idnits 2.17.1 draft-rabbat-ccamp-rfc3946bis-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 16. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5 on line 1054. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 1031. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 1038. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 1044. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line, instead of the newer IETF Trust Copyright according to RFC 4748. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.5 Disclaimer, instead of the newer disclaimer which includes the IETF Trust according to RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year -- 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 (August 21, 2005) is 6821 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. 'G.707' Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 8 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group R. Rabbat 3 Internet-Draft Fujitsu 4 Expires: February 22, 2006 August 21, 2005 6 Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for 7 Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous Digital Hierarchy 8 (SDH) Control 9 draft-rabbat-ccamp-rfc3946bis-00 11 Status of this Memo 13 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 14 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 15 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 16 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 18 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 19 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 20 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 21 Drafts. 23 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 24 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 25 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 26 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 28 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 29 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 31 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 32 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 34 This Internet-Draft will expire on February 22, 2006. 36 Copyright Notice 38 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). 40 Source of this document 42 This document provides minor updates for clarification to RFC 3946. 43 RFC 3946 was originally published in October 2004. It was produced 44 by the CCAMP working of the IETF and was jointly edited by Eric 45 Mannie and Dimitri Papadimitriou. The RFC was based on work by the 46 following list of co-contributors: Stefan Ansorge, Peter Ashwood- 47 Smith, Ayan Banerjee, Lou Berger, Greg Bernstein, Angela Chiu, John 48 Drake, Yanhe Fan, Michele Fontana, Gert Grammel, Juergen Heiles, 49 Suresh Katukam, Kireeti Kompella, Jonathan P. Lang, Fong Liaw, Zhi- 50 Wei Lin, Ben Mack-Crane, Dimitrios Pendarakis, Mike Raftelis, Bala 51 Rajagopalan, Yakov Rekhter, Debanjan Saha, Vishal Sharma, George 52 Swallow, Z. Bo Tang, Eve Varma, and Yangguang Xu. 54 Abstract 56 This document is a companion to the Generalized Multi-Protocol Label 57 Switching (GMPLS) signaling. It defines the Synchronous Optical 58 Network (SONET)/Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) technology 59 specific information needed when using GMPLS signaling. 61 Table of Contents 63 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 64 2. SONET and SDH Traffic Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 65 2.1. SONET/SDH Traffic Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 66 2.2. RSVP-TE Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 67 2.3. CR-LDP Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 68 3. SONET and SDH Labels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 69 4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 70 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 71 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 72 7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 73 Appendix 1 - Signal Type Values Extension for VC-3 . . . . . . . 19 74 Annex 1 - Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 75 Editors of RFC 3946 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 76 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 77 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 24 79 1. Introduction 81 As described in [RFC3945], Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) extends MPLS from 82 supporting packet (Packet Switching Capable - PSC) interfaces and 83 switching to include support of four new classes of interfaces and 84 switching: Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC), Time-Division Multiplex 85 (TDM), Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) and Fiber-Switch Capable (FSC). A 86 functional description of the extensions to MPLS signaling needed to 87 support the new classes of interfaces and switching is provided in 88 [RFC3471]. [RFC3473] describes RSVP-TE specific formats and 89 mechanisms needed to support all five classes of interfaces, and CR- 90 LDP extensions can be found in [RFC3472]. This document presents 91 details that are specific to Synchronous Optical Network (SONET)/ 92 Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH). Per [RFC3471], SONET/SDH 93 specific parameters are carried in the signaling protocol in traffic 94 parameter specific objects. 96 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 97 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 98 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 100 Moreover, the reader is assumed to be familiar with the terminology 101 in ANSI [T1.105], ITU-T [G.707] as well as [RFC3471], [RFC3472], and 102 [RFC3473]. The following abbreviations are used in this document: 104 DCC: Data Communications Channel. 105 LOVC: Lower Order Virtual Container 106 HOVC: Higher Order Virtual Container 107 MS: Multiplex Section. 108 MSOH: Multiplex Section overhead. 109 POH: Path overhead. 110 RS: Regenerator Section. 111 RSOH: Regenerator section overhead. 112 SDH: Synchronous digital hierarchy. 113 SOH: Section overhead. 114 SONET: Synchronous Optical Network. 115 SPE: Synchronous Payload Envelope. 116 STM(-N): Synchronous Transport Module (-N) (SDH). 117 STS(-N): Synchronous Transport Signal-Level N (SONET). 118 VC-n: Virtual Container-n (SDH). 119 VTn: Virtual Tributary-n (SONET). 121 2. SONET and SDH Traffic Parameters 123 This section defines the GMPLS traffic parameters for SONET/SDH. The 124 protocol specific formats, for the SONET/SDH-specific RSVP-TE objects 125 and CR-LDP TLVs are described in sections 2.2 and 2.3 respectively. 127 These traffic parameters specify indeed a base set of capabilities 128 for SONET ANSI [T1.105] and SDH ITU-T [G.707] such as concatenation 129 and transparency. Other documents may further enhance this set of 130 capabilities in the future. For instance, signaling for SDH over PDH 131 ITU-T G.832 or sub-STM-0 ITU-T G.708 interfaces could be defined. 133 The traffic parameters defined hereafter (see Section 2.1) MUST be 134 used when the label is encoded as SUKLM as defined in this memo (see 135 Section 3). They MUST also be used when requesting one of Section/RS 136 or Line/MS overhead transparent STS-1/STM-0, STS-3*N/STM-N (N=1, 4, 137 16, 64, 256) signals. 139 The traffic parameters and label encoding defined in [RFC3471], 140 Section 3.2, MUST be used for fully transparent STS-1/STM-0, STS-3*N/ 141 STM-N (N=1, 4, 16, 64, 256) signal requests. A fully transparent 142 signal is one for which all overhead is left unmodified by 143 intermediate nodes, i.e., when all defined Transparency (T) bits 144 would be set if the traffic parameters defined in section 2.1 were 145 used. 147 2.1. SONET/SDH Traffic Parameters 149 The traffic parameters for SONET/SDH are organized as follows: 151 0 1 2 3 152 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 1 153 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 154 | Signal Type | RCC | NCC | 155 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 156 | NVC | Multiplier (MT) | 157 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 158 | Transparency (T) | 159 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 160 | Profile (P) | 161 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 163 Annex 1 lists examples of SONET and SDH signal coding. 165 Signal Type (ST): 8 bits 167 This field indicates the type of Elementary Signal that comprises the 168 requested LSP. Several transforms can be applied successively on the 169 Elementary Signal to build the Final Signal being actually requested 170 for the LSP. 172 Each transform application is optional and must be ignored if zero, 173 except the Multiplier (MT) that cannot be zero and is ignored if 174 equal to one. 176 Transforms must be applied strictly in the following order: 178 o First, contiguous concatenation (by using the RCC and NCC fields) 179 can be optionally applied on the Elementary Signal, resulting in a 180 contiguously concatenated signal. 182 o Second, virtual concatenation (by using the NVC field) can be 183 optionally applied on the Elementary Signal resulting in a 184 virtually concatenated signal. 186 o Third, some transparency (by using the Transparency field) can be 187 optionally specified when requesting a frame as signal rather than 188 an SPE or VC based signal. 190 o Fourth, a multiplication (by using the Multiplier field) can be 191 optionally applied either directly on the Elementary Signal, or on 192 the contiguously concatenated signal obtained from the first 193 phase, or on the virtually concatenated signal obtained from the 194 second phase, or on these signals combined. 196 Permitted Signal Type values for SONET/SDH are: 198 Value Type (Elementary Signal) 199 ----- ------------------------ 200 1 VT1.5 SPE / VC-11 201 2 VT2 SPE / VC-12 202 3 VT3 SPE 203 4 VT6 SPE / VC-2 204 5 STS-1 SPE / VC-3 205 6 STS-3c SPE / VC-4 206 7 STS-1 / STM-0 (only when requesting transparency) 207 8 STS-3 / STM-1 (only when requesting transparency) 208 9 STS-12 / STM-4 (only when requesting transparency) 209 10 STS-48 / STM-16 (only when requesting transparency) 210 11 STS-192 / STM-64 (only when requesting transparency) 211 12 STS-768 / STM-256 (only when requesting transparency) 213 A dedicated signal type is assigned to a SONET STS-3c SPE instead of 214 coding it as a contiguous concatenation of three STS-1 SPEs. This is 215 done in order to provide easy interworking between SONET and SDH 216 signaling. 218 Appendix 1 adds one signal type (optional) to the above values. 220 Requested Contiguous Concatenation (RCC): 8 bits 222 This field is used to request the optional SONET/SDH contiguous 223 concatenation of the Elementary Signal. 225 This field is a vector of flags. Each flag indicates the support of 226 a particular type of contiguous concatenation. Several flags can be 227 set at the same time to indicate a choice. 229 These flags allow an upstream node to indicate to a downstream node 230 the different types of contiguous concatenation that it supports. 231 However, the downstream node decides which one to use according to 232 its own rules. 234 A downstream node receiving simultaneously more than one flag chooses 235 a particular type of contiguous concatenation, if any supported, and 236 based on criteria that are out of this document scope. A downstream 237 node that doesn't support any of the concatenation types indicated by 238 the field must refuse the LSP request. In particular, it must refuse 239 the LSP request if it doesn't support contiguous concatenation at 240 all. 242 When several flags have been set, the upstream node retrieves the 243 (single) type of contiguous concatenation the downstream node has 244 selected by looking at the position indicated by the first label and 245 the number of label(s) as returned by the downstream node (see also 246 Section 3). 248 The entire field is set to zero to indicate that no contiguous 249 concatenation is requested at all (default value). A non-zero field 250 indicates that some contiguous concatenation is requested. 252 The following flag is defined: 254 Flag 1 (bit 1): Standard contiguous concatenation. 256 Flag 1 indicates that the standard SONET/SDH contiguous concatenation 257 as defined in [T1.105]/[G.707] is supported. Note that bit 1 is the 258 low order bit. Other flags are reserved for extensions, if not used 259 they must be set to zero when sent, and should be ignored when 260 received. 262 See note 1 hereafter in the section on the NCC about the SONET 263 contiguous concatenation of STS-1 SPEs when the number of components 264 is a multiple of three. 266 Number of Contiguous Components (NCC): 16 bits 268 This field indicates the number of identical SONET SPEs/SDH VCs 269 (i.e., Elementary Signal) that are requested to be concatenated, as 270 specified in the RCC field. 272 Note 1: when requesting a SONET STS-Nc SPE with N=3*X, the 273 Elementary Signal to use must always be an STS-3c_SPE signal type 274 and the value of NCC must always be equal to X. This allows also 275 facilitating the interworking between SONET and SDH. In 276 particular, it means that the contiguous concatenation of three 277 STS-1 SPEs can not be requested because according to this 278 specification, this type of signal must be coded using the STS-3c 279 SPE signal type. 281 Note 2: when requesting a transparent STS-N/STM-N signal limited to a 282 single contiguously concatenated STS-Nc_SPE/VC-4-Nc, the signal 283 type must be STS-N/STM-N, RCC with flag 1 and NCC set to 1. 285 Note 3: in following the rules in this document, implementations 286 choose the values of NCC = RCC = 0 for a VC-4 signal and NCC = RCC 287 = 1 for an STS-3c signal (refer to Annex 1). In order to 288 facilitate interworking of SONET and SDH, implementations of GMPLS 289 protocols should be liberal in what they receive and therefore 290 SHOULD accept either set of values for signal type 6 (STS-3c SPE / 291 VC-4) as reflective of the LSP originating node's transport 292 protocol (SONET or SDH). Topics related to the difference in 293 performance monitoring for these 2 "equivalent" signal types are 294 outside the scope of GMPLS and this document and MAY be 295 communicated to the management system that may deal with it. 297 300 This note is an update to RFC 3946 in order to explain a circuit 301 setup in a mixed environment with SONET-capable and SDH-capable nodes 302 when setting up an STS-3c or VC-4 circuit. It gives guidance to 303 accept either values of NCC and RCC for these signal types to resolve 304 an interworking question raised during interoperability testing at 305 the Optical Interworking Forum. 307 309 The NCC value must be consistent with the type of contiguous 310 concatenation being requested in the RCC field. In particular, this 311 field is irrelevant if no contiguous concatenation is requested (RCC 312 = 0), in that case it must be set to zero when sent, and should be 313 ignored when received. A RCC value different from 0 must imply a 314 number of contiguous components greater than or equal to 1. 316 319 The update from RFC 3946 from "greater than 1" to "greater than or 320 equal to 1" makes sure that we can choose the values NCC = RCC = 1 321 for signal type STS-3c. It was the intent of the original authors 322 that the previous text was not to be interpreted as "strictly 323 greater". This text clarifies their intent. 325 327 Number of Virtual Components (NVC): 16 bits 329 This field indicates the number of signals that are requested to be 330 virtually concatenated. These signals are all of the same type by 331 definition. They are Elementary Signal SPEs/VCs for which signal 332 types are defined in this document, i.e., VT1.5_SPE/VC-11, VT2_SPE/ 333 VC-12, VT3_SPE, VT6_SPE/VC-2, STS-1_SPE/VC-3 or STS-3c_SPE/VC-4. 335 This field is set to 0 (default value) to indicate that no virtual 336 concatenation is requested. 338 Multiplier (MT): 16 bits 340 This field indicates the number of identical signals that are 341 requested for the LSP, i.e., that form the Final Signal. These 342 signals can be either identical Elementary Signals, or identical 343 contiguously concatenated signals, or identical virtually 344 concatenated signals. Note that all these signals belong thus to the 345 same LSP. 347 The distinction between the components of multiple virtually 348 concatenated signals is done via the order of the labels that are 349 specified in the signaling. The first set of labels must describe 350 the first component (set of individual signals belonging to the first 351 virtual concatenated signal), the second set must describe the second 352 component (set of individual signals belonging to the second virtual 353 concatenated signal) and so on. 355 This field is set to one (default value) to indicate that exactly one 356 instance of a signal is being requested. Intermediate and egress 357 nodes MUST verify that the node itself and the interfaces on which 358 the LSP will be established can support the requested multiplier 359 value. If the requested values can not be supported, the receiver 360 node MUST generate a PathErr/NOTIFICATION message (see Section 361 2.2/2.3, respectively). 363 Zero is an invalid value. If received, the node MUST generate a 364 PathErr/NOTIFICATION message (see Section 2.2/2.3, respectively). 366 Note 1: when requesting a transparent STS-N/STM-N signal limited to a 367 single contiguously concatenated STS-Nc-SPE/VC-4-Nc, the multiplier 368 field MUST be equal to 1 (only valid value). 370 Transparency (T): 32 bits 372 This field is a vector of flags that indicates the type of 373 transparency being requested. Several flags can be combined to 374 provide different types of transparency. Not all combinations are 375 necessarily valid. The default value for this field is zero, i.e., 376 no transparency requested. 378 Transparency, as defined from the point of view of this signaling 379 specification, is only applicable to the fields in the SONET/SDH 380 frame overheads. In the SONET case, these are the fields in the 381 Section Overhead (SOH), and the Line Overhead (LOH). In the SDH 382 case, these are the fields in the Regenerator Section Overhead 383 (RSOH), the Multiplex Section overhead (MSOH), and the pointer fields 384 between the two. With SONET, the pointer fields are part of the LOH. 386 Note as well that transparency is only applicable when using the 387 following Signal Types: STS-1/STM-0, STS-3/STM-1, STS-12/STM-4, STS- 388 48/STM-16, STS-192/STM-64 and STS-768/STM-256. At least one 389 transparency type must be specified when requesting such a signal 390 type. 392 Transparency indicates precisely which fields in these overheads must 393 be delivered unmodified at the other end of the LSP. An ingress LSR 394 requesting transparency will pass these overhead fields that must be 395 delivered to the egress LSR without any change. From the ingress and 396 egress LSRs point of views, these fields must be seen as unmodified. 398 Transparency is not applied at the interfaces with the initiating and 399 terminating LSRs, but is only applied between intermediate LSRs. 401 The transparency field is used to request an LSP that supports the 402 requested transparency type; it may also be used to setup the 403 transparency process to be applied at each intermediate LSR. 405 The different transparency flags are the following: 407 Flag 1 (bit 1): Section/Regenerator Section layer. 408 Flag 2 (bit 2): Line/Multiplex Section layer. 410 Where bit 1 is the low order bit. Other flags are reserved, they 411 should be set to zero when sent, and should be ignored when received. 412 A flag is set to one to indicate that the corresponding transparency 413 is requested. 415 Intermediate and egress nodes MUST verify that the node itself and 416 the interfaces on which the LSP will be established can support the 417 requested transparency. If the requested flags can not be supported, 418 the receiver node MUST generate a PathErr/NOTIFICATION message (see 419 Section 2.2/2.3, respectively). 421 Section/Regenerator Section layer transparency means that the entire 422 frames must be delivered unmodified. This implies that pointers 423 cannot be adjusted. When using Section/Regenerator Section layer 424 transparency all other flags MUST be ignored. 426 Line/Multiplex Section layer transparency means that the LOH/MSOH 427 must be delivered unmodified. This implies that pointers cannot be 428 adjusted. 430 Profile (P): 32 bits 432 This field is intended to indicate particular capabilities that must 433 be supported for the LSP, for example monitoring capabilities. 435 No standard profile is currently defined and this field SHOULD be set 436 to zero when transmitted and SHOULD be ignored when received. 438 In the future TLV based extensions may be created. 440 2.2. RSVP-TE Details 442 For RSVP-TE, the SONET/SDH traffic parameters are carried in the 443 SONET/SDH SENDER_TSPEC and FLOWSPEC objects. The same format is used 444 both for SENDER_TSPEC object and FLOWSPEC objects. The content of 445 the objects is defined above in Section 2.1. The objects have the 446 following class and type: 448 For SONET ANSI T1.105 and SDH ITU-T G.707: 450 SONET/SDH SENDER_TSPEC object: Class = 12, C-Type = 4 451 SONET/SDH FLOWSPEC object: Class = 9, C-Type = 4 453 There is no Adspec associated with the SONET/SDH SENDER_TSPEC. 454 Either the Adspec is omitted or an int-serv Adspec with the Default 455 General Characterization Parameters and Guaranteed Service fragment 456 is used, see [RFC2210]. 458 For a particular sender in a session the contents of the FLOWSPEC 459 object received in a Resv message SHOULD be identical to the contents 460 of the SENDER_TSPEC object received in the corresponding Path 461 message. If the objects do not match, a ResvErr message with a 462 "Traffic Control Error/Bad Flowspec value" error SHOULD be generated. 464 Intermediate and egress nodes MUST verify that the node itself and 465 the interfaces on which the LSP will be established can support the 466 requested Signal Type, RCC, NCC, NVC and Multiplier (as defined in 467 Section 2.1). If the requested value(s) can not be supported, the 468 receiver node MUST generate a PathErr message with a "Traffic Control 469 Error/ Service unsupported" indication (see [RFC2205]) 471 In addition, if the MT field is received with a zero value, the node 472 MUST generate a PathErr message with a "Traffic Control Error/Bad 473 Tspec value" indication (see [RFC2205]). 475 Intermediate nodes MUST also verify that the node itself and the 476 interfaces on which the LSP will be established can support the 477 requested Transparency (as defined in Section 2.1). If the requested 478 value(s) can not be supported, the receiver node MUST generate a 479 PathErr message with a "Traffic Control Error/Service unsupported" 480 indication (see [RFC2205]). 482 2.3. CR-LDP Details 484 For CR-LDP, the SONET/SDH traffic parameters are carried in the 485 SONET/SDH Traffic Parameters TLV. The content of the TLV is defined 486 above in Section 2.1. The header of the TLV has the following 487 format: 489 0 1 2 3 490 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 1 491 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 492 |U|F| Type | Length | 493 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 495 The type field for the SONET/SDH Traffic Parameters TLV is: 0x0838. 497 Intermediate and egress nodes MUST verify that the node itself and 498 the interfaces on which the LSP will be established can support the 499 requested Signal Type, RCC, NCC, NVC and Multiplier (as defined in 500 Section 2.1). If the requested value(s) can not be supported, the 501 receiver node MUST generate a NOTIFICATION message with a "Resource 502 Unavailable" status code (see [RFC3212]). 504 In addition, if the MT field is received with a zero value, the node 505 MUST generate a NOTIFICATION message with a "Resource Unavailable" 506 status code (see [RFC3212]). 508 Intermediate nodes MUST also verify that the node itself and the 509 interfaces on which the LSP will be established can support the 510 requested Transparency (as defined in Section 2.1). If the requested 511 value(s) can not be supported, the receiver node MUST generate a 512 NOTIFICATION message with a "Resource Unavailable" status code (see 513 [RFC3212]). 515 Intermediate and egress nodes MUST verify that the node itself and 516 the interfaces on which the LSP will be established can support the 517 requested Signal Type, RCC, NCC, NVC and Multiplier (as defined in 518 Section 2.1). If the requested value(s) can not be supported, the 519 receiver node MUST generate a PathErr message with a "Traffic Control 520 Error/ Service unsupported" indication (see [RFC2205]). 522 3. SONET and SDH Labels 524 SONET and SDH each define a multiplexing structure. Both structures 525 are trees whose roots are respectively an STS-N or an STM-N; and 526 whose leaves are the signals that can be transported via the time- 527 slots and switched between time-slots within an ingress port and 528 time-slots within an egress port, i.e., a VTx SPE, an STS-x SPE or a 529 VC-x. A SONET/SDH label will identify the exact position (i.e., 530 first time-slot) of a particular VTx SPE, STS-x SPE or VC-x signal in 531 a multiplexing structure. SONET and SDH labels are carried in the 532 Generalized Label per [RFC3473] and [RFC3472]. 534 Note that by time-slots we mean the time-slots as they appear 535 logically and sequentially in the multiplex, not as they appear after 536 any possible interleaving. 538 These multiplexing structures will be used as naming trees to create 539 unique multiplex entry names or labels. The same format of label is 540 used for SONET and SDH. As explained in [RFC3471], a label does not 541 identify the "class" to which the label belongs. This is implicitly 542 determined by the link on which the label is used. 544 In case of signal concatenation or multiplication, a list of labels 545 can appear in the Label field of a Generalized Label. 547 In case of contiguous concatenation, only one label appears in the 548 Label field. This label identifies the lowest time-slot occupied by 549 the contiguously concatenated signal. By lowest time-slot we mean 550 the one having the lowest label (value) when compared as integer 551 values, i.e., the time-slot occupied by the first component signal of 552 the concatenated signal encountered when descending the tree. 554 In case of virtual concatenation, the explicit ordered list of all 555 labels in the concatenation is given. Each label indicates the first 556 time-slot occupied by a component of the virtually concatenated 557 signal. The order of the labels must reflect the order of the 558 payloads to concatenate (not the physical order of time-slots). The 559 above representation limits virtual concatenation to remain within a 560 single (component) link; it imposes as such a restriction compared to 561 the ANSI [T1.105]/ITU-T [G.707] recommendations. 563 The standard definition for virtual concatenation allows each virtual 564 concatenation components to travel over diverse paths. Within GMPLS, 565 virtual concatenation components must travel over the same 566 (component) link if they are part of the same LSP. This is due to 567 the way that labels are bound to a (component) link. Note however, 568 that the routing of components on different paths is indeed 569 equivalent to establishing different LSPs, each one having its own 570 route. Several LSPs can be initiated and terminated between the same 571 nodes and their corresponding components can then be associated 572 together (i.e., virtually concatenated). 574 In case of multiplication (i.e., using the multiplier transform), the 575 explicit ordered list of all labels that take part in the Final 576 Signal is given. In case of multiplication of virtually concatenated 577 signals, the first set of labels indicates the time-slots occupied by 578 the first virtually concatenated signal, the second set of labels 579 indicates the time-slots occupied by the second virtually 580 concatenated signal, and so on. The above representation limits 581 multiplication to remain within a single (component) link. 583 The format of the label for SONET and/or SDH TDM-LSR link is: 585 0 1 2 3 586 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 1 587 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 588 | S | U | K | L | M | 589 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 591 This is an extension of the numbering scheme defined in [G.707] 592 sections 7.3.7 to 7.3.13, i.e., the (K, L, M) numbering. Note that 593 the higher order numbering scheme defined in [G.707] sections 7.3.1 594 to 7.3.6 is not used here. 596 Each letter indicates a possible branch number starting at the parent 597 node in the multiplex structure. Branches are considered as numbered 598 in increasing order, starting from the top of the multiplexing 599 structure. The numbering starts at 1, zero is used to indicate a 600 non-significant or ignored field. 602 When a field is not significant or ignored in a particular context it 603 MUST be set to zero when transmitted, and MUST be ignored when 604 received. 606 When a hierarchy of SONET/SDH LSPs is used, a higher order LSP with a 607 given bandwidth can be used to carry lower order LSPs. Remember here 608 that a higher order LSP is established through a SONET/SDH higher 609 order path layer network and a lower order LSP, through a SONET/SDH 610 lower order path layer network (see also ITU-T G.803, Section 3 for 611 the corresponding definitions). In this context, the higher order 612 SONET/SDH LSP behaves as a "virtual link" with a given bandwidth 613 (e.g., VC-3), it may also be used as a Forwarding Adjacency. A lower 614 order SONET/SDH LSP can be established through that higher order LSP. 615 Since a label is local to a (virtual) link, the highest part of that 616 label (i.e., the S, U and K fields) is non-significant and is set to 617 zero, i.e., the label is "0,0,0,L,M". Similarly, if the structure of 618 the lower order LSP is unknown or not relevant, the lowest part of 619 that label (i.e., the L and M fields) is non-significant and is set 620 to zero, i.e., the label is "S,U,K,0,0". 622 For instance, a VC-3 LSP can be used to carry lower order LSPs. In 623 that case the labels allocated between the two ends of the VC-3 LSP 624 for the lower order LSPs will have S, U and K set to zero, i.e., non- 625 significant, while L and M will be used to indicate the signal 626 allocated in that VC-3. 628 In case of tunneling such as VC-4 containing VC-3 containing VC-12/ 629 VC-11 where the SUKLM structure is not adequate to represent the full 630 signal structure, a hierarchical approach must be used, i.e., per 631 layer network signaling. 633 The possible values of S, U, K, L and M are defined as follows: 635 1. S=1->N is the index of a particular STS-3/AUG-1 inside an STS-N/ 636 STM-N multiplex. S is only significant for SONET STS-N (N>1) and 637 SDH STM-N (N>0). S must be 0 and ignored for STS-1 and STM-0. 639 2. U=1->3 is the index of a particular STS-1_SPE/VC-3 within an STS- 640 3/AUG-1. U is only significant for SONET STS-N (N>1) and SDH 641 STM-N (N>0). U must be 0 and ignored for STS-1 and STM-0. 643 3. K=1->3 is the index of a particular TUG-3 within a VC-4. K is 644 only significant for an SDH VC-4 structured in TUG-3s. K must be 645 0 and ignored in all other cases. 647 4. L=1->7 is the index of a particular VT_Group/TUG-2 within an STS- 648 1_SPE/TUG-3 or VC-3. L must be 0 and ignored in all other cases. 650 5. M is the index of a particular VT1.5_SPE/VC-11, VT2_SPE/VC-12 or 651 VT3_SPE within a VT_Group/TUG-2. M=1->2 indicates a specific VT3 652 SPE inside the corresponding VT Group, these values MUST NOT be 653 used for SDH since there is no equivalent of VT3 with SDH. 654 M=3->5 indicates a specific VT2_SPE/VC-12 inside the 655 corresponding VT_Group/TUG-2. M=6->9 indicates a specific 656 VT1.5_SPE/VC-11 inside the corresponding VT_Group/TUG-2. 658 Note that a label always has to be interpreted according the SONET/ 659 SDH traffic parameters, i.e., a label by itself does not allow 660 knowing which signal is being requested (a label is context 661 sensitive). 663 The label format defined in this section, referred to as SUKLM, MUST 664 be used for any SONET/SDH signal requests that are not transparent 665 i.e., when all Transparency (T) bits defined in section 2.1 are set 666 to zero. Any transparent STS-1/STM-0/STS-3*N/STM-N (N=1, 4, 16, 64, 667 256) signal request MUST use a label format as defined in [RFC3471]. 669 The S encoding is summarized in the following table: 671 S SDH SONET 672 ------------------------------------------------ 673 0 other other 674 1 1st AUG-1 1st STS-3 675 2 2nd AUG-1 2nd STS-3 676 3 3rd AUG-1 3rd STS-3 677 4 4rd AUG-1 4rd STS-3 678 : : : 679 N Nth AUG-1 Nth STS-3 681 The U encoding is summarized in the following table: 683 U SDH AUG-1 SONET STS-3 684 ------------------------------------------------- 685 0 other other 686 1 1st VC-3 1st STS-1 SPE 687 2 2nd VC-3 2nd STS-1 SPE 688 3 3rd VC-3 3rd STS-1 SPE 690 Moreover, the reader is assumed to be familiar with the terminology 691 in ANSI , ITU-T as well as , , and . The following abbreviations are 692 used in this document: 694 The K encoding is summarized in the following table: 696 K SDH VC-4 697 --------------- 698 0 other 699 1 1st TUG-3 700 2 2nd TUG-3 701 3 3rd TUG-3 703 The L encoding is summarized in the following table: 705 L SDH TUG-3 SDH VC-3 SONET STS-1 SPE 706 ------------------------------------------------- 707 0 other other other 708 1 1st TUG-2 1st TUG-2 1st VTG 709 2 2nd TUG-2 2nd TUG-2 2nd VTG 710 3 3rd TUG-2 3rd TUG-2 3rd VTG 711 4 4th TUG-2 4th TUG-2 4th VTG 712 5 5th TUG-2 5th TUG-2 5th VTG 713 6 6th TUG-2 6th TUG-2 6th VTG 714 7 7th TUG-2 7th TUG-2 7th VTG 716 The M encoding is summarized in the following table: 718 M SDH TUG-2 SONET VTG 719 ------------------------------------------------- 720 0 other other 721 1 - 1st VT3 SPE 722 2 - 2nd VT3 SPE 723 3 1st VC-12 1st VT2 SPE 724 4 2nd VC-12 2nd VT2 SPE 725 5 3rd VC-12 3rd VT2 SPE 726 6 1st VC-11 1st VT1.5 SPE 727 7 2nd VC-11 2nd VT1.5 SPE 728 8 3rd VC-11 3rd VT1.5 SPE 729 9 4th VC-11 4th VT1.5 SPE 731 Examples of labels: 733 Example 1: the label for the STS-3c_SPE/VC-4 in the Sth STS-3/AUG-1 734 is: S>0, U=0, K=0, L=0, M=0. 736 Example 2: the label for the VC-3 within the Kth-1 TUG-3 within the 737 VC-4 in the Sth AUG-1 is: S>0, U=0, K>0, L=0, M=0. 739 Example 3: the label for the Uth-1 STS-1_SPE/VC-3 within the Sth STS- 740 3/AUG-1 is: S>0, U>0, K=0, L=0, M=0. 742 Example 4: the label for the VT6/VC-2 in the Lth-1 VT Group/TUG-2 in 743 the Uth-1 STS-1_SPE/VC-3 within the Sth STS-3/AUG-1 is: S>0, U>0, 744 K=0, L>0, M=0. 746 Example 5: the label for the 3rd VT1.5_SPE/VC-11 in the Lth-1 VT 747 Group/TUG-2 within the Uth-1 STS-1_SPE/VC-3 within the Sth STS-3/ 748 AUG-1 is: S>0, U>0, K=0, L>0, M=8. 750 Example 6: the label for the STS-12c/VC-4-4c which uses the 9th STS- 751 3/AUG-1 as its first timeslot is: S=9, U=0, K=0, L=0, M=0. 753 In case of contiguous concatenation, the label that is used is the 754 lowest label (value) of the contiguously concatenated signal as 755 explained before. The higher part of the label indicates where the 756 signal starts and the lowest part is not significant. 758 In case of STM-0/STS-1, the values of S, U and K must be equal to 759 zero according to the field coding rules. For instance, when 760 requesting a VC-3 in an STM-0 the label is S=0, U=0, K=0, L=0, M=0. 761 When requesting a VC-11 in a VC-3 in an STM-0 the label is S=0, U=0, 762 K=0, L>0, M=6..9. 764 Note: when a Section/RS or Line/MS transparent STS-1/STM-0/STS-3*N/ 765 STM-N (N=1, 4, 16, 64, 256) signal is requested, the SUKLM label 766 format and encoding is not applicable and the label encoding MUST 767 follow the rules defined in [RFC3471] Section 3.2. 769 4. Acknowledgements 771 This document was originally published as RFC 3946 in October 2004. 772 It was produced by the CCAMP working of the IETF and was jointly 773 edited Eric Mannie and Dimitri Papadimitriou. The RFC was based on 774 work by the following list of co-contributors: Stefan Ansorge, Peter 775 Ashwood-Smith, Ayan Banerjee, Lou Berger, Greg Bernstein, Angela 776 Chiu, John Drake, Yanhe Fan, Michele Fontana, Gert Grammel, Juergen 777 Heiles, Suresh Katukam, Kireeti Kompella, Jonathan P. Lang, Fong 778 Liaw, Zhi-Wei Lin, Ben Mack-Crane, Dimitrios Pendarakis, Mike 779 Raftelis, Bala Rajagopalan, Yakov Rekhter, Debanjan Saha, Vishal 780 Sharma, George Swallow, Z. Bo Tang, Eve Varma, and Yangguang Xu. The 781 ideas and text in RFC were reviewed and commented on by the CCAMP 782 working group, and the original RFC editors acknowledged "outstanding 783 discussions" that took place on the CCAMP mailing list. The 784 revisions in this document arose from discussions and 785 interoperability testing at the Optical Interworking Forum. Valuable 786 input to the changes was received from Greg Bernstein, Dimitri 787 Papadimitriou, Adrian Farrel and Ben Mack-Crane. 789 5. Security Considerations 791 This document introduces no new security considerations to either 792 [RFC3473] or [RFC3472]. GMPLS security is described in section 11 of 793 [RFC3471] and refers to [RFC3209] for RSVP-TE and to [RFC3212] for 794 CR-LDP. 796 6. IANA Considerations 798 Three values have been defined by IANA for use in RFC 3946. This 799 revision makes no new requests for IANA action. 801 Two RSVP C-Types in registry: 802 http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters 804 - A SONET/SDH SENDER_TSPEC object: Class = 12, C-Type = 4 (see 805 section 2.2) 807 - A SONET/SDH FLOWSPEC object: Class = 9, C-Type = 4 (see section 808 2.2). 810 One LDP TLV Type in registry: 811 http://www.iana.org/assignments/ldp-namespaces 813 - A type field for the SONET/SDH Traffic Parameters TLV (see section 814 2.3). 816 7. Normative References 818 [G.707] ITU-T Recommendation G.707, "Network Node Interface for 819 the Synchronous Digital Hierarchy", October 2000. 821 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 822 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 824 [RFC2205] Braden, B., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S. 825 Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 826 Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997. 828 [RFC2210] Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated 829 Services", RFC 2210, September 1997. 831 [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., 832 and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP 833 Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. 835 [RFC3212] Jamoussi, B., Andersson, L., Callon, R., Dantu, R., Wu, 836 L., Doolan, P., Worster, T., Feldman, N., Fredette, A., 837 Girish, M., Gray, E., Heinanen, J., Kilty, T., and A. 838 Malis, "Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP", RFC 3212, 839 January 2002. 841 [RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 842 (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, 843 January 2003. 845 [RFC3472] Ashwood-Smith, P. and L. Berger, "Generalized Multi- 846 Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Constraint- 847 based Routed Label Distribution Protocol (CR-LDP) 848 Extensions", RFC 3472, January 2003. 850 [RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 851 (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic 852 Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. 854 [RFC3945] Mannie, E., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 855 (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004. 857 [T1.105] ANSI T1.105, "Synchronous Optical Network (SONET): Basic 858 Description Including Multiplex Structure, Rates, and 859 Formats", October 2000. 861 Appendix 1 - Signal Type Values Extension for VC-3 863 This appendix defines the following optional additional Signal Type 864 value for the Signal Type field of section 2.1: 866 Value Type 867 ----- --------------------- 868 20 "VC-3 via AU-3 at the end" 870 According to the ITU-T [G.707] recommendation a VC-3 in the TU-3/ 871 TUG-3/VC-4/AU-4 branch of the SDH multiplex cannot be structured in 872 TUG-2s, however a VC-3 in the AU-3 branch can be. In addition, a 873 VC-3 could be switched between the two branches if required. 875 A VC-3 circuit could be terminated on an ingress interface of an LSR 876 (e.g., forming a VC-3 forwarding adjacency). This LSR could then 877 want to demultiplex this VC-3 and switch internal low order LSPs. 878 For implementation reasons, this could be only possible if the LSR 879 receives the VC-3 in the AU-3 branch. E.g., for an LSR not able to 880 switch internally from a TU-3 branch to an AU-3 branch on its 881 incoming interface before demultiplexing and then switching the 882 content with its switch fabric. 884 In that case it is useful to indicate that the VC-3 LSP must be 885 terminated at the end in the AU-3 branch instead of the TU-3 branch. 887 This is achieved by using the "VC-3 via AU-3 at the end" signal type. 888 This information can be used, for instance, by the penultimate LSR to 889 switch an incoming VC-3 received in any branch to the AU-3 branch on 890 the outgoing interface to the destination LSR. 892 The "VC-3 via AU-3 at the end" signal type does not imply that the 893 VC-3 must be switched via the AU-3 branch at some other places in the 894 network. The VC-3 signal type just indicates that a VC-3 in any 895 branch is suitable. 897 Annex 1 - Examples 899 This annex defines examples of SONET and SDH signal coding. Their 900 objective is to help the reader to understand how works the traffic 901 parameter coding and not to give examples of typical SONET or SDH 902 signals. 904 As stated above, signal types are Elementary Signals to which 905 successive concatenation, multiplication and transparency transforms 906 can be applied to obtain Final Signals. 908 1. A VC-4 signal is formed by the application of RCC with value 0, 909 NCC with value 0, NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with 910 value 0 to a VC-4 Elementary Signal. 912 2. A VC-4-7v signal is formed by the application of RCC with value 913 0, NCC with value 0, NVC with value 7 (virtual concatenation of 914 7 components), MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to a VC-4 915 Elementary Signal. 917 3. A VC-4-16c signal is formed by the application of RCC with flag 918 1 (standard contiguous concatenation), NCC with value 16, NVC 919 with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to a VC-4 920 Elementary Signal. 922 4. An STM-16 signal with Multiplex Section layer transparency is 923 formed by the application of RCC with value 0, NCC with value 0, 924 NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with flag 2 to an STM-16 925 Elementary Signal. 927 5. An STM-4 signal with Multiplex Section layer transparency is 928 formed by the application of RCC with flag 0, NCC with value 0, 929 NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with flag 2 applied to 930 an STM-4 Elementary Signal. 932 6. An STM-256 signal with Multiplex Section layer transparency is 933 formed by the application of RCC with flag 0, NCC with value 0, 934 NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with flag 2 applied to 935 an STM-256 Elementary Signal. 937 7. An STS-1 SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC with 938 value 0, NCC with value 0, NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and 939 T with value 0 to an STS-1 SPE Elementary Signal. 941 8. An STS-3c SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC with 942 value 1 (standard contiguous concatenation), NCC with value 1, 943 NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to an 944 STS-3c SPE Elementary Signal. 946 9. An STS-48c SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC with 947 flag 1 (standard contiguous concatenation), NCC with value 16, 948 NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to an 949 STS-3c SPE Elementary Signal. 951 10. An STS-1-3v SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC with 952 value 0, NVC with value 3 (virtual concatenation of 3 953 components), MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to an STS-1 SPE 954 Elementary Signal. 956 11. An STS-3c-9v SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC with 957 value 1, NCC with value 1, NVC with value 9 (virtual 958 concatenation of 9 STS-3c), MT with value 1 and T with value 0 959 to an STS-3c SPE Elementary Signal. 961 12. An STS-12 signal with Section layer (full) transparency is 962 formed by the application of RCC with value 0, NVC with value 0, 963 MT with value 1 and T with flag 1 to an STS-12 Elementary 964 Signal. 966 13. 3 x STS-768c SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC with 967 flag 1, NCC with value 256, NVC with value 0, MT with value 3, 968 and T with value 0 to an STS-3c SPE Elementary Signal. 970 14. 5 x VC-4-13v composed signal is formed by the application of RCC 971 with value 0, NVC with value 13, MT with value 5 and T with 972 value 0 to a VC-4 Elementary Signal. 974 The encoding of these examples is summarized in the following table: 976 Signal ST RCC NCC NVC MT T 977 -------------------------------------------------------- 978 VC-4 6 0 0 0 1 0 979 VC-4-7v 6 0 0 7 1 0 980 VC-4-16c 6 1 16 0 1 0 981 STM-16 MS transparent 10 0 0 0 1 2 982 STM-4 MS transparent 9 0 0 0 1 2 983 STM-256 MS transparent 12 0 0 0 1 2 984 STS-1 SPE 5 0 0 0 1 0 985 STS-3c SPE 6 1 1 0 1 0 986 STS-48c SPE 6 1 16 0 1 0 987 STS-1-3v SPE 5 0 0 3 1 0 988 STS-3c-9v SPE 6 1 1 9 1 0 989 STS-12 Section transparent 9 0 0 0 1 1 990 3 x STS-768c SPE 6 1 256 0 3 0 991 5 x VC-4-13v 6 0 0 13 5 0 993 Editors of RFC 3946 995 Eric Mannie (Consultant) 996 Avenue de la Folle Chanson, 2 997 B-1050 Brussels, Belgium 998 Phone: +32 2 648-5023 999 Mobile: +32 (0)495-221775 1001 EMail: eric_mannie@hotmail.com 1003 Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel) 1004 Francis Wellesplein 1, 1005 B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium 1006 Phone: +32 3 240-8491 1008 EMail: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be 1010 Author's Address 1012 Richard Rabbat 1013 Fujitsu 1014 1240 East Arques Ave, MS 345 1015 Sunnyvale, California 94085 1016 USA 1018 Phone: +1-408-530-4537 1019 Fax: +1-408-530-4515 1020 Email: richard@us.fujitsu.com 1022 Intellectual Property Statement 1024 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 1025 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 1026 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 1027 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 1028 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 1029 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 1030 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 1031 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 1033 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 1034 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 1035 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 1036 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 1037 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 1038 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 1040 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 1041 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 1042 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 1043 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 1044 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 1046 Disclaimer of Validity 1048 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 1049 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 1050 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET 1051 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 1052 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE 1053 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 1054 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 1056 Copyright Statement 1058 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject 1059 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and 1060 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. 1062 Acknowledgment 1064 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 1065 Internet Society.