draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-upstream-03.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-upstream-04.txt 
Network Working Group R. Aggarwal Network Working Group R. Aggarwal
Internet Draft Juniper Networks Internet Draft Juniper Networks
Expiration Date: January 2009 Expiration Date: January 2010
J. L. Le Roux J. L. Le Roux
France Telecom France Telecom
July 8, 2008 July 12, 2009
MPLS Upstream Label Assignment for LDP MPLS Upstream Label Assignment for LDP
draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-upstream-03.txt draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-upstream-04.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
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
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Copyright and License Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Abstract Abstract
This document describes procedures for distributing upstream-assigned This document describes procedures for distributing upstream-assigned
labels for Label Distribution Protocol (LDP). It also describes how labels for Label Distribution Protocol (LDP). It also describes how
these procedures can be used for avoiding branch LSR traffic these procedures can be used for avoiding branch LSR traffic
replication on a LAN for LDP point-to-multipoint (P2MP)LSPs. replication on a LAN for LDP point-to-multipoint (P2MP)LSPs.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1 Specification of requirements ......................... 2 1 Specification of requirements ......................... 3
2 Introduction .......................................... 2 2 Introduction .......................................... 3
3 LDP Upstream Label Assignment Capability .............. 3 3 LDP Upstream Label Assignment Capability .............. 3
4 Distributing Upstream-Assigned Labels in LDP .......... 4 4 Distributing Upstream-Assigned Labels in LDP .......... 4
4.1 Procedures ............................................ 4 4.1 Procedures ............................................ 5
5 LDP Tunnel Identifier Exchange ........................ 5 5 LDP Tunnel Identifier Exchange ........................ 6
6 LDP Point-to-Multipoint LSPs on a LAN ................. 6 6 LDP Point-to-Multipoint LSPs on a LAN ................. 7
7 IANA Considerations ................................... 8 7 IANA Considerations ................................... 9
8 Acknowledgements ...................................... 8 8 Acknowledgements ...................................... 9
9 References ............................................ 9 9 References ............................................ 9
9.1 Normative References .................................. 9 9.1 Normative References .................................. 9
9.2 Informative References ................................ 9 9.2 Informative References ................................ 10
10 Author's Address ...................................... 10 10 Author's Address ...................................... 10
11 Intellectual Property Statement ....................... 10
12 Full Copyright Statement .............................. 11
1. Specification of requirements 1. 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 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. Introduction 2. Introduction
This document describes procedures for distributing upstream-assigned This document describes procedures for distributing upstream-assigned
labels [MPLS-UPSTREAM] for Label Distribution Protocol (LDP). These labels [RFC5331] for Label Distribution Protocol (LDP). These
procedures follow the architecture for MPLS Upstream Label Assignment procedures follow the architecture for MPLS Upstream Label Assignment
described in [MPLS-UPSTREAM]. described in [RFC5331].
This document describes extensions to LDP that a LSR can use to This document describes extensions to LDP that a LSR can use to
advertise to its neighboring LSRs whether the LSR supports upstream advertise to its neighboring LSRs whether the LSR supports upstream
label assignment. label assignment.
This document also describes extensions to LDP to distribute This document also describes extensions to LDP to distribute
upstream-assigned labels. upstream-assigned labels.
The usage of MPLS upstream label assignment using LDP for avoiding The usage of MPLS upstream label assignment using LDP for avoiding
branch LSR traffic replication on a LAN for LDP P2MP LSPs [MLDP] is branch LSR traffic replication on a LAN for LDP P2MP LSPs [MLDP] is
also described. also described.
3. LDP Upstream Label Assignment Capability 3. LDP Upstream Label Assignment Capability
According to [MPLS-UPSTREAM], upstream-assigned label bindings MUST According to [RFC5331], upstream-assigned label bindings MUST NOT be
NOT be used unless it is known that a downstream LSR supports them. used unless it is known that a downstream LSR supports them. This
This implies that there MUST be a mechanism to enable a LSR to implies that there MUST be a mechanism to enable a LSR to advertise
advertise to its LDP neighbor LSR(s) its support of upstream-assigned to its LDP neighbor LSR(s) its support of upstream-assigned labels.
labels.
A new Capability Parameter, the LDP Upstream Label Assignment A new Capability Parameter, the LDP Upstream Label Assignment
Capability, is introduced to allow an LDP peer to exchange with its Capability, is introduced to allow an LDP peer to exchange with its
peers, its support of upstream label assignment. This parameter peers, its support of upstream label assignment. This parameter
follows the format and procedures for exchanging Capability follows the format and procedures for exchanging Capability
Parameters defined in [LDP-CAP]. Parameters defined in [LDP-CAP].
Following is the format of the LDP Upstream Label Assignment Following is the format of the LDP Upstream Label Assignment
Capability Parameter: Capability Parameter:
skipping to change at page 5, line 6 skipping to change at page 5, line 19
modifications pointed out in this section. modifications pointed out in this section.
A LDP LSR MUST NOT distribute the Upstream Assigned Label TLV to a A LDP LSR MUST NOT distribute the Upstream Assigned Label TLV to a
neighboring LSR if the neighboring LSR had not previously advertised neighboring LSR if the neighboring LSR had not previously advertised
the Upstream Label Assignment Capability in its LDP Initialization the Upstream Label Assignment Capability in its LDP Initialization
messages. A LDP LSR MUST NOT send the Upstream Assigned Label messages. A LDP LSR MUST NOT send the Upstream Assigned Label
Request TLV to a neighboring LSR if the neighboring LSR had not Request TLV to a neighboring LSR if the neighboring LSR had not
previously advertised the Upstream Label Assignment Capability in its previously advertised the Upstream Label Assignment Capability in its
LDP Initialization messages. LDP Initialization messages.
As described in [MPLS-UPSTREAM] the distribution of upstream-assigned As described in [RFC5331] the distribution of upstream-assigned
labels is similar to either ordered LSP control or independent LSP labels is similar to either ordered LSP control or independent LSP
control of the downstream assigned labels. control of the downstream assigned labels.
When the label distributed in a Label Mapping message is an upstream- When the label distributed in a Label Mapping message is an upstream-
assigned label, the Upstream Assigned Label TLV MUST be included in assigned label, the Upstream Assigned Label TLV MUST be included in
the Label Mapping message. When a LSR receives a Label Mapping the Label Mapping message. When a LSR receives a Label Mapping
message with an Upstream Assigned Label TLV and it does not recognize message with an Upstream Assigned Label TLV and it does not recognize
the TLV, it MUST generate a Notification message with a status code the TLV, it MUST generate a Notification message with a status code
of "Unknown TLV" [RFC3036]. If it does recognize the TLV but is of "Unknown TLV" [RFC3036]. If it does recognize the TLV but is
unable to process the upstream label, it MUST generate a Notification unable to process the upstream label, it MUST generate a Notification
skipping to change at page 5, line 34 skipping to change at page 6, line 7
downstream assigned label request to a neighbor LSR, for a given FEC, downstream assigned label request to a neighbor LSR, for a given FEC,
it MUST NOT send an upstream label mapping to that LSR for that FEC, it MUST NOT send an upstream label mapping to that LSR for that FEC,
unless it aborts the downstream assigned label request. unless it aborts the downstream assigned label request.
The Upstream Assigned Label TLV may be optionally included in Label The Upstream Assigned Label TLV may be optionally included in Label
Withdraw and Label Release messages that withdraw/release a Withdraw and Label Release messages that withdraw/release a
particular upstream assigned label binding. particular upstream assigned label binding.
5. LDP Tunnel Identifier Exchange 5. LDP Tunnel Identifier Exchange
As described in [MPLS-UPSTREAM] an upstream LSR Ru MAY transmit a As described in [RFC5331] an upstream LSR Ru MAY transmit a MPLS
MPLS packet, the top label of which (L) is upstream-assigned, to a packet, the top label of which (L) is upstream-assigned, to a
downstream LSR Rd, by encapsulating it in an IP or MPLS tunnel. In downstream LSR Rd, by encapsulating it in an IP or MPLS tunnel. In
this case the fact that L is upstream-assigned is determined by Rd by this case the fact that L is upstream-assigned is determined by Rd by
the tunnel on which the packet is received. There must be a mechanism the tunnel on which the packet is received. There must be a mechanism
for Ru to inform Rd that a particular tunnel from Ru to Rd will be for Ru to inform Rd that a particular tunnel from Ru to Rd will be
used by Ru for transmitting MPLS packets with upstream-assigned MPLS used by Ru for transmitting MPLS packets with upstream-assigned MPLS
labels. labels.
When LDP is used for upstream label assignment, the Interface ID TLV When LDP is used for upstream label assignment, the Interface ID TLV
[RFC3472] is used for signaling the Tunnel Identifier. If Ru uses an [RFC3472] is used for signaling the Tunnel Identifier. If Ru uses an
IP or MPLS tunnel to transmit MPLS packets with upstream assigned IP or MPLS tunnel to transmit MPLS packets with upstream assigned
labels to Rd, Ru MUST include the Interface ID TLV in the Label labels to Rd, Ru MUST include the Interface ID TLV in the Label
Mapping messages along with the Upstream Assigned Label TLV. Three Mapping messages along with the Upstream Assigned Label TLV. Four
new Interface ID TLVs are introduced to support RSVP-TE P2MP LSPs, IP new Interface ID TLVs are introduced to support RSVP-TE P2MP LSPs,
Multicast Tunnels and context labels. The TLV value acts as the LDP P2MP LSPs, IP Multicast Tunnels and context labels. The TLV value
tunnel identifier. acts as the tunnel identifier.
1. RSVP-TE P2MP LSP TLV. Type = TBD. Value of the TLV is the RSVP-TE 1. RSVP-TE P2MP LSP TLV. Type = TBD. Value of he TLV is the RSVP-TE
P2MP Session Object and optionally the P2MP Sender Template Object P2MP Session Object and optionally the P2MP Sender Template Object
[RFC4875]. The TLV value identifies the RSVP-TE P2MP LSP. It allows [RFC4875]. The TLV value identifies the RSVP-TE P2MP LSP. It allows
Ru to tunnel an "inner" LDP P2MP LSP, the label for which is upstream Ru to tunnel an "inner" LDP P2MP LSP, the label for which is upstream
assigned, over an "outer" RSVP-TE P2MP LSP that has leaves assigned, over an "outer" RSVP-TE P2MP LSP that has leaves
<Rd1...Rdn>. The P2MP LSP IF_ID TLV allows Ru to signal to <Rd1...Rdn>. The P2MP LSP IF_ID TLV allows Ru to signal to
<Rd1...Rdn> the binding of the inner LDP P2MP LSP to the outer RSVP- <Rd1...Rdn> the binding of the inner LDP P2MP LSP to the outer RSVP-
TE P2MP LSP. The control plane signaling between Ru and <Rd1...Rdn> TE P2MP LSP. The control plane signaling between Ru and <Rd1...Rdn>
for the inner P2MP LSP uses targeted LDP signaling messages for the inner P2MP LSP uses targeted LDP signaling messages
2. IP Multicast Tunnel TLV. Type = TBD. In this case the TLV value is 2. LDP P2MP LSP TLV. Type = TBD. Value of the TLV is the LDP P2MP FEC
as defined in [MLDP]. The TLV value identifies the LDP P2MP LSP. It
allows Ru to tunnel an "inner" LDP P2MP LSP, the label for which is
upstream assigned, over an "outer" LDP P2MP LSP that has leaves
<Rd1...Rdn>. The P2MP LSP IF_ID TLV allows Ru to signal to
<Rd1...Rdn> the binding of the inner LDP P2MP LSP to the outer LDP-
P2MP LSP. The control plane signaling between Ru and <Rd1...Rdn> for
the inner P2MP LSP uses targeted LDP signaling messages
3. IP Multicast Tunnel TLV. Type = TBD. In this case the TLV value is
a <Source Address, Multicast Group Address> tuple. Source Address is a <Source Address, Multicast Group Address> tuple. Source Address is
the IP address of the root of the tunnel i.e. Ru, and Multicast Group the IP address of the root of the tunnel i.e. Ru, and Multicast Group
Address is the Multicast Group Address used by the tunnel. Address is the Multicast Group Address used by the tunnel.
3. MPLS Context Label TLV. Type = TBD. In this case the TLV value is 4. MPLS Context Label TLV. Type = TBD. In this case the TLV value is
a <Source Address, MPLS Context Label> tuple. The Source Address a <Source Address, MPLS Context Label> tuple. The Source Address
belongs to Ru and the MPLS Context Label is an upstream assigned belongs to Ru and the MPLS Context Label is an upstream assigned
label, assigned by Ru. This allows Ru to tunnel an "inner" LDP P2MP label, assigned by Ru. This allows Ru to tunnel an "inner" LDP P2MP
LSP, the label of which is upstream assigned, over an "outer" one-hop LSP, the label of which is upstream assigned, over an "outer" one-hop
MPLS LSP, where the outer one-hop LSP has the following property: MPLS LSP, where the outer one-hop LSP has the following property:
+ The label pushed by Ru for the outer MPLS LSP is an upstream + The label pushed by Ru for the outer MPLS LSP is an upstream
assigned context label, assigned by Ru. When <Rd1...Rdn> perform assigned context label, assigned by Ru. When <Rd1...Rdn> perform
a MPLS label lookup on this label a combination of this label and a MPLS label lookup on this label a combination of this label and
the incoming interface MUST be sufficient for <Rd1...Rdn> to the incoming interface MUST be sufficient for <Rd1...Rdn> to
uniquely determine Ru's context specific label space to lookup uniquely determine Ru's context specific label space to lookup
the next label on the stack in. <Rd1...Rdn> MUST receive the data the next label on the stack in. <Rd1...Rdn> MUST receive the data
sent by Ru with the context specific label assigned by Ru being sent by Ru with the context specific label assigned by Ru being
the top label on the label stack. the top label on the label stack.
Currently the usage of the context label TLV is limited only to LDP Currently the usage of the context label TLV is limited only to LDP
P2MP LSPs on a LAN as specified in the next section. The context P2MP LSPs on a LAN as specified in the next section. The context
label TLV MUST NOT be used for any other purposes. label TLV MUST NOT be used for any other purposes.
Note that when the outer P2MP LSP is signaled with RSVP-TE or MLDP
the above procedures assume that Ru has a priori knowledge of all the
<Rd1, ... Rdn>. In the scenario where the outer P2MP LSP is signaled
using RSVP-TE, Ru can obtain this information from RSVP-TE. However,
in the scenario where the outer P2MP LSP is signaled using MLDP, MLDP
does not provide this information to Ru. In this scenario the
procedures by which Ru could acquire this information are outside the
scope of this document.
6. LDP Point-to-Multipoint LSPs on a LAN 6. LDP Point-to-Multipoint LSPs on a LAN
This section describes one application of upstream label assignment This section describes one application of upstream label assignment
using LDP. Further applications are to be described in separate using LDP. Further applications are to be described in separate
documents. documents.
[MLDP] describe how to setup P2MP LSPs using LDP. On a LAN the [MLDP] describe how to setup P2MP LSPs using LDP. On a LAN the
solution relies on "ingress replication". A LSR on a LAN, that is a solution relies on "ingress replication". A LSR on a LAN, that is a
branch LSR for a P2MP LSP, (say Ru) sends a separate copy of a packet branch LSR for a P2MP LSP, (say Ru) sends a separate copy of a packet
that it receives on the P2MP LSP to each of the downstream LSRs on that it receives on the P2MP LSP to each of the downstream LSRs on
skipping to change at page 7, line 26 skipping to change at page 8, line 15
P2MP FEC, is a LAN interface, Li. Further Rd and Ru support upstream- P2MP FEC, is a LAN interface, Li. Further Rd and Ru support upstream-
assigned labels. In this case Rd instead of sending a Label Mapping assigned labels. In this case Rd instead of sending a Label Mapping
message as described in [MLDP] sends a Label Request message to Ru. message as described in [MLDP] sends a Label Request message to Ru.
This Label Request message MUST contain an Upstream Assigned Label This Label Request message MUST contain an Upstream Assigned Label
Request TLV. Request TLV.
Ru on receiving this message sends back a Label Mapping message to Rd Ru on receiving this message sends back a Label Mapping message to Rd
with an upstream-assigned label. This message also contains a MPLS with an upstream-assigned label. This message also contains a MPLS
Context Label TLV, as described in the previous section, with the Context Label TLV, as described in the previous section, with the
value of the MPLS label set to a value assigned by Ru on inteface Li value of the MPLS label set to a value assigned by Ru on inteface Li
as specified in [MPLS-UPSTREAM]. Processing of the Label Request and as specified in [RFC5331]. Processing of the Label Request and Label
Label Mapping messages for LDP upstream-assigned labels is as Mapping messages for LDP upstream-assigned labels is as described in
described in section 4.2. If Ru receives a Label Request for an section 4.2. If Ru receives a Label Request for an upstream assigned
upstream assigned label for the same P2MP FEC from multiple label for the same P2MP FEC from multiple downstream LSRs on the LAN,
downstream LSRs on the LAN, <Rd1...Rdn>, it MUST send the same <Rd1...Rdn>, it MUST send the same upstream-assigned label to each of
upstream-assigned label to each of <Rd1...Rdn>. <Rd1...Rdn>.
Ru transmits the MPLS packet using the procedures defined in [MPLS- Ru transmits the MPLS packet using the procedures defined in
UPSTREAM] and [MPLS-MCAST-ENCAPS]. The MPLS packet transmitted by Ru [RFC5331] and [RFC5332]. The MPLS packet transmitted by Ru contains
contains as the top label the context label assigned by Ru on the LAN as the top label the context label assigned by Ru on the LAN
interface, Li. The bottom label is the upstream label assigned by Ru interface, Li. The bottom label is the upstream label assigned by Ru
to the LDP P2MP LSP. The top label is looked up in the context of the to the LDP P2MP LSP. The top label is looked up in the context of the
LAN interface, Li, [MPLS-UPSTREAM] by a downstream LSR on the LAN. LAN interface, Li, [RFC5331] by a downstream LSR on the LAN. This
This lookup enables the downstream LSR to determine the context lookup enables the downstream LSR to determine the context specific
specific label space to lookup the inner label in. label space to lookup the inner label in.
Note that <Rd1...Rdn> may have more than one equal cost next-hop on Note that <Rd1...Rdn> may have more than one equal cost next-hop on
the LAN to reach Pr. It MAY be desirable for all of them to send the the LAN to reach Pr. It MAY be desirable for all of them to send the
label request to the same upstream LSR and they MAY select one label request to the same upstream LSR and they MAY select one
upstream LSR using the following procedure: upstream LSR using the following procedure:
1. The candidate upstream LSRs are numbered from lower to higher IP 1. The candidate upstream LSRs are numbered from lower to higher IP
address address
2. The following hash is performed: H = (Sum Opaque value) modulo N, 2. The following hash is performed: H = (Sum Opaque value) modulo N,
skipping to change at page 8, line 27 skipping to change at page 9, line 17
This document defines a new LDP Upstream Label Assignment Capability This document defines a new LDP Upstream Label Assignment Capability
Parameter. IANA is requested to assign the value 0x0507 to this Parameter. IANA is requested to assign the value 0x0507 to this
Parameter. Parameter.
This document defines a new LDP Upstream-Assigned Label Request TLV, This document defines a new LDP Upstream-Assigned Label Request TLV,
IANA is requested to assign the type value of this TLV. IANA is requested to assign the type value of this TLV.
This document defines a new LDP Upstream-Assigned Label TLV, IANA is This document defines a new LDP Upstream-Assigned Label TLV, IANA is
requested to assign the type value of this TLV. requested to assign the type value of this TLV.
This document defines three new Interface ID TLVs: This document defines four new Interface ID TLVs:
- RSVP-TE P2MP LSP TLV - RSVP-TE P2MP LSP TLV
- LDP P2MP LSP TLV
- IP Multicast Tunnel TLV - IP Multicast Tunnel TLV
- MPLS Context Label TLV - MPLS Context Label TLV
IANA is requested to assign the type values of these TLVs. IANA is requested to assign the type values of these TLVs.
8. Acknowledgements 8. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Yakov Rekhter for his contribution. Thanks to Ina Minei and Thanks to Yakov Rekhter for his contribution. Thanks to Ina Minei and
Thomas Morin for their comments. The hashing algorithm used on LAN Thomas Morin for their comments. The hashing algorithm used on LAN
interfaces is taken from [MLDP]. interfaces is taken from [MLDP].
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[RFC3031] "MPLS Architecture", E. Rosen, A. Viswanathan, R. Callon, [RFC3031] "MPLS Architecture", E. Rosen, A. Viswanathan, R. Callon,
RFC 3031. RFC 3031.
[MPLS-UPSTREAM] R. Aggarwal, Y. Rekhter, E. Rosen, "MPLS Upstream [RFC5331] R. Aggarwal, Y. Rekhter, E. Rosen, "MPLS Upstream Label
Label Assignment and Context Specific Label Space", draft-ietf-mpls- Assignment and Context Specific Label Space", RFC5331
upstream-label-06.txt
[MPLS-MCAST-ENCAPS] T. Eckert, E. Rosen, R. Aggarwal, Y. Rekhter, [RFC5332] T. Eckert, E. Rosen, R. Aggarwal, Y. Rekhter, RFC5332
draft-ietf-mpls-codepoint-10.txt
[RFC2119] "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement [RFC2119] "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
[RFC3472] Ashwood-Smith, P. and L. Berger, Editors, " Generalized [RFC3472] Ashwood-Smith, P. and L. Berger, Editors, " Generalized
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling - Constraint-based Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling - Constraint-based
Routed Label Distribution Protocol (CR-LDP) Extensions", RFC 3472, Routed Label Distribution Protocol (CR-LDP) Extensions", RFC 3472,
January 2003. January 2003.
[RFC3471] Berger, L. Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label [RFC3471] Berger, L. Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471 January Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471 January
2003. 2003.
[RFC3036] L. Andersson, et. al., "LDP Specification", January 2001. [RFC3036] L. Andersson, et. al., "LDP Specification", January 2001.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[MVPN] E. Rosen, R. Aggarwal [Editors], "Multicast in BGP/MPLS VPNs", [MVPN] E. Rosen, R. Aggarwal [Editors], "Multicast in BGP/MPLS VPNs",
draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-06.txt draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-08.txt
[RFC4875] R. Aggarwal, D. Papadimitriou, S. Yasukawa [Editors], [RFC4875] R. Aggarwal, D. Papadimitriou, S. Yasukawa [Editors],
"Extensions to RSVP-TE for Point to Multipoint TE LSPs", RFC 4875 "Extensions to RSVP-TE for Point to Multipoint TE LSPs", RFC 4875
[MLDP] I. Minei et. al, "Label Distribution Protocol Extensions for [MLDP] I. Minei et. al, "Label Distribution Protocol Extensions for
Point-to-Multipoint Label Switched Paths", draft-etf-mpls-ldp- Point-to-Multipoint Label Switched Paths", draft-etf-mpls-ldp-
p2mp-05.txt p2mp-07.txt
[LDP-CAP] B. Thomas, et. al., "LDP Capabilities", draft-thomas-mpls- [LDP-CAP] B. Thomas, et. al., "LDP Capabilities", draft-thomas-mpls-
ldp-capabilities-02.txt ldp-capabilities-04.txt
10. Author's Address 10. Author's Address
Rahul Aggarwal Rahul Aggarwal
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
1194 North Mathilda Ave. 1194 North Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089 Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Phone: +1-408-936-2720 Phone: +1-408-936-2720
Email: rahul@juniper.net Email: rahul@juniper.net
Jean-Louis Le Roux Jean-Louis Le Roux
France Telecom France Telecom
2, avenue Pierre-Marzin 2, avenue Pierre-Marzin
22307 Lannion Cedex 22307 Lannion Cedex
France France
E-mail: jeanlouis.leroux@orange-ftgroup.com E-mail: jeanlouis.leroux@orange-ftgroup.com
11. Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.
12. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). This document is subject to the
rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as
set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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.
 End of changes. 31 change blocks. 
58 lines changed or deleted 93 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.35. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/