an area first | |||
| and progressively advance to offer in the entire AS. | and progressively advance to offer in the entire AS. | |||
| Not all routers will support TE extensions at the same time | Not all routers will support TE extensions at the same time | |||
| during the migration process. Use of TE specific LSAs and their | during the migration process. Use of TE specific LSAs and their | |||
| flooding to OSPF-xTE only nodes will allow the vendor to | flooding to OSPF-xTE only nodes will allow the vendor to | |||
| introduce MPLS TE without destabilizing the existing network. | introduce MPLS TE without destabilizing the existing network. | |||
| The native OSPF-LSDB will remain undisturbed while newer TE | The native OSPF-LSDB will remain undisturbed while newer TE | |||
| skipping to change at page 12, line 19 ¶ | skipping to change at page 11, line 47 ¶ | |||
| non-packet TE networks. | non-packet TE networks. | |||
| (a) "Positional-Ring" type network LSA and | (a) "Positional-Ring" type network LSA and | |||
| (b) Router Proxying - allowing a router to advertise on behalf | (b) Router Proxying - allowing a router to advertise on behalf | |||
| of other nodes (that are not Packet/OSPF capable). | of other nodes (that are not Packet/OSPF capable). | |||
| 5. OSPF-xTE solution overview | 5. OSPF-xTE solution overview | |||
| 5.1. OSPF-xTE Solution | 5.1. OSPF-xTE Solution | |||
| A new TE flag is introduced within the OSPF options field to | A new TE flag is introduced within the OSPF options field to | |||
| to enable discovery of TE topology. Section 8.0 describes the | enable discovery of TE topology. Section 8.0 describes the | |||
| semantics of the TE flag. TE LSAs are designed for use by the | semantics of the TE flag. TE LSAs are designed for use by the | |||
| OSPF-xTE nodes. Section 9.0 describes the TE LSAs in detail. | OSPF-xTE nodes. Section 9.0 describes the TE LSAs in detail. | |||
| Changes required of the OSPF data structures to support | Changes required of the OSPF data structures to support | |||
| OSPF-xTE are described in section 11.0. A new TE-neighbors data | OSPF-xTE are described in section 11.0. A new TE-neighbors data | |||
| structure will be used to flood TE LSAs along TE-topology. | structure will be used to flood TE LSAs along TE-topology. | |||
| An OSPF-xTE node will have the native LSDB and the TE-LSDB, | An OSPF-xTE node will have the native LSDB and the TE-LSDB, | |||
| A native OSPF node will have just the native LSDB. | A native OSPF node will have just the native LSDB. | |||
| Consider the following OSPF area constituted of OSPF-xTE and | Consider the following OSPF area constituted of OSPF-xTE and | |||
| native OSPF routers. Nodes RT1, RT2, RT3 and RT6 are OSPF-xTE | native OSPF routers. Nodes RT1, RT2, RT3 and RT6 are OSPF-xTE | |||
| routers with TE and non-TE link attachments. Nodes RT4 and RT5 | routers with TE and non-TE link attachments. Nodes RT4 and RT5 | |||
| are native OSPF routers with no TE links. When the LSA database | are native OSPF routers with no TE links. When the LSA database | |||
| skipping to change at page 37, line 17 ¶ | skipping to change at page 37, line 17 ¶ | |||
| used by the OSPF protocol itself. It may be used to communicate | used by the OSPF protocol itself. It may be used to communicate | |||
| information between AS boundary routers; the precise nature of | information between AS boundary routers; the precise nature of | |||
| such information is outside the scope of this specification. | such information is outside the scope of this specification. | |||
| 9. TE LSAs for non-packet network | 9. TE LSAs for non-packet network | |||
| A non-packet network would use the TE LSAs described in the | A non-packet network would use the TE LSAs described in the | |||
| previous section for a packet network with some variations. | previous section for a packet network with some variations. | |||
| These variations are described in the following subsections. | These variations are described in the following subsections. | |||
| Two new LSAs, TE-Positional-ring-network LSA and | Two new LSAs, TE-Positional-ring-network LSA and TE-Router-Proxy | |||
| TE-Router-Proxy LSA are defined for explicit use in | LSA are defined for use in non-packet TE networks. | |||
| non-packet TE networks. | ||||
| Readers may refer to [SONET-SDH] for a detailed description of | Readers may refer to [SONET-SDH] for a detailed description of | |||
| the terms used in the context of SONET/SDH TDM networks, | the terms used in the context of SONET/SDH TDM networks, | |||
| 9.1. TE-Router LSA (0x81) | 9.1. TE-Router LSA (0x81) | |||
| The following fields are used to describe each router link (i.e., | The following fields are used to describe each router link (i.e., | |||
| interface). Each router link is typed (see the below Type field). | interface). Each router link is typed (see the below Type field). | |||
| The Type field indicates the kind of link being described. | The Type field indicates the kind of link being described. | |||
| skipping to change at page 46, line 41 ¶ | skipping to change at page 46, line 41 ¶ | |||
| TE-LINK-TLV-COLOR Section 8.1.4.6 0x0006 | TE-LINK-TLV-COLOR Section 8.1.4.6 0x0006 | |||
| TE-LINK-TLV-NULL Section 8.1.4.7 0x8888 | TE-LINK-TLV-NULL Section 8.1.4.7 0x8888 | |||
| TE-NODE-TLV-MPLS-SWITCHING Section 8.1.2.1 0x8001 | TE-NODE-TLV-MPLS-SWITCHING Section 8.1.2.1 0x8001 | |||
| TE-NODE-TLV-MPLS-SIG-PROTOCOLS Section 8.1.2.2 0x8002 | TE-NODE-TLV-MPLS-SIG-PROTOCOLS Section 8.1.2.2 0x8002 | |||
| TE-NODE-TLV-CSPF-ALG Section 8.1.2.3 0x8003 | TE-NODE-TLV-CSPF-ALG Section 8.1.2.3 0x8003 | |||
| TE-NODE-TLV-NULL Section 8.1.2.4 0x8888 | TE-NODE-TLV-NULL Section 8.1.2.4 0x8888 | |||
| 13. Acknowledgements | 13. Acknowledgements | |||
| The authors wish to specially thank Chitti Babu and his team | The authors wish to specially thank Chitti Babu and his team | |||
| for verifying several portions of the specification in a | for implementing the protocol specified in a packet network | |||
| and verifying several portions of the specification in a | ||||
| mixed packet network. The authors also wish to thank Vishwas | mixed packet network. The authors also wish to thank Vishwas | |||
| Manral, Riyad Hartani and Tricci So for their valuable | Manral, Riyad Hartani and Tricci So for their valuable | |||
| comments and feedback on the draft. Lastly, the authors wish | comments and feedback on the draft. Lastly, the authors wish | |||
| to thank Alex Zinin and Mike Shand for their draft (now | to thank Alex Zinin and Mike Shand for their draft (now | |||
| defunct) titled "Flooding optimizations in link state routing | defunct) titled "Flooding optimizations in link state routing | |||
| protocols". The draft provided inspiration to the authors to | protocols". The draft provided inspiration to the authors to | |||
| be sensitive to the high flooding rate, likely in TE networks. | be sensitive to the high flooding rate, likely in TE networks. | |||
| 14. Security Considerations | 14. Security Considerations | |||
| skipping to change at page 48, line 34 ¶ | skipping to change at page 48, line 35 ¶ | |||
| [OSPF-v2] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998. | [OSPF-v2] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998. | |||
| [SEC-OSPF] Murphy, S., Badger, M., and B. Wellington, "OSPF with | [SEC-OSPF] Murphy, S., Badger, M., and B. Wellington, "OSPF with | |||
| Digital Signatures", RFC 2154, June 1997 | Digital Signatures", RFC 2154, June 1997 | |||
| 16. Informative References | 16. Informative References | |||
| [RSVP-TE] Awduche, D., L. Berger, D. Gan, T. Li, V. Srinivasan, | [RSVP-TE] Awduche, D., L. Berger, D. Gan, T. Li, V. Srinivasan, | |||
| and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP | and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP | |||
| Tunnels", RFC3209, IETF, December 2001 | Tunnels", RFC 3209, IETF, December 2001 | |||
| [CR-LDP] Jamoussi, B. et al, "Constraint-Based LSP Setup | [CR-LDP] Jamoussi, B. et al, "Constraint-Based LSP Setup | |||
| using LDP", draft-ietf-mpls-cr-ldp-06.txt, | using LDP", RFC 3212, January 2002. | |||
| Work in Progress. | ||||
| [MOSPF] Moy, J., "Multicast Extensions to OSPF", RFC 1584, | [MOSPF] Moy, J., "Multicast Extensions to OSPF", RFC 1584, | |||
| March 1994. | March 1994. | |||
| [NSSA] Coltun, R., V. Fuller and P. Murphy, "The OSPF NSSA | [NSSA] P. Murphy, "The OSPF NSSA Option", RFC 3101, January | |||
| Option", draft-ietf-ospf-nssa-update-11.txt, Work in | 2003 | |||
| Progress. | ||||
| [OPAQUE] Coltun, R., "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option," RFC 2370, | [OPAQUE] Coltun, R., "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 2370, | |||
| July 1998. | July 1998. | |||
| [OPQLSA-TE] Katz, D., D. Yeung and K. Kompella, "Traffic | [OPQLSA-TE] Katz, D., D. Yeung and K. Kompella, "Traffic | |||
| Engineering Extensions to OSPF", work in progress, | ||||
| <draft-katz-yeung-ospf-traffic-09.txt> | Engineering Extensions to OSPF", RFC 3630, September | |||
| 2003. | ||||
| [SONET-SDH] Ming-CHwan Chow, "Understanding SONET/SDH Standards | [SONET-SDH] Ming-CHwan Chow, "Understanding SONET/SDH Standards | |||
| and Applications" - A paperback or bound book, | and Applications" - A paperback or bound book, | |||
| Published by Andan publisher. | Published by Andan publisher. | |||
| [GMPLS-TE] P.A. Smith et. al, "Generalized MPLS - Signaling | [GMPLS-TE] L. Berger, "Generalized Multi Protocol Label | |||
| Functional Description", work in progress, | Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", | |||
| draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-09.txt | RFC 3471, January 2003 | |||
| Authors' Addresses | Authors' Addresses | |||
| Pyda Srisuresh | Pyda Srisuresh | |||
| Consultant | Caymas Systems, Inc. | |||
| 849 Erie circle | 1179-A North McDowell Blvd. | |||
| Milpitas, CA 95035 | Petaluma, CA 94954 | |||
| U.S.A. | U.S.A. | |||
| EMail: srisuresh@yahoo.com | EMail: srisuresh@yahoo.com | |||
| Paul Joseph | Paul Joseph | |||
| Force10 Networks | Force10 Networks | |||
| 1440 McCarthy Boulevard | 1440 McCarthy Boulevard | |||
| Milpitas, CA 95035 | Milpitas, CA 95035 | |||
| U.S.A. | U.S.A. | |||
| EMail: pjoseph@Force10Networks.com | EMail: pjoseph@Force10Networks.com | |||
| End of changes. 25 change blocks. | ||||
| 67 lines changed or deleted | 47 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ | ||||