draft-ietf-mpls-diff-te-ext-00.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-diff-te-ext-01.txt 
Francois Le Faucheur Francois Le Faucheur
Thomas D. Nadeau Thomas D. Nadeau
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Angela Chiu Angela Chiu
AT&T Celion Networks
William Townsend William Townsend
Tenor Networks Tenor Networks
Darek Skalecki Darek Skalecki
Nortel Networks Nortel Networks
IETF Internet Draft IETF Internet Draft
Expires: May, 2001 Expires: August, 2001
Document: draft-ietf-mpls-diff-te-ext-00.txt November, 2000 Document: draft-ietf-mpls-diff-te-ext-01.txt February 2001
Extensions to RSVP-TE and CR-LDP Extensions to RSVP-TE and CR-LDP
for support of Diff-Serv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering for support of Diff-Serv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are
Working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its Working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its
areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also
skipping to change at line 51 skipping to change at line 51
NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
RFC 2119, reference [BCP14]. RFC 2119, reference [BCP14].
Abstract Abstract
A companion document [DIFF-TE-REQTS] defines the requirements for A companion document [DIFF-TE-REQTS] defines the requirements for
support of Diff-Serv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering on a per-Class- support of Diff-Serv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering on a per-Class-
Le Faucheur, et. al 1 Le Faucheur, et. al 1
Extensions for Diff-Serv Traffic Engineering July 2000 Extensions for Diff-Serv Traffic EngineeringFebruary 2001
Type basis, as discussed in the Traffic Engineering Working Group Type basis, as discussed in the Traffic Engineering Working Group
Framework document [TEWG-FW]. Framework document [TEWG-FW].
This document proposes corresponding extensions to RSVP-TE and CR- This document proposes corresponding extensions to RSVP-TE and CR-
LDP for support of Traffic Engineering on a per-Class-Type basis. LDP for support of Traffic Engineering on a per-Class-Type basis.
Two companion documents [DIFF-TE-OSPF] [DIFF-TE-ISIS] propose Two companion documents [DIFF-TE-OSPF] [DIFF-TE-ISIS] propose
corresponding extensions to OSPF and ISIS for support of Traffic corresponding extensions to OSPF and ISIS for support of Traffic
Engineering on a per-Class-Type basis. Engineering on a per-Class-Type basis.
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
As Diff-Serv becomes prominent in providing scalable multi-class of As Diff-Serv becomes prominent in providing scalable multi-class of
services in IP networks, performing traffic engineering at a per- services in IP networks, performing traffic engineering at a per-
class level instead of an aggregated level is needed to further class level instead of an aggregated level is needed in networks
enhance networks in performance and efficiency. By mapping a traffic where fine optimisation of resources is sought in order to further
trunk in a given class on a separate LSP, it allows the traffic enhance performance and efficiency. By mapping a traffic trunk in a
trunk to utilize resources available on both shortest path(s) and given class on a separate LSP, it allows the traffic trunk to
non-shortest path(s) and follow paths that meet constraints which utilize resources available on both shortest path(s) and non-
are specific to the given class. It also allows each class to select shortest path(s) and follow paths that meet constraints which are
the proper protection/restoration mechanism(s) that satisfy its specific to the given class. It also allows each class to select the
proper protection/restoration mechanism(s) that satisfy its
survivability requirements in a cost-effective manner. survivability requirements in a cost-effective manner.
Besides the set of parameters defined for the general aggregate TE Besides the set of parameters defined for the general aggregate TE
[TE-REQ], a new set of per-class parameters needs to be provided at [TE-REQ], a new set of per-class parameters needs to be provided at
each LSR interface and propagated via extensions to the IGP each LSR interface and propagated via extensions to the IGP
(ISIS/OSPF) [TEWG-FW]. Furthermore, the per-class parameters can be (ISIS/OSPF) [TEWG-FW]. Furthermore, the per-class parameters can be
aggregated into per-Class-Type parameters. The main motivation for aggregated into per-Class-Type parameters. The main motivation for
grouping a set of classes into a Class-Type is to improve the grouping a set of classes into a Class-Type is to improve the
scalability of the IGP link state advertisements by propagating scalability of the IGP link state advertisements by propagating
information on a per-Class-Type basis instead of on a per-class information on a per-Class-Type basis instead of on a per-class
skipping to change at line 102 skipping to change at line 103
performance level. performance level.
2) There is no maximum or minimum bandwidth requirement to be 2) There is no maximum or minimum bandwidth requirement to be
enforced at the level of an individual class within the Class- enforced at the level of an individual class within the Class-
Type. One can still implement some "priority" policies for Type. One can still implement some "priority" policies for
classes within the same Class-Type in terms of accessing the classes within the same Class-Type in terms of accessing the
Class-Type bandwidth (e.g. via the use of preemption Class-Type bandwidth (e.g. via the use of preemption
priorities). priorities).
Le Faucheur et. al 2 Le Faucheur et. al 2
Extensions for Diff-Serv Traffic Engineering July 2000 Extensions for Diff-Serv Traffic EngineeringFebruary 2001
An example of Class-Type comprising multiple Diff-Serv classes is a An example of Class-Type comprising multiple Diff-Serv classes is a
low-loss Class-Type that includes both AF1-based and AF2-based low-loss Class-Type that includes both AF1-based and AF2-based
Ordering Aggregates. Ordering Aggregates.
Note that with per Class-Type TE, Constraint-Based Routing is Note that with per Class-Type TE, Constraint-Based Routing is
performed with bandwidth constraints on a per Class-Type basis but performed with bandwidth constraints on a per Class-Type basis but
LSPs may carry a single Diff-Serv class (Ordered Aggregate) with LSPs may carry a single Diff-Serv class (Ordered Aggregate) with
Diff-Serv scheduling (i.e. PHB) performed separately for each class. Diff-Serv scheduling (i.e. PHB) performed separately for each class.
skipping to change at line 152 skipping to change at line 153
defines the use of the CLASSTYPE Object in Path messages used to defines the use of the CLASSTYPE Object in Path messages used to
establish LSP Tunnels in accordance with [RSVP-TE] and thus establish LSP Tunnels in accordance with [RSVP-TE] and thus
containing a Session Object with a C-Type equal to LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4 containing a Session Object with a C-Type equal to LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4
and containing a LABEL_REQUEST object. and containing a LABEL_REQUEST object.
Restrictions defined in [RSVP-TE] for support of establishment of Restrictions defined in [RSVP-TE] for support of establishment of
LSP Tunnels via RSVP are also applicable to the establishment of LSP LSP Tunnels via RSVP are also applicable to the establishment of LSP
Tunnels supporting Diff-Serv Traffic Engineering. For instance, only Tunnels supporting Diff-Serv Traffic Engineering. For instance, only
unicast LSPs are supported and Multicast LSPs are for further study. unicast LSPs are supported and Multicast LSPs are for further study.
Le Faucheur et. al 3
Extensions for Diff-Serv Traffic Engineering July 2000
This new CLASSTYPE object is optional with respect to RSVP so that This new CLASSTYPE object is optional with respect to RSVP so that
general RSVP implementations not concerned with MPLS LSP set up do general RSVP implementations not concerned with MPLS LSP set up do
not have to support this object. not have to support this object.
Le Faucheur et. al 3
Extensions for Diff-Serv Traffic EngineeringFebruary 2001
An LSR supporting Diff-Serv Traffic Engineering on a per-Class-Type An LSR supporting Diff-Serv Traffic Engineering on a per-Class-Type
basis in compliance with this specification MUST support the basis in compliance with this specification MUST support the
CLASSTYPE Object. It MUST support Class-Type value 1, and MAY CLASSTYPE Object. It MUST support Class-Type value 1, and MAY
support other Class-Type values. support other Class-Type values.
2.1.1. Path Message Format 2.1.1. Path Message Format
The format of the Path message is as follows: The format of the Path message is as follows:
<Path Message> ::= <Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ] <Path Message> ::= <Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ]
skipping to change at line 206 skipping to change at line 207
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Reserved : 30 bits Reserved : 30 bits
This field is reserved. It must be set to zero on transmission This field is reserved. It must be set to zero on transmission
and must be ignored on receipt. and must be ignored on receipt.
CT : 2 bits CT : 2 bits
Indicates the Class-Type. Values currently allowed are 1, 2 and Indicates the Class-Type. Values currently allowed are 1, 2 and
3. 3.
Le Faucheur et. al 4
Extensions for Diff-Serv Traffic Engineering July 2000
2.3. Handling CLASSTYPE Object 2.3. Handling CLASSTYPE Object
Le Faucheur et. al 4
Extensions for Diff-Serv Traffic EngineeringFebruary 2001
To establish an LSP tunnel with RSVP, the sender LSR creates a Path To establish an LSP tunnel with RSVP, the sender LSR creates a Path
message with a session type of LSP_Tunnel_IPv4 and with a message with a session type of LSP_Tunnel_IPv4 and with a
LABEL_REQUEST object as per [RSVP-TE]. The sender LSR may also LABEL_REQUEST object as per [RSVP-TE]. The sender LSR may also
include the DIFFSERV object as per [DIFF-MPLS]. include the DIFFSERV object as per [DIFF-MPLS].
If the LSP is associated with Class-Type 0, the sender LSR must not If the LSP is associated with Class-Type 0, the sender LSR must not
include the CLASSTYPE object in the Path message. include the CLASSTYPE object in the Path message.
If the LSP is associated with Class-Type N (N=1,2,3), the sender LSR If the LSP is associated with Class-Type N (N=1,2,3), the sender LSR
must include the CLASSTYPE object in the Path message with the must include the CLASSTYPE object in the Path message with the
skipping to change at line 258 skipping to change at line 259
[Editor's Note: the admission control algorithm described in the [Editor's Note: the admission control algorithm described in the
previous paragraph depends on the Bandwidth Reservation Scheme previous paragraph depends on the Bandwidth Reservation Scheme
discussed in section 2.1 of [DIFF-TE-REQTS] ] discussed in section 2.1 of [DIFF-TE-REQTS] ]
In order to accurately apportion the resources associated with a In order to accurately apportion the resources associated with a
Class-Type among the classes comprised in this Class-Type, the LSR Class-Type among the classes comprised in this Class-Type, the LSR
may automatically adjust Diff-Serv scheduling parameters associated may automatically adjust Diff-Serv scheduling parameters associated
with a class within a Class-Type based on the bandwidth currently with a class within a Class-Type based on the bandwidth currently
reserved by LSPs currently established in that class. reserved by LSPs currently established in that class.
Le Faucheur et. al 5
Extensions for Diff-Serv Traffic Engineering July 2000
An LSR that recognizes the CLASSTYPE object and that receives a path An LSR that recognizes the CLASSTYPE object and that receives a path
message which contains the CLASSTYPE object but which does not message which contains the CLASSTYPE object but which does not
contain a LABEL_REQUEST object or which does not have a session type contain a LABEL_REQUEST object or which does not have a session type
of LSP_Tunnel_IPv4, must send a PathErr towards the sender with the of LSP_Tunnel_IPv4, must send a PathErr towards the sender with the
Le Faucheur et. al 5
Extensions for Diff-Serv Traffic EngineeringFebruary 2001
error code `Diff-Serv TE Error' and an error value of `Unexpected error code `Diff-Serv TE Error' and an error value of `Unexpected
CLASSTYPE object'. Those are defined below in section 4.5. CLASSTYPE object'. Those are defined below in section 4.5.
An LSR receiving a Path message with the CLASSTYPE object, which An LSR receiving a Path message with the CLASSTYPE object, which
recognizes the CLASSTYPE object but does not support the particular recognizes the CLASSTYPE object but does not support the particular
Class-Type, must send a PathErr towards the sender with the error Class-Type, must send a PathErr towards the sender with the error
code `Diff-Serv TE Error' and an error value of `Unsupported Class- code `Diff-Serv TE Error' and an error value of `Unsupported Class-
Type'. Those are defined below in section 4.5. Type'. Those are defined below in section 4.5.
An LSR receiving a Path message with the CLASSTYPE object, which An LSR receiving a Path message with the CLASSTYPE object, which
skipping to change at line 313 skipping to change at line 315
without the CLASSTYPE object. without the CLASSTYPE object.
2.5. Error Codes For Diff-Serv TE 2.5. Error Codes For Diff-Serv TE
In the procedures described above, certain errors must be reported In the procedures described above, certain errors must be reported
as a `Diff-Serv TE Error'. The value of the `Diff-Serv TE Error' as a `Diff-Serv TE Error'. The value of the `Diff-Serv TE Error'
error code is (TBD). error code is (TBD).
The following defines error values for the Diff-Serv TE Error: The following defines error values for the Diff-Serv TE Error:
Le Faucheur et. al 6
Extensions for Diff-Serv Traffic Engineering July 2000
Value Error Value Error
1 Unexpected CLASSTYPE object 1 Unexpected CLASSTYPE object
2 Unsupported Class-Type 2 Unsupported Class-Type
Le Faucheur et. al 6
Extensions for Diff-Serv Traffic EngineeringFebruary 2001
3 Invalid Class-Type value 3 Invalid Class-Type value
3. CR-LDP Extensions 3. CR-LDP Extensions
CR-LDP, defined in [CR-LDP], is an extension to LDP, defined in CR-LDP, defined in [CR-LDP], is an extension to LDP, defined in
[LDP], for support of (aggregate) MPLS Traffic Engineering. In this [LDP], for support of (aggregate) MPLS Traffic Engineering. In this
section we describe extensions to CR-LDP for support of Diff-Serv section we describe extensions to CR-LDP for support of Diff-Serv
Traffic Engineering on a per-Class-Type basis which meet the Traffic Engineering on a per-Class-Type basis which meet the
requirements defined in [DIFF-TE-REQTS]. These extensions are in requirements defined in [DIFF-TE-REQTS]. These extensions are in
addition to the extensions to LDP defined in [DIFF-MPLS] for support addition to the extensions to LDP defined in [DIFF-MPLS] for support
skipping to change at line 367 skipping to change at line 370
3.1.1. Label Request Message Encoding 3.1.1. Label Request Message Encoding
The encoding for the CR-LDP Label Request message is extended as The encoding for the CR-LDP Label Request message is extended as
follows, to optionally include the Class Type TLV: follows, to optionally include the Class Type TLV:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| Label Request (0x0401) | Message Length | |0| Label Request (0x0401) | Message Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Le Faucheur et. al 7
Extensions for Diff-Serv Traffic Engineering July 2000
| Message ID | | Message ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FEC TLV | | FEC TLV |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Le Faucheur et. al 7
Extensions for Diff-Serv Traffic EngineeringFebruary 2001
| Diff-Serv TLV (LDP, optional) | | Diff-Serv TLV (LDP, optional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Class Type TLV (CR-LDP optional) | | Class Type TLV (CR-LDP optional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Other CR-LDP TLVs | | Other CR-LDP TLVs |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The extension is based on a related LDP extension, defined in [DIFF- The extension is based on a related LDP extension, defined in [DIFF-
MPLS], for support of Diff-Serv TLV but further extended for CR-LDP MPLS], for support of Diff-Serv TLV but further extended for CR-LDP
with CR-LDP TLVs. with CR-LDP TLVs.
skipping to change at line 419 skipping to change at line 422
include the Diff-Serv TLV as defined in [DIFF-MPLS] for LDP but include the Diff-Serv TLV as defined in [DIFF-MPLS] for LDP but
extended to CR-LDP. extended to CR-LDP.
If the LSP is associated with Class-Type 0, the ingress LSR must not If the LSP is associated with Class-Type 0, the ingress LSR must not
include the Class Type TLV in the Label Request message. include the Class Type TLV in the Label Request message.
If the LSP is associated with Class-Type N (N=1,2,3), the ingress If the LSP is associated with Class-Type N (N=1,2,3), the ingress
LSR must include the Class Type TLV in the Label Request message LSR must include the Class Type TLV in the Label Request message
with the Class-Type (CT) field set to N. with the Class-Type (CT) field set to N.
Le Faucheur et. al 8
Extensions for Diff-Serv Traffic Engineering July 2000
If a Label Request message contains multiple Class Type TLVs, only If a Label Request message contains multiple Class Type TLVs, only
the first one is meaningful; subsequent Class Type TLV(s) must be the first one is meaningful; subsequent Class Type TLV(s) must be
ignored and not forwarded. ignored and not forwarded.
If the Class Type TLV is not present in the Label Request message, If the Class Type TLV is not present in the Label Request message,
an LSR must associate the Class-Type 0 to the LSP. an LSR must associate the Class-Type 0 to the LSP.
Le Faucheur et. al 8
Extensions for Diff-Serv Traffic EngineeringFebruary 2001
A downstream LSR sending a Label Mapping message in response to a A downstream LSR sending a Label Mapping message in response to a
Label Request message must not include the Class-Type TLV (whether Label Request message must not include the Class-Type TLV (whether
the Class-Type TLV was included in the Label Request message or the Class-Type TLV was included in the Label Request message or
not). not).
During establishment of an LSP corresponding to the Class-Type N, an During establishment of an LSP corresponding to the Class-Type N, an
LSR performs admission control over the bandwidth available for that LSR performs admission control over the bandwidth available for that
particular Class-Type, which is computed using the smallest of: particular Class-Type, which is computed using the smallest of:
- the Class-Type N bandwidth currently unreserved (i.e. the - the Class-Type N bandwidth currently unreserved (i.e. the
difference between the Maximum Reservable Bandwidth for Class- difference between the Maximum Reservable Bandwidth for Class-
skipping to change at line 474 skipping to change at line 477
An LSR receiving a Label Request message with the Class Type TLV, An LSR receiving a Label Request message with the Class Type TLV,
which recognizes the Class Type TLV but does not support the which recognizes the Class Type TLV but does not support the
particular Class-Type, must reject the label request by sending particular Class-Type, must reject the label request by sending
upstream a Notification message which includes the Status TLV with a upstream a Notification message which includes the Status TLV with a
Status Code of 'Unsupported Class-Type'. This is defined below in Status Code of 'Unsupported Class-Type'. This is defined below in
section 5.4. section 5.4.
An LSR receiving a Label Request message with the Class Type TLV, An LSR receiving a Label Request message with the Class Type TLV,
which recognizes the Class Type TLV but determines that the Class- which recognizes the Class Type TLV but determines that the Class-
Le Faucheur et. al 9
Extensions for Diff-Serv Traffic Engineering July 2000
Type value is not valid (i.e. Class-Type value 0), must reject the Type value is not valid (i.e. Class-Type value 0), must reject the
label request by sending upstream a Notification message which label request by sending upstream a Notification message which
includes the Status TLV with a Status Code of 'Invalid Class-Type includes the Status TLV with a Status Code of 'Invalid Class-Type
value'. This is defined below in section 5.4. value'. This is defined below in section 5.4.
Le Faucheur et. al 9
Extensions for Diff-Serv Traffic EngineeringFebruary 2001
An LSR MUST handle the situations where the LSP can not be accepted An LSR MUST handle the situations where the LSP can not be accepted
for other reasons than those already discussed in this section, in for other reasons than those already discussed in this section, in
accordance with [CR-LDP], [LDP] and [DIFF-MPLS] (e.g. reservation accordance with [CR-LDP], [LDP] and [DIFF-MPLS] (e.g. reservation
rejected by admission control, a label can not be associated). rejected by admission control, a label can not be associated).
3.4. Status Code Values for Diff-Serv TE 3.4. Status Code Values for Diff-Serv TE
In the procedures described above, certain errors must be reported. In the procedures described above, certain errors must be reported.
The following values are defined for the Status Code field of the The following values are defined for the Status Code field of the
Status TLV: Status TLV:
skipping to change at line 520 skipping to change at line 522
References References
[TE-REQ] Awduche et al, Requirements for Traffic Engineering over [TE-REQ] Awduche et al, Requirements for Traffic Engineering over
MPLS, RFC2702, September 1999. MPLS, RFC2702, September 1999.
[TEWG-FW] Awduche et al, A Framework for Internet Traffic [TEWG-FW] Awduche et al, A Framework for Internet Traffic
Engineering, draft-ietf-tewg-framework-02.txt, July 2000. Engineering, draft-ietf-tewg-framework-02.txt, July 2000.
[DIFF-TE-REQTS] Le Faucheur et al, Requirements for support of [DIFF-TE-REQTS] Le Faucheur et al, Requirements for support of
Diff-Serv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering, draft-ietf-mpls-diff-te- Diff-Serv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering, draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-
reqts-00.txt, November 2000. reqts-00.txt, February 2001.
[DIFF-TE-OSPF] Le Faucheur et al, Extension to OSPF for support of [DIFF-TE-OSPF] Le Faucheur et al, Extension to OSPF for support of
Diff-Serv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering, draft-lefaucheur-diff-te- Diff-Serv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering, draft-ietf-ospf-diff-te-
ospf-01.txt, November 2000. 00.txt, February 2001.
Le Faucheur et. al 10
Extensions for Diff-Serv Traffic Engineering July 2000
[DIFF-TE-ISIS] Le Faucheur et al, Extension to ISIS for support of [DIFF-TE-ISIS] Le Faucheur et al, Extension to ISIS for support of
Diff-Serv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering, draft-lefaucheur-diff-te- Diff-Serv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering, draft-ietf-isis-diff-te-
isis-01.txt, November 2000. 00.txt, February 2001.
Le Faucheur et. al 10
Extensions for Diff-Serv Traffic EngineeringFebruary 2001
[OSPF-TE] Katz, Yeung, Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF, [OSPF-TE] Katz, Yeung, Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF,
draft-katz-yeung-ospf-traffic-03.txt, September 2000. draft-katz-yeung-ospf-traffic-03.txt, September 2000.
[ISIS-TE] Smit, Li, IS-IS extensions for Traffic Engineering, draft- [ISIS-TE] Smit, Li, IS-IS extensions for Traffic Engineering, draft-
ietf-isis-traffic-02.txt, September 2000. ietf-isis-traffic-02.txt, September 2000.
[RSVP-TE] Awduche et al, "Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", [RSVP-TE] Awduche et al, "Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels",
draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-tunnel-07.txt, August 2000. draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-tunnel-07.txt, August 2000.
[DIFF-MPLS] Le Faucheur et al, "MPLS Support of Diff-Serv", draft- [DIFF-MPLS] Le Faucheur et al, "MPLS Support of Diff-Serv", draft-
ietf-mpls-diff-ext-07.txt, August 2000 ietf-mpls-diff-ext-08.txt, February 2001
[LDP] Andersson et al., "LDP Specification", draft-ietf-mpls-ldp- [LDP] Andersson et al., "LDP Specification", draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-
011.txt, August 2000 011.txt, August 2000
[CR-LDP] Jamoussi et al., "Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP", [CR-LDP] Jamoussi et al., "Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP",
draft-ietf-mpls-cr-ldp-04.txt, July 2000 draft-ietf-mpls-cr-ldp-04.txt, July 2000
[BCP14] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [BCP14] 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.
Authors' Address: Authors' Address:
Francois Le Faucheur Francois Le Faucheur
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Petra B - Les Lucioles - 291, rue Albert Caquot - 06560 Valbonne - Petra B - Les Lucioles - 291, rue Albert Caquot - 06560 Valbonne -
France France
Phone: +33 4 92 96 75 64 Phone: +33 4 92 96 75 64
Email: flefauch@cisco.com Email: flefauch@cisco.com
Angela Chiu Angela Chiu
AT&T Labs Celion Networks
200 Laurel Ave. Rm A5-1F06 1 Sheila Drive, Suite 2
Middletown, NJ 07748, USA Tinton Falls, NJ 07724
Tel: 1-(732) 420-9057Email: alchiu@att.com Phone: +1-732 747 9987
Email: angela.chiu@celion.com
William Townsend William Townsend
Tenor Networks Tenor Networks
100 Nagog Park 100 Nagog Park
Acton, MA 01720 Acton, MA 01720
Phone: +1-978-264-4900 Phone: +1-978-264-4900
Email: btownsend@tenornetworks.com Email: btownsend@tenornetworks.com
Thomas D. Nadeau Thomas D. Nadeau
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
250 Apollo Drive 250 Apollo Drive
Chelmsford, MA 01824 Chelmsford, MA 01824
Le Faucheur et. al 11
Extensions for Diff-Serv Traffic Engineering July 2000
Phone: +1-978-244-3051 Phone: +1-978-244-3051
Email: tnadeau@cisco.com Email: tnadeau@cisco.com
Le Faucheur et. al 11
Extensions for Diff-Serv Traffic EngineeringFebruary 2001
Darek Skalecki Darek Skalecki
Nortel Networks Nortel Networks
3500 Carling Ave, 3500 Carling Ave,
Nepean K2H 8E9 Nepean K2H 8E9
Phone: +1-613-765-2252 Phone: +1-613-765-2252
Email: dareks@nortelnetworks.com Email: dareks@nortelnetworks.com
Le Faucheur et. al 12 Le Faucheur et. al 12
 End of changes. 

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.23, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/