draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-03.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-04.txt 
MPLS Working Group Z. Ali MPLS Working Group Z. Ali
G. Swallow G. Swallow
Internet Draft Cisco Systems, Inc. Internet Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
R. Aggarwal R. Aggarwal
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
Intended status: Standard Track October 26, 2009 Intended status: Standard Track March 8, 2010
Expires: April 25, 2010 Expires: September 7, 2010
Non PHP Behavior and out-of-band mapping for RSVP-TE LSPs Non PHP Behavior and out-of-band mapping for RSVP-TE LSPs
draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-03.txt draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-04.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with
the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may contain the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may contain
material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or
made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s)
controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have
granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such
material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining
skipping to change at page 1, line 47 skipping to change at page 1, line 47
documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-
Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work
in progress." 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.
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 08, 2009. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 7, 2010.
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-04.txt
Copyright
Copyright (c) 2010 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
document must include Simplified BSD License text as described
in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided
without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Abstract Abstract
There are many deployment scenarios which require Egress LSR to There are many deployment scenarios which require Egress Label
receive binding of the RSVP-TE LSP to an application, and payload Switching Router (LSR) to receive binding of the Resource ReserVation
identification, using some "out-of-band" (OOB) mechanism. This Protocol Traffic Engineered (RSVP-TE) Label Switched Path (LSP)
document proposes protocol mechanisms to address this to an application, and payload identification, using some "out-
requirement. The procedures described in this document are of-band" (OOB) mechanism. This document proposes protocol
equally applicable for point-to-point (P2P) and point-to- mechanisms to address this requirement. The procedures described
multipoint (P2MP) LSPs. in this document are equally applicable for point-to-point (P2P)
and point-to-multipoint (P2MP) LSPs.
Conventions used in this document Conventions used in this document
In examples, "C:" and "S:" indicate lines sent by the client and
server respectively.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
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 0. RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction...............................................2 1. Introduction...............................................3
2. RSVP-TE signaling extensions...............................3 2. RSVP-TE signaling extensions...............................3
2.1. Signaling non-PHP behavior............................3 2.1. Signaling non-PHP behavior............................3
2.2. Signaling OOB Mapping Indication......................4 2.2. Signaling OOB Mapping Indication......................5
2.3. Relationship between OOB and non-PHP flags............6 2.3. Relationship between OOB and non-PHP flags............6
2.4. Egress Procedure for label binding....................6 2.4. Egress Procedure for label binding....................6
3. Security Considerations....................................6 4. IANA Considerations........................................7
4. IANA Considerations........................................6 4.1. Attribute Flags for LSP_ATTRIBUTES object.............7
4.1. Attribute Flags for LSP_ATTRIBUTES object.............6
5. Acknowledgments............................................7 5. Acknowledgments............................................7
6. References.................................................7
6.1. Normative References..................................7 Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-04.txt
6. References.................................................8
6.1. Normative References..................................8
6.2. Informative References................................8 6.2. Informative References................................8
Copyright Notice..............................................8
Legal.........................................................9
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
When RSVP-TE is used for applications like MVPN [MVPN] and VPLS When RSVP-TE is used for applications like MVPN [MVPN] and VPLS
[VPLS], an Egress LSR receives the binding of the RSVP-TE LSP to [VPLS], an Egress LSR receives the binding of the RSVP-TE LSP to
an application, and payload identification, using an "out-of- an application, and payload identification, using an "out-of-
band" (OOB) mechanism (e.g., using BGP). In such cases, the band" (OOB) mechanism (e.g., using BGP). In such cases, the
Egress LSR cannot make correct forwarding decision until such OOB Egress LSR cannot make correct forwarding decision until such OOB
mapping information is received. Furthermore, in order to apply mapping information is received. Furthermore, in order to apply
the binding information, the Egress LSR needs to identify the the binding information, the Egress LSR needs to identify the
incoming LSP. Therefore, non Penultimate Hop Popping (non-PHP) incoming LSP on which traffic is coming. Therefore, non
behavior is required at the Egress LSR to apply OOB mapping. Penultimate Hop Popping (non-PHP) behavior is required to apply
OOB mapping.
There are other applications that require non-PHP behavior. When There are other applications that require non-PHP behavior. When
RSVP-TE P2MP LSPs are used to carry IP multicast traffic non-PHP RSVP-TE P2MP LSPs are used to carry IP multicast traffic non-PHP
behavior enables a leaf LSR to identify the P2MP TE LSP, on which behavior enables a leaf LSR to identify the P2MP TE LSP, on which
traffic is received. Hence the egress LSR can determine whether traffic is received. Hence the egress LSR can determine whether
traffic is received on the expected P2MP LSP and discard traffic traffic is received on the expected P2MP LSP and discard traffic
that is not received on the expected P2MP LSP. Non-PHP behavior that is not received on the expected P2MP LSP. Non-PHP behavior
is also required to determine the context of upstream assigned is also required to determine the context of upstream assigned
labels when the context is a MPLS LSP. Non-PHP behavior may also labels when the context is a MPLS LSP. Non-PHP behavior may also
be required for MPLS-TP LSPs [MPLS-TP-Framework]. be required for MPLS-TP LSPs [MPLS-TP-Framework].
This document defines two new flags in the Attributes Flags TLV This document defines two new flags in the Attributes Flags TLV
of the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object defined in [RFC5420]: one flag for of the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object defined in [RFC5420]: one flag for
communication of non-PHP behavior, and one flag to indicate that communication of non-PHP behavior, and one flag to indicate that
the binding of the LSP to an application and payload identifier the binding of the LSP to an application and payload identifier
(payload-Id) needs to be learned via an out-of-band mapping (payload-Id) needs to be learned via an out-of-band mapping
mechanism. mechanism. The procedures described in this document are equally
applicable for P2P and P2MP LSPs. Specification of the OOB
The procedures described in this document are equally applicable communication mechanism(s) is beyond the scope of this document.
for P2P and P2MP LSPs. Specification of the OOB communication
mechanism(s) is beyond the scope of this document.
2. RSVP-TE signaling extensions
This section describes the signaling extensions required to This section describes the signaling extensions required to
address the above-mentioned requirements. address the above-mentioned requirements.
2.1. Signaling non-PHP behavior 2.1. Signaling non-PHP behavior
In order to request non-PHP behavior for RSVP-TE LSP, this In order to request non-PHP behavior for an RSVP-TE LSP, this
document defines a new flag in the Attributes Flags TLV of the document defines a new flag in the Attributes Flags TLV of the
LSP_ATTRIBUTES object defined in [RFC5420]: LSP_ATTRIBUTES object defined in [RFC5420]:
Bit Number 6 (TBD): non-PHP behavior desired flag. Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-04.txt
In order to indicate to the Ingress LSR that the Egress LSR
recognizes the "non-PHP behavior desired flag", the following new
bit is defined in the Flags field of the Record Route object
(RRO) Attributes subobject:
Bit Number 6 (TBD): Non-PHP behavior acknowledgement flag. Bit Number 6 (TBD): non-PHP behavior flag.
An Ingress LSR sets the non-PHP behavior desired flag to signal An Ingress LSR sets the "non-PHP behavior flag" to signal the
the egress LSRs SHOULD assign non-NULL label for the LSP being egress LSRs SHOULD assign non-NULL label for the LSP being
signaled. This flag MUST NOT be modified by any other LSRs in signaled. This flag MUST NOT be modified by any other LSRs in
the network. LSRs other than the Egress LSRs SHOULD ignore this the network. LSRs other than the Egress LSRs SHOULD ignore this
flag. flag.
When signaling a P2MP LSP, a source node may wish to solicit
individual response to "non-PHP behavior flag" from the leaf
nodes. Given the constraints on how the LSP_ATTRIBUTES may be
carried in Path and Resv Messages according to RFC5420, in this
situation a source node SHOULD use a separate Path message for
each leaf.
If an egress LSR receiving the Path message, supports the If an egress LSR receiving the Path message, supports the
LSP_ATTRIBUTES object and the Attributes Flags TLV, and also LSP_ATTRIBUTES object and the Attributes Flags TLV, and also
recognizes the "non-PHP behavior desired flag", it MUST allocate recognizes the "non-PHP behavior flag", it MUST allocate a non-
a non-NULL local label. The egress LSR MUST also set the "Non-PHP NULL local label. The egress LSR MUST also include the
behavior acknowledgement flag" in the Flags field of the RRO LSP_ATTRIBUTES object with "non-PHP behavior flag" set in the
Attribute subobject. Resv message. For this purpose, as defined in RFC5420, the
LSP_ATTRIBUTES object is placed in the flow descriptor and is
associated with the FILTER_SPEC object that precedes it.
If the egress LSR supports the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object but does not If the egress LSR
recognize the Attributes Flags TLV, or supports the TLV as well
but does not recognize this particular flag, then it SHOULD
simply ignore the above request.
An ingress LSR requesting non-PHP behavior MAY examine "Non-PHP - supports the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object but does not recognize the
behavior acknowledgement flag" in the Flags field of the RRO Attributes Flags TLV; or
Attribute subobject and MAY send a Path Tear if the Egress Flags TLV, but does not recognize "non-PHP behavior flag";
has not set the "Non-PHP behavior acknowledgement flag". An
ingress LSR requesting non-PHP behavior MAY also examine the then it SHOULD silently ignore this request.
label value corresponding to the Egress LSR(s) in the RRO, and
MAY send a Path Tear if the Egress has assigns a Null label An ingress LSR requesting non-PHP behavior SHOULD examine Resv
value. message for presence of "Non-PHP behavior flag" in the
LSP_ATTRIBUTES object. An ingress LSR requesting non-PHP behavior
MAY send a Path Tear to the Egress which has not included the
LSP_ATTRIBUTES object in the Resv or which has included the
LSP_ATTRIBUTES object in Resv but has not set the "Non-PHP
behavior flag" in it. An ingress LSR requesting non-PHP behavior
MAY also examine the label value corresponding to the Egress
LSR(s) in the RRO, and MAY send a Path Tear to the Egress which
assigns a Null label value.
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-04.txt
2.2. Signaling OOB Mapping Indication 2.2. Signaling OOB Mapping Indication
This document defines a single flag to indicate that the normal This document defines a single flag to indicate that the normal
binding mechanism of an RSVP session is overridden. The actual binding mechanism of an RSVP session is overridden. The actual
out of band mappings are beyond the scope of this document. The out of band mappings are beyond the scope of this document. The
flag is carried in the Attributes Flags TLV of the LSP_ATTRIBUTES flag is carried in the Attributes Flags TLV of the LSP_ATTRIBUTES
object defined in [RFC5420] and is defined as follows: object defined in [RFC5420] and is defined as follows:
Bit Number 7 (TBD): OOB mapping indication flag. Bit Number 7 (TBD): OOB mapping flag.
In order to indicate to the Ingress LSR that the Egress LSR
recognizes the "OOB mapping indication flag", the following new
bit is defined in the Flags field of the Record Route object
(RRO) Attributes subobject:
Bit Number 7 (TBD): OOB mapping acknowledgement flag. An Ingress LSR sets the OOB mapping flag to signal the Egress LSR
that binding of RSVP-TE LSP to an application and payload
identification is being signaled out of band. This flag MUST NOT
be modified by any other LSRs in the network. LSRs other than the
Egress LSRs SHOULD ignore this flag.
An Ingress LSR sets the OOB mapping indication flag to signal the When signaling a P2MP LSP, a source node may wish to solicit
Egress LSR that binding of RSVP-TE LSP to an application and individual response to "OOB mapping flag" from the leaf nodes.
payload identification is being signaled out of band. This flag Given the constraints on how the LSP_ATTRIBUTES may be carried in
MUST NOT be modified by any other LSRs in the network. LSRs other Path and Resv Messages according to RFC5420, in this situation a
than the Egress LSRs SHOULD ignore this flag. If an egress LSR receiving the Path message, supports the
LSP_ATTRIBUTES object and the Attributes Flags TLV, and also
recognizes the "OOB mapping flag", it MUST include the
LSP_ATTRIBUTES object with "OOB mapping flag" set in the Resv
message. For this purpose, as defined in RFC5420, the
LSP_ATTRIBUTES object is placed in the flow descriptor and is
associated with the FILTER_SPEC object that precedes it.
When an egress LSR which supports the "OOB mapping indication The rest of the RSVP signaling proceeds as normal. However, the
flag", receives a Path message with that flag set, the egress LSR LSR MUST have received the OOB mapping before accepting traffic
MUST set the "OOB mapping acknowledgement flag" in the Flags on the LSP. This implies that the egress LSR MUST NOT setup
field of the RRO Attribute subobject. The rest of the RSVP forwarding state for the LSP before it receives the OOB mapping.
signaling proceeds as normal. However, the LSR MUST have
received the OOB mapping before accepting traffic on the LSP.
This implies that the egress LSR MUST NOT setup forwarding state
for the LSP before it receives the OOB mapping.
Note that the payload information SHOULD be supplied by the OOB Note that the payload information SHOULD be supplied by the OOB
mapping. If the egress LSR receives the payload information from mapping. If the egress LSR receives the payload information from
OOB mapping then the LSR MUST ignore L3PID in the Label Request OOB mapping then the LSR MUST ignore L3PID in the Label Request
Object [RFC3209]. Object [RFC3209].
If the egress LSR supports the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object but does not If the egress LSR
recognize the Attributes Flags TLV, or supports the TLV as well
but does not recognize this particular flag, then it SHOULD
simply ignore the above request.
An ingress LSR requesting OOB mapping MAY examine "OOB mapping - supports the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object but does not recognize the
acknowledgement flag" in the Flags field of the RRO Attribute Attributes Flags TLV; or
subobject and MAY send a Path Tear to the Egress which has not
set the "OOB mapping acknowledgement flag". Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-04.txt
- supports the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object and recognizes the
Attributes Flags TLV, but does not recognize the "OOB mapping
flag";
then it SHOULD silently ignore this request.
An ingress LSR requesting OOB mapping SHOULD examine Resv message
for presence of "OOB mapping flag" in in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES
object. An ingress LSR requesting OOB mapping MAY send a Path
Tear to the Egress which has not included the LSP_ATTRIBUTES
object in the Resv or which has included the LSP_ATTRIBUTES
object in Resv but has not set the " OOB mapping flag" in it.
In deploying applications where Egress LSR receives the binding In deploying applications where Egress LSR receives the binding
of the RSVP-TE LSP to an application, and payload identification,
using OOB mechanism, it is important to recognize that OOB using OOB mechanism, it is important to recognize that OOB
mapping is sent asynchronously w.r.t. signaling of RSVP-TE LSP. mapping is sent asynchronously w.r.t. signaling of RSVP-TE LSP.
Egress LSR only installs forwarding state for the LSP after it Egress LSR only installs forwarding state for the LSP after it
receives the OOB mapping. In deploying applications using OOB receives the OOB mapping. In deploying applications using OOB
mechanism, ingress LSR may need to know when egress is properly mechanism, ingress LSR may need to know when egress is properly
setup for forwarding (i.e., has received OOB mapping). How setup for forwarding (i.e., has received OOB mapping). How
ingress LSR determines that LSR is properly setup for forwarding ingress LSR determines that LSR is properly setup for forwarding
at the Egress LSR is beyond the scope of this document. at the Egress LSR is beyond the scope of this document.
Nonetheless, if OOB mapping is not received by the egress LSR Nonetheless, if OOB mapping is not received by the egress LSR
within a reasonable time, a procedure to tear down the LSP is within a reasonable time, a procedure to tear down the LSP is
defined in section 2.4. defined in section 2.4.
2.3. Relationship between OOB and non-PHP flags 2.3. Relationship between OOB and non-PHP flags
Non-PHP behavior desired and OOB mapping indication flags can "Non-PHP behavior desired" and "OOB mapping indication" flags can
appear and be processed independently of each other. However, as appear and be processed independently of each other. However, as
mentioned earlier, in the context of application discussed in mentioned earlier, in the context of applications discussed in
this draft, OOB mapping require non-PHP behavior. An Ingress LSR this document, OOB mapping require non-PHP behavior. An Ingress
requesting OOB mapping MAY also set non-PHP behavior desired flag LSR requesting OOB mapping MAY also set "non-PHP behavior flag"
in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object in the Path message. in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object in the Path message.
2.4. Egress Procedure for label binding 2.4. Egress Procedure for label binding
RSVP-TE signaling completion and the OOB mapping information RSVP-TE signaling completion and the OOB mapping information
reception happen asynchronously at the Egress. As mentioned in reception happen asynchronously at the Egress. As mentioned in
Section 2, Egress waits for the OOB mapping before accepting Section 2, Egress waits for the OOB mapping before accepting
traffic on the LSP. traffic on the LSP.
In order to avoid unnecessary use of the resources and possible In order to avoid unnecessary use of the resources and possible
block-holing of traffic, if the OOB mapping information is not black-holing of traffic, an Egress LSR MAY send a Path Error
received within a reasonable time, Egress MAY trigger a Path
Error message with the error code/sub-code "Notify Error/ no OOB Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-04.txt
mapping received" for all affected LSPs. If available, and where
notify requests were included when the LSPs were initially setup, message if the OOB mapping information is not received within a
Notify messages (as defined in [RFC3473]) MAY also be used for reasonable time. This Path Error message will include the error
delivery of this information to the Ingress LSR. An Egress LSR code/sub-code "Notify Error/ no OOB mapping received" for all
MAY implement a cleanup timer for this purpose. The time-out affected LSPs. If notify request was included when the LSP was
value is a local decision at the Egress, with a RECOMMENDED initially setup, Notify message (as defined in [RFC3473]) MAY
default value of 60 seconds. also be used for delivery of this information to the Ingress LSR.
An Egress LSR MAY implement a cleanup timer for this purpose. The
time-out value is a local decision at the Egress, with a
3. Security Considerations 3. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce any new security issues above This document does not introduce any new security issues above
those identified in [RFC3209], [RFC5420] and [RFC4875]. those identified in [RFC2205], [RFC3209], [RFC3473], [RFC5420]
and [RFC4875].
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
4.1. Attribute Flags for LSP_ATTRIBUTES object 4.1. Attribute Flags for LSP_ATTRIBUTES object
The following new flags are being defined for the Attributes The following new flags are being defined for the Attributes
Flags TLV in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object. The numeric values are Flags TLV in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object. The numeric values are
to be assigned by IANA. to be assigned by IANA.
o Non-PHP behavior desired flag - Bit Number 6 (Suggested o Non-PHP behavior flag - Bit Number 6 (Suggested value).
value).
o OOB mapping indication flag - Bit Number 7 (Suggested value).
These flags are only to be used in the Attributes Flags TLV on a
Path message. These flags have corresponding new flags to be used
in the RRO Attributes subobject. As per RFC5420 [RFC5420], the
bit numbering in the Attribute Flags TLV and the RRO Attributes
subobject is identical. That is, the same attribute is indicated
by the same bit in both places. Specifically, the numeric values
for the corresponding new flags to be used in the RRO Attributes
subobject are to be assigned by IANA.
o OOB mapping acknowledgement flag - Bit Number 6 (Suggested o OOB mapping flag - Bit Number 7 (Suggested value).
value).
o Non-PHP behavior acknowledgement flag - Bit Number 7 o These flags are to be used in the Attributes Flags TLV in both
(Suggested value). Path and Resv messages.
For Error Code = 25 "Notify Error" (see [RFC3209]) the following For Error Code = 25 "Notify Error" (see [RFC3209]) the following
sub-code is defined. sub-code is defined.
Sub-code Value Sub-code Value
-------- ----- -------- -----
No OOB mapping received 12 (TBD) No OOB mapping received 12 (TBD)
5. Acknowledgments 5. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Yakov Rekhter for his suggestions The authors would like to thank Yakov Rekhter for his suggestions
on the draft. on the draft.
6. References Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-04.txt
6.1. Normative References 6.1. Normative References
[RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5420] A. Farrel, D. Papadimitriou, J. P. Vasseur and A. [RFC5420] A. Farrel, D. Papadimitriou, J. P. Vasseur and A.
Ayyangar, "Encoding of Attributes for Multiprotocol Ayyangar, "Encoding of Attributes for Multiprotocol
Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP)
Establishment Using RSVP-TE", RFC 5420, February 2006. Establishment Using RSVP-TE", RFC 5420, February 2006.
[RFC3209] D. Awduche, L. Berger, D. Gan, T. Li, V. Srinivasan, [RFC3209] D. Awduche, L. Berger, D. Gan, T. Li, V. Srinivasan,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC4875] R. Aggarwal, D. Papadimitriou, S. Yasukawa, et al, [RFC4875] R. Aggarwal, D. Papadimitriou, S. Yasukawa, et al,
skipping to change at page 8, line 21 skipping to change at page 8, line 41
[MVPN] E. Rosen, R. Aggarwal et al, "Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP [MVPN] E. Rosen, R. Aggarwal et al, "Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP
VPNs", draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-08.txt, work in VPNs", draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-08.txt, work in
progress. progress.
[VPLS] R. Aggarwal, et al, "Propagation of VPLS IP Multicast [VPLS] R. Aggarwal, et al, "Propagation of VPLS IP Multicast
Group Membership Information", draft-raggarwa-l2vpn- Group Membership Information", draft-raggarwa-l2vpn-
vpls-mcast-ctrl-00.txt, work in progress. vpls-mcast-ctrl-00.txt, work in progress.
[MPLS-TP-Framework] M. Bocci, S. Bryant, et al, "A Framework for [MPLS-TP-Framework] M. Bocci, S. Bryant, et al, "A Framework for
MPLS in Transport Networks", MPLS in Transport Networks", draft-ietf-mpls-tp-
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-06, work in progress. framework-06, work in progress.
Author's Addresses Author's Addresses
Zafar Ali Zafar Ali
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: zali@cisco.com Email: zali@cisco.com
George Swallow George Swallow
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: swallow@cisco.com Email: swallow@cisco.com
Rahul Aggarwal Rahul Aggarwal
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
skipping to change at page 8, line 37 skipping to change at line 376
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: zali@cisco.com Email: zali@cisco.com
George Swallow George Swallow
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: swallow@cisco.com Email: swallow@cisco.com
Rahul Aggarwal Rahul Aggarwal
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
rahul@juniper.net rahul@juniper.net
Copyright 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.
Legal
This documents and the information contained therein 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 THEREIN WILL NOT
INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY
OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
 End of changes. 40 change blocks. 
124 lines changed or deleted 150 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.38. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/