draft-ietf-mpls-crldp-unnum-10.txt		rfc3480.txt
	Network Working Group Kireeti Kompella		Network Working Group K. Kompella
	Internet Draft Juniper Networks		Request for Comments: 3480 Y. Rekhter
	Expiration Date: June 2003 Yakov Rekhter		Category: Standards Track Juniper Networks
	Juniper Networks		A. Kullberg
	Alan Kullberg		NetPlane Systems
	NetPlane Systems		February 2003
	Signalling Unnumbered Links in CR-LDP		Signalling Unnumbered Links in CR-LDP
			(Constraint-Routing Label Distribution Protocol)
	draft-ietf-mpls-crldp-unnum-10.txt		Status of this Memo
	1. Status of this Memo
	This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
	all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
	other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
	Drafts.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
	material or to cite them other than as ``work in progress.''		Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
			and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
	The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at		Copyright Notice
	http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
	The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at		Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
	http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
	2. Abstract		Abstract
	Current signalling used by Multi-Protocol Label Switching Traffic		Current signalling used by Multi-Protocol Label Switching Traffic
	Engineering (MPLS TE) doesn't provide support for unnumbered links.		Engineering (MPLS TE) does not provide support for unnumbered links.
	This document defines procedures and extensions to Constraint-Routing		This document defines procedures and extensions to Constraint-Routing
	Label Distribution Protocol (CR-LDP), one of the MPLS TE signalling		Label Distribution Protocol (CR-LDP), one of the MPLS TE signalling
	protocols, that are needed in order to support unnumbered links.		protocols that are needed in order to support unnumbered links.
	3. Specification of Requirements		Specification of Requirements
	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 BCP 14, RFC 2119
			[RFC2119].
	4. Overview		1. 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 does not provide support for
	unnumbered links because the current signalling doesn't provide a way		unnumbered links because the current signalling does not provide a
	to indicate an unnumbered link in its Explicit Route Objects. This		way to indicate an unnumbered link in its Explicit Route Objects.
	document proposes simple procedures and extensions that allow CR-LDP		This document proposes simple procedures and extensions that allow
	signalling [CR-LDP] to be used with unnumbered links.		CR-LDP signalling [CR-LDP] to be used with unnumbered links.
	5. Link Identifiers		2. 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. If one is using OSPF or ISIS as the		scope of the LSR that assigns it. If one is using OSPF or ISIS as
	IGP in support of traffic engineering, then the IS-IS and/or OSPF and		the IGP in support of traffic engineering, then the IS-IS and/or OSPF
	CR-LDP modules on an LSR must agree on the identifiers.		and CR-LDP 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 CR-LDP (especially in the		protocol such as LMP ([LMP]), by means of CR-LDP (especially in the
	case where a link is a Forwarding Adjacency, see below), or by means		case where a link is a Forwarding Adjacency, see below), or by means
	of IS-IS or OSPF extensions ([ISIS-GMPLS], [OSPF-GMPLS]).		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 does LSR B. From A's perspective, we
	to the identifier that A assigned to the link as the "link local		refer to the identifier that A assigned to the link as the "link
	identifier" (or just "local identifier"), and to the identifier that		local identifier" (or just "local identifier"), and to the identifier
	B assigned to the link as the "link remote identifier" (or just		that 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.
	In the context of this document the term "Router ID" means a stable		In the context of this document, the term "Router ID" means a stable
	IP address of an LSR that is always reachable if there is any		IP address of an LSR that is always reachable if there is any
	connectivity to the LSR. This is typically implemented as a "loopback		connectivity to the LSR. This is typically implemented as a
	address"; the key attribute is that the address does not become		"loopback address"; the key attribute is that the address does not
	unusable if an interface on the LSR is down. In some case this value		become unusable if an interface on the LSR is down. In some cases,
	will need to be configured. If one is using OSPF or ISIS as the IGP		this value will need to be configured. If one is using OSPF or ISIS
	in support of traffic engineering, then it is RECOMMENDED to set the		as the IGP in support of traffic engineering, then it is RECOMMENDED
	Router ID to the "Router Address" as defined in [OSPF-TE], or		for the Router ID to be set to the "Router Address" as defined in
	"Traffic Engineering Router ID" as defined in [ISIS-TE].		[OSPF-TE], or "Traffic Engineering Router ID" as defined in [ISIS-
			TE].
	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]).
	6. Unnumbered Forwarding Adjacencies		3. 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 REQUEST message used for		any other unnumbered link). Moreover, the REQUEST message used for
	establishing the LSP that forms the Forwarding Adjacency MUST contain		establishing the LSP that forms the Forwarding Adjacency MUST contain
	an LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID TLV (described below), with the LSR's		an LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID TLV (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
	to the identifier that the LSR allocated to the Forwarding Adjacency.		to the identifier that the LSR allocated to the Forwarding Adjacency.
	If the REQUEST message contains the LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID TLV, then		If the REQUEST message contains the LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID TLV, then
	the tail-end LSR MUST allocate an identifier to that Forwarding		the tail-end LSR MUST allocate an identifier to that Forwarding
	Adjacency (just like for any other unnumbered link). Furthermore,		Adjacency (just like for any other unnumbered link). Furthermore,
	the MAPPING message for the LSP MUST contain an		the MAPPING message for the LSP MUST contain an
	LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID TLV, with the LSR's Router ID set to the		LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID TLV, with the LSR's Router ID set to the
	tail-end's Router ID, and the Interface ID set to the identifier		tail-end's Router ID, and the Interface ID set to the identifier
	allocated by the tail-end LSR.		allocated by the tail-end LSR.
	For the purpose of processing the Explicit Route TLV and the		For the purpose of processing the Explicit Route TLV and the
	Interface ID TLV, an unnumbered Forwarding Adjacency is treated as an		Interface ID TLV, an unnumbered Forwarding Adjacency is treated as an
	unnumbered (TE) link or an unnumbered component link as follows. The		unnumbered (TE) link or an unnumbered component link as follows. The
	LSR that originates the Adjacency sets the link local identifier for		LSR that originates the Adjacency sets the link local identifier for
	that link to the value that the LSR allocates to that Forwarding		that 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 Reverse Interface ID TLV (for the		Interface ID field of the Reverse Interface ID TLV (for the
	definition of Reverse Interface ID TLV see below). The LSR that is a		definition of Reverse Interface ID TLV see below). The LSR that is a
	tail-end of that Forwarding Adjacency sets the link local identifier		tail-end of that Forwarding Adjacency sets the link local identifier
	for that link to the value that the LSR allocates to that Forwarding		for that 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 TLV (for the		Interface ID field of the Forward Interface ID TLV (for the
	definition of Forward Interface ID see below).		definition of Forward Interface ID see below).
	6.1. LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID TLV		3.1. LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID TLV
	The LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE ID TLV has Type to be assigned by IANA and		The LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE ID TLV has Type 0x0836 and length 8. The
	length 8. The format is given below.		format is given below.
	Figure 1: LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID TLV		Figure 1: LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID 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|0| Type | Length |		|0|0| Type | Length |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| LSR's Router ID |		| LSR's Router ID |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Interface ID (32 bits) |		| Interface ID (32 bits) |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	This TLV can optionally appear in either a REQUEST message or a		This TLV can optionally appear in either a REQUEST message or a
	MAPPING message. In the former case, we call it the "Forward		MAPPING message. In the former case, we call it the "Forward
	Interface ID" for that LSP; in the latter case, we call it the		Interface ID" for that LSP; in the latter case, we call it the
	"Reverse Interface ID" for the LSP.		"Reverse Interface ID" for the LSP.
	7. Signalling Unnumbered Links in Explicit Route TLV		4. Signalling Unnumbered Links in Explicit Route TLV
	A new Type of ER-Hop TLV of the Explicit Route TLV is used to specify		A new Type of ER-Hop TLV of the Explicit Route TLV is used to specify
	unnumbered links. This Type is called Unnumbered Interface ID, and		unnumbered links. This Type is called Unnumbered Interface ID, and
	has the following format:		has the following format:
	The Type is assigned by IANA, and the Length is 12. The L bit is set		The Type is 0x0837, and the Length is 12. The L bit is set to
	to indicate a loose hop, and cleared to indicate a strict hop.		indicate a loose hop, and cleared to indicate a strict hop.
	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.
	Figure 2: Unnumbered Interface ID		Figure 2: Unnumbered Interface ID
	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|0| Type | Length = 12 |		|0|0| Type | Length = 12 |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	|L| Reserved |		|L| Reserved |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Router ID |		| Router ID |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Interface ID (32 bits) |		| Interface ID (32 bits) |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	7.1. Processing the IF_ID TLV		4.1. Processing the IF_ID TLV
	When an LSR receives a REQUEST message containing the IF_ID TLV (see		When an LSR receives a REQUEST message containing the IF_ID
	[GMPLS-CRLDP]) with the IF_INDEX TLV, the LSR processes this TLV as		(Interface ID) TLV (see [GMPLS-CRLDP]) with the IF_INDEX TLV, the LSR
	follows. The LSR must have information about the identifiers assigned		processes this TLV as follows. The LSR must have information about
	by its neighbors to the unnumbered links between the neighbors and		the identifiers assigned by its neighbors to the unnumbered links
	the LSR. The LSR uses this information to find a link with tuple		between the neighbors and the LSR. The LSR uses this information to
	<Router ID, local identifier> matching the tuple <IP Address,		find a link with tuple <Router ID, local identifier> matching the
	Interface ID> carried in the IF_INDEX TLV. If the matching tuple is		tuple <IP Address, Interface ID> carried in the IF_INDEX TLV. If the
	found, the match identifies the link for which the LSR has to perform		matching tuple is found, the match identifies the link for which the
	label allocation.		LSR has to perform label allocation.
	Otherwise, the LSR SHOULD return an error.		Otherwise, the LSR SHOULD return an error.
	7.2. Processing the Unnumbered Interface ID ER-Hop TLV		4.2. Processing the Unnumbered Interface ID ER-Hop TLV
	The Unnumbered Interface ID ER-Hop is defined to be a part of a		The Unnumbered Interface ID ER-Hop 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 Unnumbered Interface ID ER-Hop, and if		to the Router ID field in the Unnumbered Interface ID ER-Hop, and if
	the node has an (unnumbered) link or an (unnumbered) Forwarding		the node has an (unnumbered) link or an (unnumbered) Forwarding
	Adjacency whose local identifier (from that node's point of view) is		Adjacency whose local identifier (from that node's point of view) is
	equal to the value carried in the Interface ID field of the		equal to the value carried in the Interface ID field of the
	Unnumbered Interface ID ER-Hop.		Unnumbered Interface ID ER-Hop.
	With this in mind, the Explicit Route TLV processing in the presence		With this in mind, the Explicit Route TLV processing in the presence
	of the Unnumbered Interface ID ER-Hop follows the rules specified in		of the Unnumbered Interface ID ER-Hop follows the rules specified in
	section 4.8.1 of [CR-LDP].		section 4.8.1 of [CR-LDP].
	As part of the Explicit Route TLV processing, or to be more precise,		As part of the Explicit Route TLV processing, or to be more precise,
	as part of the next hop selection, if the outgoing link is		as part of the next hop selection, if the outgoing link is
	unnumbered, the REQUEST message that the node sends to the next hop		unnumbered, the REQUEST message that the node sends to the next hop
	MUST include the IF_ID TLV, with the IP address field of that TLV set		MUST include the IF_ID TLV, with the IP address field of that TLV set
	to the Router ID of the node, and the Interface ID field of that TLV		to the Router ID of the node, and the Interface ID field of that TLV
	set to the identifier assigned to the link by the node.		set to the identifier assigned to the link by the node.
	8. IANA Considerations		5. IANA Considerations
	RFC3036 [LDP] defines the LDP TLV name space. RFC3212 [CD-LDP]		RFC 3036 [LDP] defines the LDP TLV name space. RFC 3212 [CD-LDP]
	further subdivides the range of that TLV space for TLVs associated		further subdivides the range of that TLV space for TLVs associated
	with the CR-LDP in the range 0x0800 - 0x08FF, and defines the rules		with the CR-LDP in the range 0x0800 - 0x08FF, and defines the rules
	for the assignment of TLVs within that range using the terminology of		for the assignment of TLVs within that range using the terminology of
	BCP 26 "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in		BCP 26, RFC 2434, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations
	RFCs". Those rules apply to the assignment of TLV Types for the		Section in RFCs". Those rules apply to the assignment of TLV Types
	Unnumbered Interface ID and LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID TLVs defined in		for the Unnumbered Interface ID and LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID TLVs
	this document.		defined in this document.
	9. Security Considerations		6. Security Considerations
	This document extends CR-LDP and raises no new security issues. CR-		This document extends CR-LDP and raises no new security issues. CR-
	LDP inherits the same security mechanism described in Section 4.0 of		LDP inherits the same security mechanism described in Section 4.0 of
	[LDP] to protect against the introduction of spoofed TCP segments		[LDP] to protect against the introduction of spoofed TCP segments
	into LDP session connection streams.		into LDP session connection streams.
	10. Acknowledgments		7. Acknowledgments
	Thanks to Rahul Aggarwal for his comments on the text. Thanks too to		Thanks to Rahul Aggarwal for his comments on the text. Thanks also
	Bora Akyol, Vach Kompella, and George Swallow.		to Bora Akyol, Vach Kompella, and George Swallow.
	11. References		8. References
	11.1. Normative references		8.1. Normative References
	[CR-LDP] Jamoussi, B., editor, "Constraint-Based LSP Setup using		[CR-LDP] Jamoussi, B., Andersson, L., Callon, R., Dantu, R., Wu,
	LDP", RFC3212, December 2001		L., Doolan, P., Worster, T., Feldman, N., Fredette, A.,
			Girish, M., Gray, E., Heinanen, J., Kilty, T. and A.
			Malis, "Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP", RFC
			3212, January 2002.
	[GMPLS-SIG] Ashwood, P., et al., "Generalized MPLS - Signalling		[GMPLS-SIG] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
	Functional Description", draft-ietf-generalized-mpls-		(GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471,
	signalling-08.txt		January 2003.
	[GMPLS-CRLDP] Ashwood, P., et al., "Generalized MPLS Signaling - CR-		[GMPLS-CRLDP] Ashwood, P., Ed. and L. Berger, "Generalized Multi-
	LDP Extensions", draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-06.txt		Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Constraint-
			based Routed Label Distribution Protocol (CR-LDP)
			Extensions", RFC 3472 January 2003.
	[LDP] Andersson, Loa, et al., "LDP Specification" RFC3036, January		[LDP] Andersson, L., Doolan, P., Feldman, N., Fredette, A.
	2001		and B. Thomas, "LDP Specification", RFC 3036, January
			2001
	[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.
	11.2. Non-normative references		8.2. Informative 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", Work in
	bundle-05.txt (work in progress)		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-02.txt (work in progress)		TE", Work in Progress.
	[LMP] Lang, J., Mitra, K., et al., "Link Management Protocol (LMP)",		[LMP] Lang, J., Mitra, K., et al., "Link Management Protocol
	draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-03.txt (work in progress)		(LMP)", 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", Work in
	extensions-11.txt (work in progress)		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", Work in
	gmpls-extensions-07.txt (work in progress)		Progress.
	[OSPF-TE] Katz, D., Yeung, D., Kompella, K., "Traffic Engineering		[OSPF-TE] Katz, D., Yeung, D., Kompella, K., "Traffic Engineering
	Extensions to OSPF Version 2", draft-katz-yeung-ospf-traffic-07.txt		Extensions to OSPF Version 2", Work in Progress.
	(work in progress)
	[ISIS-TE] Li, T., Smit, H., "IS-IS extensions for Traffic		[ISIS-TE] Li, T., Smit, H., "IS-IS extensions for Traffic
	Engineering", draft-ietf-isis-traffic-03.txt (work in progress)		Engineering", Work in Progress.
	12. Author Information		9. Authors' Addresses
	Kireeti Kompella
	Juniper Networks, Inc.
	1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
	Sunnyvale, CA 94089
	e-mail: kireeti@juniper.net
	Yakov Rekhter		Kireeti Kompella
	Juniper Networks, Inc.		Juniper Networks, Inc.
	1194 N. Mathilda Ave.		1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
	Sunnyvale, CA 94089		Sunnyvale, CA 94089
	e-mail: yakov@juniper.net
	Alan Kullberg		EMail: kireeti@juniper.net
	NetPlane Systems, Inc.
	Westwood Executive Center		Yakov Rekhter
	200 Lowder Brook Drive		Juniper Networks, Inc.
	Westwood, MA 02090		1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
	e-mail: akullber@netplane.com		Sunnyvale, CA 94089
			EMail: yakov@juniper.net
			Alan Kullberg
			NetPlane Systems, Inc.
			Westwood Executive Center
			200 Lowder Brook Drive
			Westwood, MA 02090
			EMail: akullber@netplane.com
			10. Full Copyright Statement
			Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
			This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
			others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
			or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
			and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
			kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
			included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
			document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
			the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
			Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
			developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
			copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
			followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
			English.
			The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
			revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
			This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
			"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
			TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
			BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
			HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
			MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
			Acknowledgement
			Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
			Internet Society.
End of changes. 54 change blocks.
	129 lines changed or deleted		120 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/