draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-unnum-06.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-unnum-07.txt 
Network Working Group Kireeti Kompella Network Working Group Kireeti Kompella
Internet Draft Juniper Networks Internet Draft Juniper Networks
Expiration Date: December 2002 Yakov Rekhter Expiration Date: January 2003 Yakov Rekhter
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
Signalling Unnumbered Links in RSVP-TE Signalling Unnumbered Links in RSVP-TE
draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-unnum-06.txt draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-unnum-07.txt
1. Status of this Memo 1. Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
skipping to change at page 1, line 34 skipping to change at page 1, line 34
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.
2. Abstract 2. Abstract
Current signalling used by MPLS TE doesn't provide support for Current signalling used by Multi-Protocol Label Switching Traffic
unnumbered links. This document defines procedures and extensions to Engineering (MPLS TE) doesn't provide support for unnumbered links.
RSVP-TE, one of the MPLS TE signalling protocols, that are needed in This document defines procedures and extensions to Extensions to RSVP
order to support unnumbered links. for Label Switched Path (LSP) Tunnels (RSVP-TE), one of the MPLS TE
signalling protocols, that are needed in order to support unnumbered
links.
3. Overview 3. Specification of Requirements
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].
4. Overview
Supporting MPLS TE over unnumbered links (i.e., links that do not Supporting MPLS TE over unnumbered links (i.e., links that do not
have IP addresses) involves two components: (a) the ability to carry have IP addresses) involves two components: (a) the ability to carry
(TE) information about unnumbered links in IGP TE extensions (ISIS or (TE) information about unnumbered links in IGP TE extensions (ISIS or
OSPF), and (b) the ability to specify unnumbered links in MPLS TE OSPF), and (b) the ability to specify unnumbered links in MPLS TE
signalling. The former is covered in [GMPLS-ISIS, GMPLS-OSPF]. The signalling. The former is covered in [GMPLS-ISIS, GMPLS-OSPF]. The
focus of this document is on the latter. focus of this document is on the latter.
Current signalling used by MPLS TE doesn't provide support for Current signalling used by MPLS TE doesn't provide support for
unnumbered links because the current signalling doesn't provide a way unnumbered links because the current signalling doesn't provide a way
to indicate an unnumbered link in its Explicit Route and Record Route to indicate an unnumbered link in its Explicit Route and Record Route
Objects. This document proposes simple procedures and extensions that Objects. This document proposes simple procedures and extensions that
allow RSVP-TE signalling [GMPLS-RSVP] to be used with unnumbered allow RSVP-TE signalling [GMPLS-RSVP] to be used with unnumbered
links. links.
4. Link Identifiers 5. Link Identifiers
An unnumbered link has to be a point-to-point link. An LSR at each An unnumbered link has to be a point-to-point link. An LSR at each
end of an unnumbered link assigns an identifier to that link. This end of an unnumbered link assigns an identifier to that link. This
identifier is a non-zero 32-bit number that is unique within the identifier is a non-zero 32-bit number that is unique within the
scope of the LSR that assigns it. The IS-IS and/or OSPF and RSVP scope of the LSR that assigns it. The IS-IS and/or OSPF and RSVP
modules on an LSR must agree on the identifiers. modules on an LSR must agree on the identifiers.
There is no a priori relationship between the identifiers assigned to There is no a priori relationship between the identifiers assigned to
a link by the LSRs at each end of that link. a link by the LSRs at each end of that link.
LSRs at the two end points of an unnumbered link exchange with each LSRs at the two end points of an unnumbered link exchange with each
other the identifiers they assign to the link. Exchanging the other the identifiers they assign to the link. Exchanging the
identifiers may be accomplished by configuration, by means of a identifiers may be accomplished by configuration, by means of a
protocol such as LMP ([LMP]), by means of RSVP/CR-LDP (especially in protocol such as LMP ([LMP]), by means of RSVP/CR-LDP (especially in
the case where a link is a Forwarding Adjacency, see below), or by the case where a link is a Forwarding Adjacency, see below), or by
means of IS-IS or OSPF extensions ([ISIS-GMPLS], [OSPF-GMPLS]). means of IS-IS or OSPF extensions ([ISIS-GMPLS], [OSPF-GMPLS]).
Consider an (unnumbered) link between LSRs A and B. LSR A chooses an Consider an (unnumbered) link between LSRs A and B. LSR A chooses an
idenfitier for that link. So is LSR B. From A's perspective we refer identifier for that link. So is LSR B. From A's perspective we refer
to the identifier that A assigned to the link as the "link local to the identifier that A assigned to the link as the "link local
identifier" (or just "local identifier"), and to the identifier that identifier" (or just "local identifier"), and to the identifier that
B assigned to the link as the "link remote identifier" (or just B assigned to the link as the "link remote identifier" (or just
"remote identifier"). Likewise, from B's perspective the identifier "remote identifier"). Likewise, from B's perspective the identifier
that B assigned to the link is the local identifier, and the that B assigned to the link is the local identifier, and the
identifier that A assigned to the link is the remote identifier. identifier that A assigned to the link is the remote identifier.
This section is equally applicable to the case of unnumbered This section is equally applicable to the case of unnumbered
component links (see [LINK-BUNDLE]). component links (see [LINK-BUNDLE]).
5. Unnumbered Forwarding Adjacencies 6. Unnumbered Forwarding Adjacencies
If an LSR that originates an LSP advertises this LSP as an unnumbered If an LSR that originates an LSP advertises this LSP as an unnumbered
Forwarding Adjacency in IS-IS or OSPF (see [LSP-HIER]), or the LSR Forwarding Adjacency in IS-IS or OSPF (see [LSP-HIER]), or the LSR
uses the Forwarding Adjacency formed by this LSP as an unnumbered uses the Forwarding Adjacency formed by this LSP as an unnumbered
component link of a bundled link (see [LINK-BUNDLE]), the LSR MUST component link of a bundled link (see [LINK-BUNDLE]), the LSR MUST
allocate an identifier to that Forwarding Adjacency (just like for allocate an identifier to that Forwarding Adjacency (just like for
any other unnumbered link). Moreover, the Path message used for any other unnumbered link). Moreover, the Path message used for
establishing the LSP that forms the Forwarding Adjacency MUST contain establishing the LSP that forms the Forwarding Adjacency MUST contain
the LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object (described below), with the LSR's the LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object (described below), with the LSR's
Router ID set to the head end's Router ID, and the Interface ID set Router ID set to the head end's Router ID, and the Interface ID set
skipping to change at page 3, line 37 skipping to change at page 3, line 42
link or an unnumbered component link as follows. The LSR that link or an unnumbered component link as follows. The LSR that
originates the Adjacency sets the link local identifier for that link originates the Adjacency sets the link local identifier for that link
to the value that the LSR allocates to that Forwarding Adjacency, and to the value that the LSR allocates to that Forwarding Adjacency, and
the link remote identifier to the value carried in the Interface ID the link remote identifier to the value carried in the Interface ID
field of the Reverse Interface ID object. The LSR that is a tail-end field of the Reverse Interface ID object. The LSR that is a tail-end
of that Forwarding Adjacency sets the link local identifier for that of that Forwarding Adjacency sets the link local identifier for that
link to the value that the LSR allocates to that Forwarding link to the value that the LSR allocates to that Forwarding
Adjacency, and the link remote identifier to the value carried in the Adjacency, and the link remote identifier to the value carried in the
Interface ID field of the Forward Interface ID object. Interface ID field of the Forward Interface ID object.
5.1. LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID Object 6.1. LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID Object
The LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object has a class number of type The LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object has a class number of type
11bbbbbb (to be assigned by IANA), C-Type of 1 and length of 12. The 11bbbbbb (to be assigned by IANA), C-Type of 1 and length of 12. The
format is given below. format is given below.
This object can optionally appear in either a Path message or a Resv This object can optionally appear in either a Path message or a Resv
message. In the former case, we call it the "Forward Interface ID"
for that LSP; in the latter case, we call it the "Reverse Interface
ID" for the LSP.
Figure 1: LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID Object Figure 1: LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID Object
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LSR's Router ID | | LSR's Router ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interface ID (32 bits) | | Interface ID (32 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
6. Signalling Unnumbered Links in EROs message. In the former case, we call it the "Forward Interface ID"
for that LSP; in the latter case, we call it the "Reverse Interface
ID" for the LSP.
7. Signalling Unnumbered Links in EROs
A new subobject of the Explicit Route Object (ERO) is used to specify A new subobject of the Explicit Route Object (ERO) is used to specify
unnumbered links. This subobject has the following format: unnumbered links. This subobject has the following format:
Figure 2: Unnumbered Interface ID Subobject Figure 2: Unnumbered Interface ID Subobject
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type | Length | Reserved (MUST be zero) | |L| Type | Length | Reserved (MUST be zero) |
skipping to change at page 4, line 37 skipping to change at page 4, line 40
| Router ID | | Router ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interface ID (32 bits) | | Interface ID (32 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Type is 4 (Unnumbered Interface ID). The Length is 12. The Type is 4 (Unnumbered Interface ID). The Length is 12.
The Interface ID is the identifier assigned to the link by the LSR The Interface ID is the identifier assigned to the link by the LSR
specified by the router ID. specified by the router ID.
6.1. Processing the IF_ID RSVP_HOP object 7.1. Processing the IF_ID RSVP_HOP object
When an LSR receives a Path message containing the IF_ID RSVP_HOP When an LSR receives a Path message containing the IF_ID RSVP_HOP
object (see [GMPLS-RSVP], [GMPLS-SIG]) with the IF_INDEX TLV, the LSR object (see [GMPLS-RSVP], [GMPLS-SIG]) with the IF_INDEX TLV, the LSR
processes this TLV as follows. The LSR must have information about processes this TLV as follows. The LSR must have information about
the identifiers assigned by its neighbors to the unnumbered links the identifiers assigned by its neighbors to the unnumbered links
between the neighbors and the LSR. The LSR uses this information to between the neighbors and the LSR. The LSR uses this information to
find a link with tuple <Router ID, local identifier> matching the find a link with tuple <Router ID, local identifier> matching the
tuple <IP Address, Interface ID> carried in the IF_INDEX TLV. If the tuple <IP Address, Interface ID> carried in the IF_INDEX TLV. If the
matching tuple is found, the match identifies the link for which the matching tuple is found, the match identifies the link for which the
LSR has to perform label allocation. LSR has to perform label allocation.
Otherwise, the LSR SHOULD return an error using the IF_ID ERROR_SPEC Otherwise, the LSR SHOULD return an error using the IF_ID ERROR_SPEC
object (see [GMPLS-RSVP], [GMPLS-SIG]). The Error code in the object object (see [GMPLS-RSVP], [GMPLS-SIG]). The Error code in the object
is set to [TBD]. The Error value in the object is set to [TBD]. is set to [TBD]. The Error value in the object is set to [TBD].
6.2. Processing the ERO object 7.2. Processing the ERO
The Unnumbered Interface ID subobject is defined to be a part of a The Unnumbered Interface ID subobject is defined to be a part of a
particular abstract node if that node has the Router ID that is equal particular abstract node if that node has the Router ID that is equal
to the Router ID field in the subobject, and if the node has an to the Router ID field in the subobject, and if the node has an
(unnumbered) link or an (unnumbered) Forwarding Adjacency whose local (unnumbered) link or an (unnumbered) Forwarding Adjacency whose local
identifier (from that node's point of view) is equal to the value identifier (from that node's point of view) is equal to the value
carried in the Interface ID field of the subobject. carried in the Interface ID field of the subobject.
With this in mind, the ERO processing in the presence of the With this in mind, the ERO processing in the presence of the
Unnumbered Interface ID subobject follows the rules specified in Unnumbered Interface ID subobject follows the rules specified in
section 4.3.4.1 of [RSVP-TE]. section 4.3.4.1 of [RSVP-TE].
As part of the ERO processing, or to be more precise, as part of the As part of the ERO processing, or to be more precise, as part of the
next hop selection, if the outgoing link is unnumbered, the Path next hop selection, if the outgoing link is unnumbered, the Path
message that the node sends to the next hop MUST include the IF_ID message that the node sends to the next hop MUST include the IF_ID
RSVP_HOP object, with the IP address field of that object set to the RSVP_HOP object, with the IP address field of that object set to the
Router ID of the node, and the Interface ID field of that object set Router ID of the node, and the Interface ID field of that object set
to the identifier assigned to the link by the node. to the identifier assigned to the link by the node.
7. Record Route Object 8. Record Route Object
A new subobject of the Record Route Object (RRO) is used to record A new subobject of the Record Route Object (RRO) is used to record
that the LSP path traversed an unnumbered link. This subobject has that the LSP path traversed an unnumbered link. This subobject has
the following format: 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 | Flags | Reserved (MBZ)| | Type | Length | Flags | Reserved (MBZ)|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 6, line 4 skipping to change at page 6, line 10
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Type is 4 (Unnumbered Interface ID); the Length is 12. Flags are The Type is 4 (Unnumbered Interface ID); the Length is 12. Flags are
defined below. defined below.
0x01 Local protection available 0x01 Local protection available
Indicates that the link downstream of this node is protected Indicates that the link downstream of this node is protected
via a local repair mechanism. This flag can only be set if via a local repair mechanism. This flag can only be set if
the Local protection flag was set in the SESSION_ATTRIBUITE the Local protection flag was set in the SESSION_ATTRIBUITE
object of the cooresponding Path message. object of the corresponding Path message.
0x02 Local protection in use 0x02 Local protection in use
Indicates that a local repair mechanism is in use to Indicates that a local repair mechanism is in use to
maintain this tunnel (usually in the face a an outage of the maintain this tunnel (usually in the face a an outage of the
link it was previously routed over). link it was previously routed over).
7.1. Handling RRO 8.1. Handling RRO
If at an intermediate node (or at the head-end), the ERO subobject If at an intermediate node (or at the head-end), the ERO subobject
that was used to determine the next hop is of type Unnumbered that was used to determine the next hop is of type Unnumbered
Interface ID, and a RRO object was received in the Path message (or Interface ID, and a RRO object was received in the Path message (or
is desired in the original Path message), an RRO subobject of type is desired in the original Path message), an RRO subobject of type
Unnumbered Interface ID MUST be appended to the received RRO when Unnumbered Interface ID MUST be appended to the received RRO when
sending a Path message downstream. sending a Path message downstream.
If the ERO subobject that was used to determine the next hop is of If the ERO subobject that was used to determine the next hop is of
any other type, the handling procedures of [RSVP-TE] apply. Also, if any other type, the handling procedures of [RSVP-TE] apply. Also, if
Label Recording is desired, the procedures of [RSVP-TE] apply. Label Recording is desired, the procedures of [RSVP-TE] apply.
8. Security Considerations 9. Security Considerations
This document raises no new security concerns for RSVP. This document makes a small extention to RFC3209 [RSVP-TE] to refine
and explicate the use of unnumbered links. As such it poses no new
security concerns. In fact, one might argue that use of the extra
interface identify could make an RSVP message harder to spoof.
9. IANA Considerations 10. IANA Considerations
The responsible Internet authority (presently called the IANA) The responsible Internet authority (presently called the IANA)
assigns values to RSVP protocol parameters. The current document assigns values to RSVP protocol parameters. The current document
defines a new subobject for the EXPLICIT_ROUTE object and for the defines a new subobject for the EXPLICIT_ROUTE object and for the
ROUTE_RECORD object. The rules for the assignment of subobject ROUTE_RECORD object. The rules for the assignment of subobject
numbers have been defined in [RSVP-TE], using the terminology of BCP numbers have been defined in [RSVP-TE], using the terminology of BCP
26 "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs". 26 "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs".
Those rules apply to the assignment of subobject numbers for the new Those rules apply to the assignment of subobject numbers for the new
subobject of the EXPLICIT_ROUTE and ROUTE_RECORD objects. subobject of the EXPLICIT_ROUTE and ROUTE_RECORD objects.
Furthermore, the same Internet authority needs to assign a class Furthermore, the same Internet authority needs to assign a class
number to the LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object. This must be of the number to the LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object. This must be of the
form 11bbbbbb (i.e., this is an 8-bit number whose two most form 11bbbbbb (i.e., this is an 8-bit number whose two most
significant bits are 1). significant bits are 1).
10. Acknowledgments 11. Acknowledgments
Thanks to Lou Berger and Markus Jork for pointing out that the RRO Thanks to Lou Berger and Markus Jork for pointing out that the RRO
should be extended in like fashion to the ERO. Thanks also to Rahul should be extended in like fashion to the ERO. Thanks also to Rahul
Aggarwal and Alan Kullberg for their comments on the text. Finally, Aggarwal and Alan Kullberg for their comments on the text. Finally,
thanks to Bora Akyol and Vach Kompella. thanks to Bora Akyol, Vach Kompella, and George Swallow.
11. References 12. References
11.1. Normative references 12.1. Normative references
[RSVP-TE] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D. H., Li, T., Srinivasan, [RSVP-TE] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D. H., Li, T., Srinivasan,
V., and Swallow, G., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", V., and Swallow, G., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels",
RFC3209, December 2001 RFC3209, December 2001
[GMPLS-RSVP] Ashwood, P., et al., "Generalized MPLS Signalling RSVP- [GMPLS-RSVP] Ashwood, P., et al., "Generalized MPLS Signalling RSVP-
TE Extensions", draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-07.txt (work in TE Extensions", draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-07.txt (work in
progress) progress)
[GMPLS-SIG] Ashwood, P., et al, "Generalized MPLS - Signaling [GMPLS-SIG] Ashwood, P., et al, "Generalized MPLS - Signaling
Functional Description", draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-08.txt Functional Description", draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-08.txt
(work in progress) (work in progress)
11.2. Non-normative references [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
12.2. Non-normative references
[LINK-BUNDLE] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., and Berger, L., "Link [LINK-BUNDLE] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., and Berger, L., "Link
Bundling in MPLS Traffic Engineering", draft-kompella-mpls- Bundling in MPLS Traffic Engineering", draft-kompella-mpls-
bundle-05.txt (work in progress) bundle-05.txt (work in progress)
[LSP-HIER] Kompella, K., and Rekhter, Y., "LSP Hierarchy with MPLS [LSP-HIER] Kompella, K., and Rekhter, Y., "LSP Hierarchy with MPLS
TE", draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-05.txt (work in progress) TE", draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-05.txt (work in progress)
[LMP] Lang, J., Mitra, K., et al., "Link Management Protocol (LMP)", [LMP] Lang, J., Mitra, K., et al., "Link Management Protocol (LMP)",
draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-03.txt (work in progress) draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-03.txt (work in progress)
[GMPLS-ISIS] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., Banerjee, A. et al, "IS-IS [GMPLS-ISIS] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., Banerjee, A. et al, "IS-IS
Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS", draft-ietf-isis-gmpls- Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS", draft-ietf-isis-gmpls-
extensions-11.txt (work in progress) extensions-11.txt (work in progress)
[GMPLS-OSPF] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., Banerjee, A. et al, "OSPF [GMPLS-OSPF] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., Banerjee, A. et al, "OSPF
Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS", draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf- Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS", draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-
gmpls-extensions-07.txt (work in progress) gmpls-extensions-07.txt (work in progress)
12. Author Information 13. Author Information
Kireeti Kompella Kireeti Kompella
Juniper Networks, Inc. Juniper Networks, Inc.
1194 N. Mathilda Ave. 1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089 Sunnyvale, CA 94089
e-mail: kireeti@juniper.net e-mail: kireeti@juniper.net
Yakov Rekhter Yakov Rekhter
Juniper Networks, Inc. Juniper Networks, Inc.
1194 N. Mathilda Ave. 1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
 End of changes. 

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