draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-02.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-03.txt 
Networking Working Group JP. Vasseur, Ed. Networking Working Group JP. Vasseur, Ed.
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc
Intended status: Standards Track JL. Leroux, Ed. Intended status: Standards Track JL. Leroux, Ed.
Expires: March 4, 2007 France Telecom Expires: June 11, 2007 France Telecom
S. Yasukawa S. Yasukawa
NTT NTT
S. Previdi S. Previdi
P. Psenak P. Psenak
Cisco Systems, Inc Cisco Systems, Inc
P. Mabbey P. Mabbey
Comcast Comcast
August 31, 2006 December 8, 2006
Routing extensions for discovery of Multiprotocol (MPLS) Label Switch Routing extensions for discovery of Multiprotocol (MPLS) Label Switch
Router (LSR) Traffic Engineering (TE) mesh membership Router (LSR) Traffic Engineering (TE) mesh membership
draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-02.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-03.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
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
skipping to change at page 1, line 43 skipping to change at page 1, line 43
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
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.
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 4, 2007. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 11, 2007.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2006).
Abstract Abstract
The set up of a full mesh of Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) The set up of a full mesh of Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS)
Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched Paths (LSP) among a set of Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched Paths (LSP) among a set of
Label Switch Routers (LSR) is common deployment scenario of MPLS Label Switch Routers (LSR) is a common deployment scenario of MPLS
Traffic Engineering either for bandwidth optimization, bandwidth Traffic Engineering either for bandwidth optimization, bandwidth
guarantees or fast rerouting with MPLS Fast Reroute. Such deployment guarantees or fast rerouting with MPLS Fast Reroute. Such deployment
may require the configuration of potentially a large number of TE may require the configuration of potentially a large number of TE
LSPs (on the order of the square of the number LSRs). This document LSPs (on the order of the square of the number LSRs). This document
specifies IGP routing extensions for ISIS and OSPF so as to provide specifies Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) routing extensions for
an automatic discovery of the set of LSRs members of a mesh in order Intermediate System-to-Intermediate System (IS-IS) and Open Shortest
to automate the creation of such mesh. Path First (OSPF) so as to provide an automatic discovery of the set
of LSRs members of a mesh in order to automate the creation of such
mesh of TE LSPs.
Requirements Language Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. TE Mesh-Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Description of a TE Mesh-Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. TE-MESH-GROUP TLV formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Required Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1. OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. TE-MESH-GROUP TLV formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. IS-IS TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV format . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.2. IS-IS TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV format . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Elements of procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. Elements of procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1. OSPF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.1. OSPF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. ISIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.2. IS-IS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Backward compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6. Backward compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7.1. OSPF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7.2. IS-IS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 15 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Terminology 1. Terminology
Terminology used in this document Terminology used in this document
IGP: Interior Gateway Protocol.
IGP Area: OSPF area or IS-IS level.
IS-IS: Intermediate System-to-Intermediate System (IS-IS).
LSR: Label Switch Router. LSR: Label Switch Router.
OSPF: Open Shortest Path First (OSPF).
OSPF LSA: OSPF Link State Advertisement.
TE LSP: Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path. TE LSP: Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path.
TE LSP head-end: head/source of the TE LSP. TE LSP head-end: head/source of the TE LSP.
TE LSP tail-end: tail/destination of the TE LSP. TE LSP tail-end: tail/destination of the TE LSP.
IGP Area: OSPF area or IS-IS level. TLV: Type Lenght Value
2. Introduction 2. Introduction
There are two well-known approaches in deploying MPLS Traffic There are two well-known approaches in deploying MPLS Traffic
Engineering: Engineering:
(1) The so-called "strategic" approach that consists of setting up a (1) The so-called "strategic" approach that consists of setting up a
full mesh of TE LSPs between a set of LSRs, full mesh of TE LSPs between a set of LSRs,
(2) The so-called "tactical" approach where a set of TE LSPs are (2) The so-called "tactical" approach where a set of TE LSPs are
skipping to change at page 4, line 44 skipping to change at page 5, line 6
optimization, bandwidth guarantees or fast rerouting with MPLS Fast optimization, bandwidth guarantees or fast rerouting with MPLS Fast
Reroute. Setting up a full mesh of TE LSPs between N LSRs requires Reroute. Setting up a full mesh of TE LSPs between N LSRs requires
the configuration of a potentially large number of TE LSPs (O(N^2)). the configuration of a potentially large number of TE LSPs (O(N^2)).
Furthermore, the addition of any new LSR in the mesh requires the Furthermore, the addition of any new LSR in the mesh requires the
configuration of N additional TE LSPs on the new LSR and one new TE configuration of N additional TE LSPs on the new LSR and one new TE
LSP on every LSR of the existing mesh destined to this new LSR, which LSP on every LSR of the existing mesh destined to this new LSR, which
gives a total of 2*N TE LSPs to be configured. Such operation is not gives a total of 2*N TE LSPs to be configured. Such operation is not
only time consuming but also a risky operation (prone to only time consuming but also a risky operation (prone to
misconfiguration) for Service Providers. Hence, an automatic misconfiguration) for Service Providers. Hence, an automatic
mechanism for setting up TE LSPs meshes is desirable and requires the mechanism for setting up TE LSPs meshes is desirable and requires the
ability to automatically discover the LSRs that belong to the mesh. ability to automatically discover the set of LSRs that belong to the
This document specifies routing extensions so as to automatically mesh. This document specifies routing extensions so as to
discover the members of a mesh, also referred to as a "TE mesh- automatically discover the members of a mesh, also referred to as a
group". Note that the mechanism(s) needed for the dynamic creation "TE mesh-group". Note that the mechanism(s) needed for the dynamic
of TE LSPs is implementation specific and outside the scope of this creation of TE LSPs is implementation specific and outside the scope
document. of this document.
Routing extensions have been defined in [I-D.ietf-ospf-cap] and Routing extensions have been defined in [I-D.ietf-ospf-cap] and
[I-D.ietf-isis-caps] in order to advertise router capabilities. This [I-D.ietf-isis-caps] in order to advertise router capabilities. This
document specifies IGP (OSPF and IS-IS) TE Mesh Group TLVs allowing document specifies IGP (OSPF and IS-IS) TE Mesh Group (Type Lenght
for the automatic discovery of a TE LSP mesh members, to be carried Value) TLVs allowing for the automatic discovery of a TE mesh-group
in the OSPF Router Information LSA [I-D.ietf-ospf-cap] and ISIS members, to be carried in the OSPF Router Information (Link State
Router Capability TLV [I-D.ietf-isis-caps]. The routing extensions Advertisement) LSA [I-D.ietf-ospf-cap] and IS-IS Router Capability
specified in this document provide the ability to signal multiple TE TLV [I-D.ietf-isis-caps]. The routing extensions specified in this
mesh groups. An LSR may belong to more than one TE mesh-group. document provide the ability to signal multiple TE mesh groups. An
LSR may belong to more than one TE mesh-group(s).
3. TE Mesh-Group There are relatively tight real-time constraints on the operation of
IGPs (such as OSPF and IS-IS). For this reason some care needs to be
applied when proposing to carry additional information in an IGP.
The information described in this document is both relatively small
in total volume (compared with other information already carried in
IGPs), and also relatively stable (ie, changes are based on
configuration changes, but not based on dynamic events within the
network, and not based on dynamic triggers such as the leaking of
information from other routing protocols or routing protocol
instances).
3.1. Description 3. Description of a TE Mesh-Group
A TE mesh-group is defined as a group of LSRs that are connected by a A TE mesh-group is defined as a group of LSRs that are connected by a
full mesh of TE LSPs. Routing extensions are specified in this full mesh of TE LSPs. Routing extensions are specified in this
document allowing for dynamic discovery of the TE mesh-group members. document allowing for dynamic discovery of the TE mesh-group members.
Procedures are also specified for a member to join and leave a TE Procedures are also specified for a member to join and leave a TE
mesh-group. mesh-group. For each TE mesh-group membership announced by an LSR,
the following information is avdertized:
3.2. Required Information
This document specifies a TE-MESH-GROUP TLV that indicates the set of
TE mesh-group(s) an LSR belongs to. For each TE mesh-group
membership announced by an LSR, the TE-MESH-GROUP TLV advertises the
following information:
- A mesh-group number identifying the TE mesh-group the LSR belongs - A mesh-group number identifying the TE mesh-group the LSR belongs
to. to,
- A Tail-end address (used as the TE LSP tail-end address by other - A Tail-end address (used as the TE LSP Tail-end address by other
LSRs belonging to the same mesh-group). LSRs belonging to the same mesh-group),
- A Tail-end name: string used to ease the TE-LSP naming. - A Tail-end name: a display string that is allocated to the Tail-end
used to ease the TE-LSP naming.
4. TE-MESH-GROUP TLV formats 4. TE-MESH-GROUP TLV formats
4.1. OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV format 4.1. OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV format
the OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV (advertised in an OSPF router information
The TE-MESH-GROUP TLV is used to advertise the desire of an LSR to
join/leave a given TE mesh-group. No sub-TLV is currently defined
for the TE-MESH-GROUP TLV.
The OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV (advertised in an OSPF router information
LSA defined in [I-D.ietf-ospf-cap]) has the following format: LSA defined in [I-D.ietf-ospf-cap]) has the following format:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | length | | Type | length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
// Value // // Value //
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 6, line 31 skipping to change at page 6, line 40
The format of the OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV is the same as the TLV The format of the OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV is the same as the TLV
format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF
(see[RFC3630]). The TLV is padded to four-octet alignment; padding (see[RFC3630]). The TLV is padded to four-octet alignment; padding
is not included in the length field (so a three octet value would is not included in the length field (so a three octet value would
have a length of three, but the total size of the TLV would be eight have a length of three, but the total size of the TLV would be eight
octets). Nested TLVs are also 32-bit aligned. Unrecognized types octets). Nested TLVs are also 32-bit aligned. Unrecognized types
are ignored. All types between 32768 and 65535 are reserved for are ignored. All types between 32768 and 65535 are reserved for
vendor-specific extensions. All other undefined type codes are vendor-specific extensions. All other undefined type codes are
reserved for future assignment by IANA. reserved for future assignment by IANA.
The TE-MESH-GROUP TLV is used to advertise the desire of an LSR to The OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV format for IPv4 (figure 2) and IPv6
join/leave a given TE mesh-group. No sub-TLV is currently defined (figure 3) is as follows:
for the TE-mesh-group TLV.
The TE-MESH-GROUP TLV has the following format:
TYPE: To be assigned by IANA (Suggested Value: 3) TYPE: To be assigned by IANA (Suggested Value: 3)
LENGTH: Variable LENGTH: Variable
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| mesh-group-number | | mesh-group-number 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tail-end IPv4 address | | Tail-end IPv4 address 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Name length | Tail-end name | | Name length | Tail-end name 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// // // //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| mesh-group-number n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tail-end IPv4 address n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Name length | Tail-end name n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2 - OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV format (IPv4 Address) Figure 2 - OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV format (IPv4 Address)
TYPE: To be assigned by IANA (Suggested Value: 4) TYPE: To be assigned by IANA (Suggested Value: 4)
LENGTH: Variable LENGTH: Variable
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| mesh-group-number | | mesh-group-number 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
| Tail-end IPv6 address | | Tail-end IPv6 address 1 |
| | | |
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Name length | Tail-end name | | Name length | Tail-end name 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// // // //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| mesh-group-number n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Tail-end IPv6 address n |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Name length | Tail-end name n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3 - OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV format (IPv6 Address) Figure 3 - OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV format (IPv6 Address)
For each TE mesh-group announced by the LSR, the TE-MESH-GROUP TLV The OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV may contain one or more mesh-group entries
comprises: where each entry correspond to a TE mesh-group and is made of the
following fields:
- A mesh-group-number that identifies the mesh-group number
- A mesh-group-number that identifies the mesh-group number,
- A Tail-end address: an IPv4 or IPv6 IP address to be used as a - A Tail-end address: an IPv4 or IPv6 IP address to be used as a
tail-end TE LSP address by other LSRs belonging to the same mesh- tail-end TE LSP address by other LSRs belonging to the same mesh-
group group,
- A Tail-end name: a variable length field used to facilitate the TE - A Tail-end name: A display string that is allocated to the Tail-
LSP identification. The Name length field indicates the length of end. The field is of variable length field and is used to facilitate
the display string before padding, in bytes. the TE LSP identification. - Name length field: An integer, expressed
in octets, that indicates the length of the Tail-end name before
padding.
4.2. IS-IS TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV format 4.2. IS-IS TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV format
The TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV is used to advertise the desire of an LSR
to join/leave a given TE mesh-group. No sub-TLV is currently defined
for the TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV.
The IS-IS TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV (advertised in the IS-IS CAPABILITY The IS-IS TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV (advertised in the IS-IS CAPABILITY
TLV defined in [I-D.ietf-isis-caps] ) is composed of 1 octet for the TLV defined in [I-D.ietf-isis-caps] ) is composed of 1 octet for the
type, 1 octet specifying the TLV length and a value field. The type, 1 octet specifying the TLV length and a value field. The
format of the TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV is identical to the TLV format format of the TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV is identical to the TLV format
used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions for IS-IS [RFC3784]. The used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions for IS-IS [RFC3784].
TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV is used to advertise the desire of an LSR to
join/leave a given TE mesh-group. No sub-TLV is currently defined
for the TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV.
The ISIS TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV has the following format: The IS-IS TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV format for IPv4 (figure 4) and IPv6
(figure 5) is as follows:
TYPE: To be assigned by IANA (Suggested value: 3). TYPE: To be assigned by IANA (Suggested value: 3).
LENGTH: Variable LENGTH: Variable
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| mesh-group-number | | mesh-group-number 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tail-end IPv4 address | | Tail-end IPv4 address 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Name length | Tail-end name | | Name length | Tail-end name 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// // // //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| mesh-group-number n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tail-end IPv4 address n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Name length | Tail-end name n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4 - ISIS TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV format (IPv4 Address) Figure 4 - IS-IS TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV format (IPv4 Address)
TYPE: To be assigned by IANA (Suggested Value: 4) TYPE: To be assigned by IANA (Suggested Value: 4)
LENGTH: Variable LENGTH: Variable
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| mesh-group-number | | mesh-group-number 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
| Tail-end IPv6 address | | Tail-end IPv6 address 1 |
| | | |
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Name length | Tail-end name | | Name length | Tail-end name 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// // // //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| mesh-group-number n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Tail-end IPv6 address n |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Name length | Tail-end name n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5 - ISIS TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV format (IPv6 Address) Figure 5 - IS-IS TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV format (IPv6 Address)
The OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV and the ISIS TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV may The IS-IS TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV may contain one or more mesh-group
contain one or more mesh-group entries where each entry correspond to entries where each entry correspond to a TE mesh-group and is made of
a TE mesh-group and is made of the following fields: the following fields:
- A mesh-group-number that identifies the mesh-group number, - A mesh-group-number that identifies the mesh-group number,
- A Tail-end address: an IPv4 or IPv6 IP address to be used as a - A Tail-end address: an IPv4 or IPv6 IP address to be used as a
tail-end TE LSP address by other LSRs belonging to the same mesh- tail-end TE LSP address by other LSRs belonging to the same mesh-
group, group,
- A Tail-end name: a variable length field used to facilitate the TE
LSP identification. The Name length field indicates the length of - A Tail-end name: A display string that is allocated to the Tail-
the display string before padding, in bytes. end. The field is of variable length field and is used to facilitate
the TE LSP identification. - Name length field: An integer, expressed
in octets, that indicates the length of the Tail-end name before
padding.
5. Elements of procedure 5. Elements of procedure
The OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV is carried within the OSPF Routing The OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV is carried within the OSPF Routing
Information LSA and the TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV is caried within the Information LSA and the TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV is caried within the
ISIS Router capability TLV. As such, elements of procedure are IS-IS Router capability TLV. As such, elements of procedure are
inherited from those defined in [I-D.ietf-ospf-cap] and inherited from those defined in [I-D.ietf-ospf-cap] and
[I-D.ietf-isis-caps] for OSPF and ISIS respectively. Specifically, a [I-D.ietf-isis-caps] for OSPF and IS-IS respectively. Specifically,
router MUST originate a new LSA/LSP whenever the content of this a router MUST originate a new LSA/LSP whenever the content of this
information changes, or whenever required by regular routing information changes, or whenever required by regular routing
procedure (e.g. refresh). The TE-MESH-GROUP TLV is OPTIONAL and MUST procedure (e.g. update).
at most appear once in a OSPF Router Information LSA or ISIS Router
Capability TLV. If the OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV occurs more than once The TE-MESH-GROUP TLV is OPTIONAL and MUST NOT include more than one
within the OSPF Router Information LSA, only the first instance is of each of the IPv4 instance or the IPv6 instance. If either the
processed, subsequent TLV(s) will be silently ignored. Similarly, If IPv4 or the IPv6 OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV occurs more than once within
the ISIS TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV occurs more than once within the ISIS the OSPF Router Information LSA, only the first instance is
Router capability TLV, only the first instance is processed, processed, subsequent TLV(s) SHOULD be silently ignored. Similarly,
subsequent TLV(s) will be silently ignored. if either the IPv4 or the IPv6 IS-IS TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV occurs
more than once within the ISIS Router capability TLV, only the first
instance is processed, subsequent TLV(s) SHOULD be silently ignored.
5.1. OSPF 5.1. OSPF
The TE-MESH-GROUP TLV is advertised within an OSPF Router Information The TE-MESH-GROUP TLV is advertised within an OSPF Router Information
opaque LSA (opaque type of 4, opaque ID of 0) as defined in opaque LSA (opaque type of 4, opaque ID of 0) for OSPFv2 ([RFC2328])
[I-D.ietf-ospf-cap]. and within a new LSA (Router Information LSA) for OSPFv3 ([RFC2740]).
The Router Information LSAs for OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 are defined in
([I-D.ietf-ospf-cap]).
A router MUST originate a new OSPF router information LSA whenever A router MUST originate a new OSPF router information LSA whenever
the content of the any of the advertised TLV changes or whenever the content of the any of the advertised TLV changes or whenever
required by the regular OSPF procedure (LSA refresh (every required by the regular OSPF procedure (LSA update (every
LSRefreshTime)). If an LSR desires to join or leave a particular TE LSRefreshTime)). If an LSR desires to join or leave a particular TE
mesh group, it MUST originate a new OSPF Router Information LSA mesh group, it MUST originate a new OSPF Router Information LSA
comprising the updated TE-MESH-GROUP TLV. In the case of a join, a comprising the updated TE-MESH-GROUP TLV. In the case of a join, a
new entry will be added to the TE-MESH-GROUP TLV; conversely, if the new entry will be added to the TE-MESH-GROUP TLV; conversely, if the
LSR leaves a mesh-group the corresponding entry will be removed from LSR leaves a mesh-group the corresponding entry will be removed from
the TE-MESH-GROUP TLV. Note that both operations can be performed in the TE-MESH-GROUP TLV. Note that both operations can be performed in
the context of a single refresh. An implementation SHOULD be able to the context of a single LSA update. An implementation SHOULD be able
detect any change to a previously received TE-MESH-GROUP TLV from a to detect any change to a previously received TE-MESH-GROUP TLV from
specific LSR. a specific LSR.
As defined in [RFC2370], an opaque LSA has a flooding scope As defined in [RFC2370] for OSPVv2 and in [RFC2740] for OSPFv3, the
determined by its LSA type: flooding scope of the Router Information LSA is determined by the LSA
Opaque type for OSPFv2 and the values of the S1/S2 bits for OSPFv3.
- link-local (type 9); For OSPFv2 Router Information opaque LSA:
- area-local (type 10); - Link-local scope: type 9;
- entire OSPF routing domain (type 11). In this case, the flooding
scope is equivalent to the Type 5 LSA flooding scope. A router may - Area-local scope: type 10;
generate multiple OSPF Router Information LSAs with different - Routing-domain scope: type 11. In this case, the flooding scope is
flooding scopes. The TE-MESH-GROUP TLV may be advertised within a equivalent to the Type 5 LSA flooding scope.
type 10 or 11 Router Information LSA depending on the MPLS TE mesh
group profile: For OSPFv3 Router Information LSA:
- Link-local scope: OSPFV3 Router Information LSA with the S1 and S2
bits cleared;
- Area-local scope: OSPFV3 Router Information LSA with the S1 bit set
and the S2 bit cleared;
- Routing-domain scope: OSPFv3 Router Information LSA with S1 bit
cleared and the S2 bit set.
A router may generate multiple OSPF Router Information LSAs with
different flooding scopes.
The TE-MESH-GROUP TLV may be advertised within an Area-local or
Routing-domain scope Router Information LSA depending on the MPLS TE
mesh group profile:
- If the MPLS TE mesh-group is contained within a single area (all - If the MPLS TE mesh-group is contained within a single area (all
the LSRs of the mesh-group are contained within a single area), the the LSRs of the mesh-group are contained within a single area), the
TE-MESH-GROUP TLV MUST be generated within a Type 10 Router TE-MESH-GROUP TLV MUST be generated within an Area-local Router
Information LSA; Information LSA.
- If the MPLS TE mesh-group spans multiple OSPF areas, the TE mesh- - If the MPLS TE mesh-group spans multiple OSPF areas, the TE mesh-
group TLV MUST be generated within a Type 11 router information LSA. group TLV MUST be generated within a Routing-domain scope router
information LSA.
It is expected that the number of mesh-groups be very limited (to at
most 10 or so). Moreover, TE mesh-group membership is fairly static
and should not change frequently.
5.2. ISIS 5.2. IS-IS
The TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV is advertised within the IS-IS Router The TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV is advertised within the IS-IS Router
CAPABILITY TLV defined in [I-D.ietf-isis-caps]. An IS-IS router MUST CAPABILITY TLV defined in [I-D.ietf-isis-caps]. An IS-IS router MUST
originate a new IS-IS LSP whenever the content of the any of the originate a new IS-IS LSP whenever the content of the any of the
advertised sub-TLV changes or whenever required by regular IS-IS advertised sub-TLV changes or whenever required by regular IS-IS
procedure (LSP refresh). If an LSR desires to join or leave a procedure (LSP update). If an LSR desires to join or leave a
particular TE mesh group, it MUST originate a new LSP comprising the particular TE mesh group, it MUST originate a new LSP comprising the
refreshed ISIS Router capability TLV comprising the updated TE-MESH- refreshed IS-IS Router capability TLV comprising the updated TE-MESH-
GROUP sub-TLV. In the case of a join, a new entry will be added to GROUP sub-TLV. In the case of a join, a new entry will be added to
the TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV; conversely, if the LSR leaves a mesh-group the TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV; conversely, if the LSR leaves a mesh-group
the corresponding entry will be deleted from the TE-MESH-GROUP sub- the corresponding entry will be deleted from the TE-MESH-GROUP sub-
TLV. Note that both operations can be performed in the context of a TLV. Note that both operations can be performed in the context of a
single refresh. An implementation SHOULD be able to detect any single update. An implementation SHOULD be able to detect any change
change to a previously received TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV from a specific to a previously received TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV from a specific LSR.
LSR.
If the flooding scope of an MPLS Traffic Engineering capability is If the flooding scope of an MPLS Traffic Engineering capability is
limited to an IS-IS level/area, the sub-TLV MUST not be leaked across limited to an IS-IS level/area, the sub-TLV MUST not be leaked across
level/area and the S flag of the Router CAPABILITY TLV MUST be level/area and the S flag of the Router CAPABILITY TLV MUST be
cleared. Conversely, if the flooding scope of an MPLS Traffic cleared. Conversely, if the flooding scope of an MPLS Traffic
Engineering capability is the entire routing domain, the TLV MUST be Engineering capability is the entire routing domain, the TLV MUST be
leaked across IS-IS levels/areas, and the S flag of the Router leaked across IS-IS levels/areas, and the S flag of the Router
CAPABILITY TLV MUST be set. In both cases the flooding rules CAPABILITY TLV MUST be set. In both cases the flooding rules
specified in [I-D.ietf-isis-caps] apply. specified in [I-D.ietf-isis-caps] apply.
As specified in [I-D.ietf-isis-caps], a router may generate multiple As specified in [I-D.ietf-isis-caps], a router may generate multiple
IS-IS Router CAPABILITY TLVs within an IS-IS LSP with different IS-IS Router CAPABILITY TLVs within an IS-IS LSP with different
flooding scopes. flooding scopes.
It is expected that the number of TE mesh-groups will be very limited
(to at most 10 or so). Moreover, TE mesh-group membership is fairly
static and should not change frequently.
6. Backward compatibility 6. Backward compatibility
The TE-MESH-GROUP TLVs defined in this document do not introduce any The TE-MESH-GROUP TLVs defined in this document do not introduce any
interoperability issue. For OSPF, a router not supporting the TE- interoperability issue. For OSPF, a router not supporting the TE-
MESH-GROUP TLV SHOULD just silently ignore the TLV as specified in MESH-GROUP TLV SHOULD just silently ignore the TLV as specified in
[RFC2370]. For IS-IS a router not supporting the TE-MESH-GROUP sub- [RFC2370]. For IS-IS a router not supporting the TE-MESH-GROUP sub-
TLV SHOULD just silently ignore the sub-TLV. TLV SHOULD just silently ignore the sub-TLV.
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
OSPF 7.1. OSPF
IANA will assign new OSPF TLV code-point for the newly defined TE-
MESH-GROUP TLVs carried within the Router Information LSA.
TE-MESH-GROUP TLV (IPv4) (suggested value=3)
TE-MESH-GROUP TLV (IPv6) (suggested value=4) Once a registry for the Router Information LSA defined in
[I-D.ietf-ospf-cap] will have been assigned, IANA will assign a new
OSPF TLV code-point for the TE-MESH-GROUP TLVs carried within the
Router Information LSA.
ISIS Value Sub-TLV References
----- -------- ----------
3 TE-MESH-GROUP TLV (IPv4) draft-ietf-ospf-cap (to be replaced by RFC number)
4 TE-MESH-GROUP TLV (IPv6) draft-ietf-ospf-cap (to be replaced by RFC number)
IANA will assign new ISIS TLV code-point for the newly defined TE- 7.2. IS-IS
MESH-GROUP sub-TLVs carried within the ISIS Router Capability TLV.
TE-MESH-GROUP TLV (IPv4) (suggested value=3) Once a registry for the Router Capability TLV defined in
[I-D.ietf-isis-caps] will have been assigned, IANA will assign a new
IS-IS sub-TLV code-point for the TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLVs carried
within the IS-IS Router Capability TLV.
TE-MESH-GROUP TLV (IPv6) (suggested value=4) Value Sub-TLV References
----- -------- ----------
3 TE-MESH-GROUP TLV (IPv4) draft-ietf-isis-caps (to be replaced by RFC number)
4 TE-MESH-GROUP TLV (IPv6) draft-ietf-isis-caps (to be replaced by RFC number)
8. Security Considerations 8. Security Considerations
No new security issues are raised in this document. The function described in this document does not create any new
security issues for the OSPF and the IS-IS protocols. Security
considerations are covered in [RFC2328] and [RFC2740] for the base
OSPF protocol and in [RFC1195] for IS-IS. It must be noted that the
advertisement of "fake" TE Mesh Group membership(s) by a mis-
configured or malicious LSR Y would not have any major impact on the
network (other than overloading the IGP) such as triggering the set
up of new MPLS TE LSP: indeed for a new TE LSP originated by another
LSR X destined to LSR Y to be set up, the same TE Mesh group
membership must be configured on both LSRs. Thus such fake
advertisement could not amplify any DoS attack.
9. Acknowledgements 9. Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Dean Cheng, Adrian Farrel, Yannick Le Louedec, We would like to thank Dean Cheng, Adrian Farrel, Yannick Le Louedec,
Dave Ward, Les Ginsberg and Stephen Nadas for their useful comments. Dave Ward, Les Ginsberg, Stephen Nadas, Acee Lindem, Dimitri
Papadimitriou and Lakshminath Dondeti for their useful comments.
10. Normative References 10. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-isis-caps] [I-D.ietf-isis-caps]
Vasseur, J., "IS-IS Extensions for Advertising Router Vasseur, J., "IS-IS Extensions for Advertising Router
Information", draft-ietf-isis-caps-06 (work in progress), Information", draft-ietf-isis-caps-06 (work in progress),
January 2006. January 2006.
[I-D.ietf-ospf-cap] [I-D.ietf-ospf-cap]
Lindem, A., "Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional Lindem, A., "Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional
Router Capabilities", draft-ietf-ospf-cap-08 (work in Router Capabilities", draft-ietf-ospf-cap-09 (work in
progress), December 2005. progress), October 2006.
[RFC1194] Zimmerman, D., "Finger User Information Protocol",
RFC 1194, November 1990.
[RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.
[RFC2370] Coltun, R., "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 2370, [RFC2370] Coltun, R., "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 2370,
July 1998. July 1998.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., [RFC2740] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., and J. Moy, "OSPF for IPv6",
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP RFC 2740, December 1999.
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering [RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630,
September 2003. September 2003.
[RFC3784] Smit, H. and T. Li, "Intermediate System to Intermediate [RFC3784] Smit, H. and T. Li, "Intermediate System to Intermediate
System (IS-IS) Extensions for Traffic Engineering (TE)", System (IS-IS) Extensions for Traffic Engineering (TE)",
RFC 3784, June 2004. RFC 3784, June 2004.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
skipping to change at page 15, line 7 skipping to change at page 16, line 7
Email: ppsenak@cisco.com Email: ppsenak@cisco.com
Paul Mabbey Paul Mabbey
Comcast Comcast
USA USA
Email: Email:
Full Copyright Statement Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2006).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights. retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
 End of changes. 85 change blocks. 
156 lines changed or deleted 251 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.33. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/