draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-04.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-05.txt 
Network Working Group J.P. Vasseur (Editor) INTERNET-DRAFT J.P. Vasseur (Editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc. Network Working Group Cisco Systems, Inc.
IETF Internet Draft J.L. Le Roux (Editor) Intended Status: Proposed Standard J.L. Le Roux (Editor)
France Telecom France Telecom
Proposed Status: Standard Track Expires: October 2007
Expires: July 2007 S. Yasukawa
NTT
S. Previdi
P. Psenak
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Paul Mabey
Comcast
December 2006
IGP Routing Protocol Extensions for Discovery of Traffic Engineering IGP Routing Protocol Extensions for Discovery of Traffic Engineering
Node Capabilities Node Capabilities
draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-04.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-05.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 other Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
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
skipping to change at page 2, line 19 skipping to change at page 2, line 5
Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineered Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineered
Label Switched Path (TE-LSP) selection, such as for instance the Label Switched Path (TE-LSP) selection, such as for instance the
capability to act as a branch Label Switching Router (LSR) of a capability to act as a branch Label Switching Router (LSR) of a
Point-To-MultiPoint (P2MP) LSP. This requires advertising these Point-To-MultiPoint (P2MP) LSP. This requires advertising these
capabilities within the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP). For that capabilities within the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP). For that
purpose, this document specifies Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) and purpose, this document specifies Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) and
Intermediate System-Intermediate System (IS-IS) traffic engineering Intermediate System-Intermediate System (IS-IS) traffic engineering
extensions for the advertisement of control plane and data plane extensions for the advertisement of control plane and data plane
traffic engineering node capabilities. traffic engineering node capabilities.
Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Terminology.................................................3 1. Terminology.................................................3
2. Introduction................................................3 2. Introduction................................................3
3. TE Node Capability Descriptor...............................4 3. TE Node Capability Descriptor...............................4
3.1. Description.................................................4 3.1. Description.................................................4
3.2. Required Information........................................4 3.2. Required Information........................................4
4. TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV formats...................5 4. TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV formats...................5
4.1. OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV format...............5 4.1. OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV format...............5
4.2. IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV format..........6 4.2. IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV format..........6
skipping to change at page 3, line 10 skipping to change at page 3, line 10
10.2. Informative References.....................................11 10.2. Informative References.....................................11
11. Editors' Addresses.........................................11 11. Editors' Addresses.........................................11
12. Contributors' Addresses....................................11 12. Contributors' Addresses....................................11
13. Intellectual Property Statement............................12 13. Intellectual Property Statement............................12
1. Terminology 1. Terminology
This document uses terminologies defined in [RFC3031], [RFC3209] and This document uses terminologies defined in [RFC3031], [RFC3209] and
[RFC4461]. [RFC4461].
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. Introduction 2. Introduction
Multi Protocol Label Switching-Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) routing Multi Protocol Label Switching-Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) routing
([RFC3784], [RFC3630], [OSPFv3-TE]) relies on extensions to link ([RFC3784], [RFC3630], [OSPFv3-TE]) relies on extensions to link
state Interior Gateway Protocols (IGP) ([IS-IS], [RFC2328], state Interior Gateway Protocols (IGP) ([IS-IS], [RFC1195],
[RFC2740]) in order to advertise Traffic Engineering (TE) link [RFC2328], [RFC2740]) in order to advertise Traffic Engineering (TE)
information used for constraint based routing. Further Generalized link information used for constraint based routing. Further
MPLS (GMPLS) related routing extensions are defined in [RFC4205] and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) related routing extensions are defined in
[RFC4203]. [RFC4205] and [RFC4203].
It is desired to complement these routing extensions in order to It is desired to complement these routing extensions in order to
advertise TE node capabilities, in addition to TE link information. advertise TE node capabilities, in addition to TE link information.
These TE node capabilities will be taken into account as constraints These TE node capabilities will be taken into account as constraints
during path selection. during path selection.
Indeed, it is useful to advertise data plane TE node capabilities, Indeed, it is useful to advertise data plane TE node capabilities,
such as the capability for a Label Switching Router (LSR) to be a such as the capability for a Label Switching Router (LSR) to be a
branch LSR or a bud-LSR of a Point-To-MultiPoint (P2MP) Label branch LSR or a bud-LSR of a Point-To-MultiPoint (P2MP) Label
Switched Path (LSP). These capabilities can then be taken into Switched Path (LSP). These capabilities can then be taken into
skipping to change at page 3, line 46 skipping to change at page 3, line 50
to support such nodes on a path. Hence this facilitates backward to support such nodes on a path. Hence this facilitates backward
compatibility. compatibility.
For that purpose, this document specifies IGP (OSPF and IS-IS) For that purpose, this document specifies IGP (OSPF and IS-IS)
extensions in order to advertise data plane and control plane extensions in order to advertise data plane and control plane
capabilities of a node. capabilities of a node.
A new TLV is defined for OSPF, the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV, A new TLV is defined for OSPF, the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV,
to be carried within the Router Information LSA ([OSPF-CAP]). to be carried within the Router Information LSA ([OSPF-CAP]).
A new sub-TLV is defined for IS-IS, the TE Node Capability Descriptor A new sub-TLV is defined for IS-IS, the TE Node Capability Descriptor
sub-TLV, to be carried within the IS-IS Capability TLV ([ISIS-CAP]). sub-TLV, to be carried within the IS-IS Capability TLV ([IS-IS-CAP]).
3. TE Node Capability Descriptor 3. TE Node Capability Descriptor
3.1. Description 3.1. Description
LSRs in a network may have distinct control plane and data plane LSRs in a network may have distinct control plane and data plane
Traffic Engineering capabilities. The TE Node Capability Descriptor Traffic Engineering capabilities. The TE Node Capability Descriptor
information defined in this document describes data and control plane information defined in this document describes data and control plane
capabilities of an LSR. Such information can be used during path capabilities of an LSR. Such information can be used during path
computation so as to avoid nodes that do not support a given TE computation so as to avoid nodes that do not support a given TE
skipping to change at page 5, line 23 skipping to change at page 5, line 23
The OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is carried within an OSPF The OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is carried within an OSPF
Router Information LSA which is defined in [OSPF-CAP]. Router Information LSA which is defined in [OSPF-CAP].
The format of the OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is the same The format of the OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is the same
as the TLV format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF as the TLV format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF
[RFC3630]. That is, the TLV is composed of 2 octets for the type, 2 [RFC3630]. That is, the TLV is composed of 2 octets for the type, 2
octets specifying the length of the value field and a value field. octets specifying the length of the value field and a value field.
The OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV has the following format: The OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV has the following format:
TYPE To be assigned by IANA (suggested value =1). TYPE: Assigned by IANA - see Section 8.1.
LENGTH Variable (multiple of 4). LENGTH: Variable (multiple of 4).
VALUE Array of units of 32 flags numbered from the most VALUE: Array of units of 32 flags numbered from the most
significant bit as bit zero, where each bit represents significant bit as bit zero, where each bit represents
a TE node capability. a TE node capability.
The following bits are defined: The following bits are defined:
Bit Capabilities Bit Capabilities
0 B bit: P2MP Branch Node capability: When set this indicates 0 B bit: P2MP Branch Node capability: When set this indicates
that the LSR can act as a branch node on a P2MP LSP that the LSR can act as a branch node on a P2MP LSP
[RFC4461]. [RFC4461].
skipping to change at page 6, line 12 skipping to change at page 6, line 12
5-31 Reserved for future assignments by IANA. 5-31 Reserved for future assignments by IANA.
4.2. IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV format 4.2. IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV format
The IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV is a variable length The IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV is a variable length
sub-TLV that contains a series of bit flags, where each bit sub-TLV that contains a series of bit flags, where each bit
correspond to a TE node capability. correspond to a TE node capability.
The IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV is carried within an The IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV is carried within an
IS-IS CAPABILITY TLV which is defined in [ISIS-CAP]. IS-IS CAPABILITY TLV which is defined in [IS-IS-CAP].
The format of the IS-IS TE Node Capability sub-TLV is the same as the The format of the IS-IS TE Node Capability sub-TLV is the same as the
TLV format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions to IS-IS TLV format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions to IS-IS
[RFC3784]. That is, the TLV is composed of 1 octet for the type, 1 [RFC3784]. That is, the TLV is composed of 1 octet for the type, 1
octet specifying the TLV length and a value field. octet specifying the TLV length and a value field.
The IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV has the following The IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV has the following
format: format:
TYPE: To be assigned by IANA (Suggested value =1) TYPE: Assigned by IANA - see Section 8.2.
LENGTH: Variable LENGTH: Variable
VALUE: Array of units of 8 flags numbered from the most VALUE: Array of units of 8 flags numbered from the most
significant bit as bit zero, where each bit represents significant bit as bit zero, where each bit represents
a TE node capability. a TE node capability.
The following bits are defined: The following bits are defined:
Bit Capabilities Bit Capabilities
0 B bit: P2MP Branch Node capability: When set this indicates 0 B bit: P2MP Branch Node capability: When set this indicates
skipping to change at page 8, line 33 skipping to change at page 8, line 33
When an IS-IS LSP does not contain any TE Node capability Descriptor When an IS-IS LSP does not contain any TE Node capability Descriptor
sub-TLV, this means that the TE Capabilities of that LSR are unknown. sub-TLV, this means that the TE Capabilities of that LSR are unknown.
Note that a change in any of these capabilities MAY trigger CSPF Note that a change in any of these capabilities MAY trigger CSPF
computation, but MUST NOT trigger normal SPF computation. computation, but MUST NOT trigger normal SPF computation.
Note also that TE node capabilities are expected to be fairly static. Note also that TE node capabilities are expected to be fairly static.
They may change as the result of configuration change, or software They may change as the result of configuration change, or software
upgrade. This is expected not to appear more than once a day. upgrade. This is expected not to appear more than once a day.
6. Backward compatibility 6. Backward Compatibility
The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLVs defined in this document do The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLVs defined in this document do
not introduce any interoperability issue. For OSPF, a router not not introduce any interoperability issue. For OSPF, a router not
supporting the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV will just silently supporting the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV will just silently
ignore the TLV as specified in [OSPF-CAP]. For IS-IS a router not ignore the TLV as specified in [OSPF-CAP]. For IS-IS a router not
supporting the TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV will just supporting the TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV will just
silently ignore the sub-TLV as specified in [IS-IS-CAP]. silently ignore the sub-TLV as specified in [IS-IS-CAP].
When the TE Node capability Descriptor TLV is absent, this means that When the TE Node capability Descriptor TLV is absent, this means that
the TE Capabilities of that LSR are unknown. the TE Capabilities of that LSR are unknown.
skipping to change at page 9, line 20 skipping to change at page 9, line 20
routing, the extensions specified here have no direct effect on IP routing, the extensions specified here have no direct effect on IP
routing. Tampering with this TLV may have an effect on Traffic routing. Tampering with this TLV may have an effect on Traffic
Engineering computation. Mechanisms defined to secure ISIS Link State Engineering computation. Mechanisms defined to secure ISIS Link State
PDUs [RFC3567], OSPF LSAs [RFC2154], and their TLVs, can be used to PDUs [RFC3567], OSPF LSAs [RFC2154], and their TLVs, can be used to
secure this TLV as well. secure this TLV as well.
8. IANA considerations 8. IANA considerations
8.1. OSPF TLV 8.1. OSPF TLV
IANA is in charge of the assignment of TLV code points for the Router [OSPF-CAP] defines a new code point registry for TLVs carried in the
Information LSA defined in [OSPF-CAP]. Router Information LSA defined in [OSPF-CAP].
IANA will assign a new codepoint for the TE Node Capability
Descriptor TLV defined in this document and carried within the Router IANA is requested to make a new codepoint assignment from that
Information LSA (suggested value = 1). registry for the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV defined in this
document and carried within the Router Information LSA. The value 1
is suggested. See Section 4.1 of this document.
8.2. ISIS sub-TLV 8.2. ISIS sub-TLV
IANA is in charge of the assignment of sub-TLV code points for the [IS-IS-CAP] defines a new code point registry for sub-TLVs carried in
ISIS CAPABILITY TLV defined in [ISIS-CAP]. the ISIS CAPABILITY TLV defined in [IS-IS-CAP].
IANA will assign a new codepoint for the TE Node Capability
Descriptor sub-TLV defined in this document, and carried within the IANA is requested to make a new codepoint assignment from that
ISIS CAPABILITY TLV (suggested value = 1). registry for the TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV defined in
this document, and carried within the ISIS CAPABILITY TLV. The value
1 is suggested. See Section 4.2 of this document.
8.3. Capability Registry 8.3. Capability Registry
IANA is requested to manage the space of capability bit flags carried IANA is requested to create a new registry to manage the space of
within the OSPF and ISIS TE Node Capability Descriptor, numbering capability bit flags carried within the OSPF and ISIS TE Node
them in the usual IETF notation starting at zero, with the most Capability Descriptor.
significant bit as bit zero. A single registry must be defined for
both protocols. A single registry must be defined for both protocols. It is suggested
that a new base registry be created to cover IGP-TE registries that
apply to both OSPF and ISIS, and that the new registry requested by
this document should be a sub-registry of this new bas registry.
Bits in the new regstry should be numbered in the usual IETF notation
starting with the most significant bit as bit zero.
New bit numbers may be allocated only by an IETF Consensus action. New bit numbers may be allocated only by an IETF Consensus action.
Each bit should be tracked with the following qualities: Each bit should be tracked with the following qualities:
- Bit number - Bit number
- Defining RFC - Defining RFC
- Name of bit - Name of bit
Five TE node capabilities are defined in this document and must be IANA is requested to make assignments for the five TE node
assigned by IANA. Here are the suggested values: capabilities defined in this document (see Sections 8.1 and 8.2)
1 : B Bit = P2MP Branch LSR capability ([RFC4461]) using the following suggested values:
2 : E bit = P2MP Bud LSR capability ([RFC4461])
3 : M bit = MPLS-TE support ([RFC3209]) Bit No. Name Reference
4 : G bit = GMPLS support (RFC3473)) --------+---------------------------------------+-----------
5 : P bit = P2MP RSVP-TE support ([RSVP-P2MP]) 1 B bit: P2MP Branch LSR capability [This.I-D]
2 E bit: P2MP Bud LSR capability [This.I-D]
3 M bit: MPLS-TE support [This.I-D]
4 G bit: GMPLS support [This.I-D]
5 P bit: P2MP RSVP-TE support [This.I-D]
9. Acknowledgments 9. Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Benoit Fondeviole, Adrian Farrel, Dimitri We would like to thank Benoit Fondeviole, Adrian Farrel, Dimitri
Papadimitriou, Acee Lindem and David Ward for their useful comments Papadimitriou, Acee Lindem and David Ward for their useful comments
and suggestions. and suggestions.
We would also like to thank authors of [RFC4420] and [OSPF-CAP] from We would also like to thank authors of [RFC4420] and [OSPF-CAP] by
which some text of this document has been inspired. which some text of this document has been inspired.
Adrian Farrel prpeared the final version of this document for
submission to the IESG.
10. References 10. References
10.1. Normative references 10.1. Normative references
[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", RFC 2328, April 1998. [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998.
[RFC2370] Coltun, R., "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 2370,
July 1998.
[RFC2740] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., and J. Moy, "OSPF for IPv6", [RFC2740] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., and J. Moy, "OSPF for IPv6",
RFC 2740, December 1999. RFC 2740, December 1999.
[RFC2370] Coltun, R., "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 2370, [RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
July 1998. Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001.
[RFC4461] Yasukawa, S., et. al., "Signaling Requirements for Point to [RFC3209] Awduche, D., et. al., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Multipoint Traffic Engineered MPLS LSPs", RFC4461, April 2006. tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[IS-IS] "Intermediate System to Intermediate System Intra-Domain [RFC3473] Berger, L, et. al., "GMPLS Signaling RSVP-TE extensions",
Routing Exchange Protocol " ISO 10589. RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC3630] Katz, D., Yeung, D., Kompella, K., "Traffic Engineering [RFC3630] Katz, D., Yeung, D., Kompella, K., "Traffic Engineering
Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September 2003. Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September 2003.
[RFC3784] Li, T., Smit, H., "IS-IS extensions for Traffic [RFC3784] Li, T., Smit, H., "IS-IS extensions for Traffic
Engineering", RFC 3784, June 2004. Engineering", RFC 3784, June 2004.
[IS-IS] "Intermediate System to Intermediate System Intra-Domain
Routeing Exchange Protocol for use in Conjunction with the
Protocol for Providing the Connectionless-mode Network
Service (ISO 8473)", ISO 10589.
[IS-IS-CAP] Vasseur, J.P. et al., "IS-IS extensions for advertising
router information", draft-ietf-isis-caps, work in
progress.
[OSPF-CAP] Lindem, A., Shen, N., Aggarwal, R., Shaffer, S., Vasseur, [OSPF-CAP] Lindem, A., Shen, N., Aggarwal, R., Shaffer, S., Vasseur,
J.P., "Extensions to OSPF for advertising Optional Router J.P., "Extensions to OSPF for advertising Optional Router
Capabilities", draft-ietf-ospf-cap, work in progress. Capabilities", draft-ietf-ospf-cap, work in progress.
[IS-IS-CAP] Vasseur, J.P. et al., "IS-IS extensions for advertising [RSVP-P2MP] Aggarwal, Papadimitriou, Yasukawa, et. al. "Extensions to
router information", draft-ietf-isis-caps, work in progress. RSVP-TE for point-to-multipoint TE LSPs", draft-ietf-mpls-
rsvp-te-p2mp, work in progress.
[RFC3567] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "Intermediate System to 10.2. Informative References
Intermediate System (IS-IS) Cryptographic Authentication", RFC 3567,
July 2003.
[RFC2154] Murphy, S., Badger, M., and B. Wellington, "OSPF with [RFC2154] Murphy, S., Badger, M., and B. Wellington, "OSPF with
Digital Signatures", RFC 2154, June 1997. Digital Signatures", RFC 2154, June 1997.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., et. al., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP [RFC3567] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "Intermediate System to
tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. Intermediate System (IS-IS) Cryptographic Authentication",
RFC 3567, July 2003.
[RFC3473] Berger, L, et. al., "GMPLS Signaling RSVP-TE extensions",
RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RSVP-P2MP] Aggarwal, Papadimitriou, Yasukawa, et. al. "Extensions to
RSVP-TE for point-to-multipoint TE LSPs", draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-
p2mp, work in progress.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC4203] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "OSPF extensions in support of [RFC4203] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "OSPF extensions in support of
Generalized Multi-protocol Label Switching", RFC4203, October 2005. Generalized Multi-protocol Label Switching", RFC4203,
October 2005.
[RFC4205] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "IS-IS extensions in support of [RFC4205] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "IS-IS extensions in support of
Generalized Multi-protocol Label Switching", RFC4205, October 2005. Generalized Multi-protocol Label Switching", RFC4205,
October 2005.
[RFC4420] Farrel, A., and al., "Encoding of attributes for MPLS LSPs [RFC4420] Farrel, A., and al., "Encoding of attributes for MPLS LSPs
establishment Using RSVP-TE", RFC4420, February 2006. establishment Using RSVP-TE", RFC4420, February 2006.
[RFC4461] Yasukawa, S., et. al., "Signaling Requirements for Point to
Multipoint Traffic Engineered MPLS LSPs", RFC4461, April
2006.
[OSPFv3-TE] Ishiguro K., Manral V., Davey A., and Lindem A. "Traffic
Engineering Extensions to OSPF version 3", draft-ietf-ospf-
ospfv3-traffic, work in progress.
11. Editors' Addresses 11. Editors' Addresses
Jean-Philippe Vasseur Jean-Philippe Vasseur
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
1414 Massachusetts Avenue 1414 Massachusetts Avenue
Boxborough , MA - 01719 Boxborough , MA - 01719
USA USA
Email: jpv@cisco.com Email: jpv@cisco.com
Jean-Louis Le Roux Jean-Louis Le Roux
skipping to change at page 13, line 7 skipping to change at page 13, line 42
on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE
IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL
WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY
WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE
ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2006). This document is subject to the Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). This document is subject to the
rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as
set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
 End of changes. 32 change blocks. 
83 lines changed or deleted 107 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/