

    INTERNET DRAFT                               Dimitri Papadimitriou    
                                                      Martin Vigoureux 
    Intended Status: Standards Track                    Alcatel-Lucent 
    Updates: 4202, 4203, 4206, 4874, 4974, 5307         Kohei Shiomoto 
    Expiration Date: August 20 2010                                NTT 
    Creation Date: February 21 2010                   Deborah Brungard            
                                                                   ATT 
                                                    Jean-Louis Le Roux 
                                                        France Telecom            
        
          
        Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Protocol 
      Extensions for Multi-Layer and Multi-Region Networks (MLN/MRN) 
                                        
               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-extensions-12.txt 
                                        
           
    Status of this Memo 
           
       This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance 
       with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 
           
       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 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other 
       documents at any time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-
       Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as 
       "work in progress." 
           
       The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed   
          at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt 
           
       The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed 
          at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
           
       This Internet-Draft will expire on August 20, 2010. 
           
    Copyright Notice 
           
       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) 

        
        
        
    D. Papadimitriou       Expires August 20, 2010           [Page 1] 
    

    Internet Draft                                 February 21, 2010 
           

       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. 
           
       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 

       There are specific requirements for the support of networks 
       comprising Label Switching Routers (LSR) participating in 
       different data plane switching layers controlled by a single 
       Generalized Multi Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) control 
       plane instance, referred to as GMPLS Multi-Layer Networks/
       Multi-Region Networks (MLN/MRN).  
        
       This document defines extensions to GMPLS routing and signaling 
       protocols so as to support the operation of GMPLS Multi-Layer/
       Multi-Region Networks. It covers the elements of a single 
       GMPLS control plane instance controlling multiple LSP regions 
       or layers within a single TE domain.    
        
    Table of Contents  

       Abstract.....................................................2 
       Table of Contents............................................2 
       1. Introduction..............................................3 
       2. Summary of the Requirements and Evaluation................4 
       3. Interface adjustment capability descriptor (IACD).........5 
          3.1. Overview.............................................5 
          3.2. Interface Adjustment Capability Descriptor (IACD)....6 
       4. Multi-Region Signaling....................................9 
          4.1. XRO Subobjects......................................10 

        
        
    D. Papadimitriou       Expires August 20, 2010           [Page 2] 
    

    Internet Draft                                  February 21, 2010 
           

       5. Virtual TE link..........................................13 
          5.1. Edge-to-edge Association............................13 
          5.2. Soft Forwarding Adjacency (Soft FA).................17 
       6. Backward Compatibility...................................19 
       7. Security Considerations..................................19 
       8. IANA Considerations......................................20 
          8.1 RSVP.................................................20 
          8.2 OSPF.................................................21 
          8.3 IS-IS................................................21 
       9. References...............................................21 
          9.1 Normative References.................................21 
          9.2 Informative References...............................23 
       Acknowledgments.............................................24 
       Author's Addresses..........................................24 
        
    Conventions used in this document  
            
       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 [RFC2119].  
            
       In addition the reader is assumed to be familiar with 
       [RFC3945], [RFC3471], [RFC4201], [RFC4202], [RFC4203], 
       [RFC4206], and [RFC5307]. 
        
    1. Introduction 

       Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) [RFC3945] 
       extends MPLS to handle multiple switching technologies: packet 
       switching (PSC), layer-two switching (L2SC), TDM switching 
       (TDM), wavelength switching (LSC) and fiber switching (FSC). A 
       GMPLS switching type (PSC, TDM, etc.) describes the ability of 
       a node to forward data of a particular data plane technology, 
       and uniquely identifies a control plane Label Switched Path 
       (LSP) region. LSP Regions are defined in [RFC4206]. A network 
       comprised of multiple switching types (e.g. PSC and TDM) 
       controlled by a single GMPLS control plane instance is called a 
       Multi-Region Network (MRN).  
            
       A data plane layer is a collection of network resources capable 
       of terminating and/or switching data traffic of a particular 
       format. For example, LSC, TDM VC-11 and TDM VC-4-64c represent 
       three different layers. A network comprising transport nodes 
       participating in different data plane switching layers 


        
        
    D. Papadimitriou       Expires August 20, 2010           [Page 3] 
    

    Internet Draft                                  February 21, 2010 
           

       controlled by a single GMPLS control plane instance is called   
       a Multi-Layer Network (MLN).   
            
       The applicability of GMPLS to multiple switching technologies 
       provides the unified control and operations for both LSP 
       provisioning and recovery. This document covers the elements   
       of a single GMPLS control plane instance controlling multiple 
       layers within a given TE domain. A TE domain is defined as 
       group of Label Switching Routers (LSR) that enforces a common 
       TE policy. A Control Plane (CP) instance can serve one, two or 
       more layers. Other possible approaches such as having multiple 
       CP instances serving disjoint sets of layers are outside the 
       scope of this document.  
            
       The next sections provide the procedural aspects in terms of 
       routing and signaling for such environments as well as the 
       extensions required to instrument GMPLS to provide the 
       capabilities for MLM/MRN unified control. The rationales and 
       requirements for Multi-Layer/Region networks are set forth in 
       [RFC5212]. These requirements are evaluated against GMPLS 
       protocols in [RFC5339] and several areas where GMPLS protocol 
       extensions are required are identified.  
           
       This document defines GMPLS routing and signaling extensions   
       so as to cover GMPLS MLN/MRN requirements.    
        
    2. Summary of the Requirements and Evaluation  

       As identified in [RFC5339], most MLN/MRN requirements rely on 
       mechanisms and procedures (such as local procedures and 
       policies, or specific TE mechanisms and algorithms) that are 
       outside the scope of the GMPLS protocols, and thus do not 
       require any GMPLS protocol extensions. 
            
       Four areas for extensions of GMPLS protocols and procedures 
       have been identified in [RFC5339]:  
        
       o GMPLS routing extensions for the advertisement of the  
         internal adjustment capability of hybrid nodes. See Section  
         3.2.2 of [RFC5339]. 
        
       o GMPLS signaling extensions for constrained multi-region  
         signaling (Switching Capability inclusion/exclusion). See  
         Section 3.2.1 of [RFC5339]. An additional eXclude Route  
         Object (XRO) Label subobject is also defined since absent  
         from [RFC4874].  

        
        
    D. Papadimitriou       Expires August 20, 2010           [Page 4] 
    

    Internet Draft                                  February 21, 2010  
           

           
       o GMPLS signaling extensions for the setup/deletion of Virtual  
         TE-links (as well as exact trigger for its actual  
         provisioning). See Section 3.1.1.2 of [RFC5339]. 
        
       o GMPLS routing and signaling extensions for graceful TE-link   
         deletion. See Section 3.1.1.3 of [RFC5339]. 
        
       The first three requirements are addressed in Sections 3, 4, 
       and 5 of this document, respectively. The fourth requirement is 
       addressed in [GMPLS-RR] with additional context provided by 
       [GR-TELINK]. 
        
    3. Interface adjustment capability descriptor (IACD) 

       In the MRN context, nodes that have at least one interface that 
       supports more than one switching capability are called Hybrid 
       nodes [RFC5212]. The logical composition of a hybrid node 
       contains at least two distinct switching elements that are 
       interconnected by "internal links" to provide adjustment 
       between the supported switching capabilities. These internal 
       links have finite capacities that MUST be taken into account 
       when computing the path of a multi-region TE-LSP. The 
       advertisement of the internal adjustment capability is required 
       as it provides critical information when performing multi-
       region path computation.  
            
    3.1. Overview  

       In an MRN environment, some LSRs could contain multiple 
       switching capabilities such as PSC and TDM, or PSC and LSC, all 
       under the control of a single GMPLS instance, 
        
       These nodes, hosting multiple Interface Switching Capabilities 
       (ISC) [RFC4202], are required to hold and advertise resource 
       information on link states and topology, just like other nodes 
       (hosting a single ISC). They may also have to consider some 
       portions of internal node resources use to terminate 
       hierarchical LSPs, since in circuit-switching technologies 
       (such as TDM, LSC, and FSC) LSPs require the use of resources 
       allocated in a discrete manner (as pre-determined by the 
       switching type). For example, a node with PSC+LSC hierarchical 
       switching capability can switch a lambda LSP, but cannot 
       terminate the Lambda LSP if there is no available (i.e., not 
       already in use) adjustment capability between the LSC and the 
       PSC switching components. Another example occurs when L2SC 

        
        
    D. Papadimitriou       Expires August 20, 2010           [Page 5] 
    

    Internet Draft                                  February 21, 2010 
           

       (Ethernet) switching can be adapted in LAPS X.86 and GFP for 
       instance before reaching the TDM switching matrix. Similar 
       circumstances can occur, if a switching fabric that supports 
       both PSC and L2SC functionalities is assembled with LSC 
       interfaces enabling "lambda" encoding. In the switching fabric, 
       some interfaces can terminate Lambda LSPs and perform frame (or 
       cell) switching whilst other interfaces can terminate Lambda 
       LSPs and perform packet switching. 
            
       Therefore, within multi-region networks, the advertisement of 
       the so-called adjustment capability to terminate LSPs (not the 
       interface capability since the latter can be inferred from the 
       bandwidth available for each switching capability) provides the 
       information to take into account when performing multi-region 
       path computation. This concept enables a node to discriminate 
       the remote nodes (and thus allows their selection during path 
       computation) with respect to their adjustment capability e.g. 
       to terminate LSPs at the PSC or LSC level.  
        
       Hence, we introduce the capability of discriminating the 
       (internal) adjustment capability from the (interface) switching 
       capability by defining an Interface Adjustment Capability 
       Descriptor (IACD).  
            
       A more detailed problem statement can be found in [RFC5339]. 
         
    3.2. Interface Adjustment Capability Descriptor (IACD)  

       The interface adjustment capability descriptor (IACD) provides 
       the information for the forwarding/switching capability.  
        
       Note that the addition of the IACD as a TE link attribute does 
       not modify the format of the Interface Switching Capability 
       Descriptor (ISCD) defined in [RFC4202], and does not change how 
       the ISCD sub-TLV is carried in the routing protocols or how it 
       is processed when it is received [RFC4201], [RFC4203]. 
        
       The receiving LSR uses its Link State Database to determine the 
       IACD(s) of the far-end of the link. Different Interface 
       Adjustment Capabilities at two ends of a TE link are allowed. 
         
    3.2.1 OSPF   
            
       In OSPF, the IACD sub-TLV is defined as an optional sub-TLV of 
       the TE Link TLV (Type 2, see [RFC3630]), with Type 24 (to be 
       assigned by IANA) and variable length.  

        
        
    D. Papadimitriou       Expires August 20, 2010           [Page 6] 
    

    Internet Draft                                  February 21, 2010 
           

           
           
           
       The IACD sub-TLV format is defined as follows:  
               
        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 
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   
       | Lower SC      | Lower Encoding| Upper SC      | Upper Encoding|   
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   
       |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 0              |   
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   
       |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 1              |   
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   
       |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 2              |   
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   
       |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 3              |   
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   
       |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 4              |   
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   
       |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 5              |   
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   
       |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 6              |   
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   
       |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 7              |   
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   
       |            Adjustment Capability-specific information         |   
       |                           (variable)                          |   
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   
               
          Lower Switching Capability (SC) field (byte 1) - 8 bits 
        
             Indicates the Lower Switching Capability associated to   
             the Lower Encoding field (byte 2). The value of the Lower  
             Switching Capability field MUST be set to the value of  
             Switching Capability of the ISCD sub-TLV advertized for  
             this TE Link. If multiple ISCD sub-TLVs are advertized  
             for that TE link, the Lower Switching Capability (SC)  
             value MUST be set to the value of SC to which the  
             adjustment capacity is associated. 
        
          Lower Encoding (byte 2) - 8 bits 
        
             Contains one of the LSP Encoding Type values specified in 
             Section 3.1.1 of [RFC3471] and updates.  
           

        
        
    D. Papadimitriou       Expires August 20, 2010           [Page 7] 
    

    Internet Draft                                  February 21, 2010  
           

          Upper Switching Capability (SC) field (byte 3) - 8 bits   
        
             Indicates the Upper Switching capability. The Upper  
             Switching Capability field MUST be set to one of the  
             values defined in [RFC4202].    
        
          Upper Encoding (byte 4) - 8 bits 
        
             Set to the encoding of the available adjustment capacity  
             and to 0xFF when the corresponding SC value has no access  
             to the wire, i.e., there is no ISC sub-TLV for this upper  
             switching capability. The adjustment capacity is the set  
             of resources associated to the upper switching  
             capability.  
           
          Max LSP Bandwidth  
        
             The Maximum LSP Bandwidth is encoded as a list of eight    
             4 octet fields in the IEEE floating point format [IEEE],  
             with priority 0 first and priority 7 last. The units are  
             bytes per second. Processing MUST follow the rules 
             specified in [RFC4202].
         
          The Adjustment Capability-specific information - variable 
        
             This field is defined so as to leave the possibility for  
             future addition of technology-specific information  
             associated to the adjustment capability. 
        
          Other fields MUST be processed as specified in [RFC4202]      
          and [RFC4203]. 
        
       The bandwidth values provide an indication of the resources 
       still available to perform insertion/extraction for a given 
       adjustment at a given priority (resource pool concept: set of 
       shareable available resources that can be assigned 
       dynamically).  
         
       Multiple IACD sub-TLVs MAY be present within a given TE Link 
       TLV.  
        
       The presence of the IACD sub-TLV as part of the TE Link TLV 
       does not modify the format/messaging and the processing 
       associated to the ISCD sub-TLV defined in [RFC4203]. 
        
    3.2.2 IS-IS   

        
        
    D. Papadimitriou       Expires August 20, 2010           [Page 8] 
    

    Internet Draft                                  February 21, 2010 
        
            
       In IS-IS, the IACD sub-TLV is an optional sub-TLV of the 
       Extended IS Reachability TLV (see [RFC5305]) with Type 24 (to 
       be assigned by IANA).  
        
       The IACD sub-TLV format is identical to the OSPF sub-TLV format 
       defined in Section 3.2.1. The fields of the IACD sub-TLV have 
       the same processing and interpretation rules as defined in 
       Section 3.2.1.  
            
       Multiple IACD sub-TLVs MAY be present within a given extended 
       IS reachability TLV. 
        
       The presence of the IACD sub-TLV as part of the extended IS 
       reachability TLV does not modify format/messaging and 
       processing associated to the ISCD sub-TLV defined in [RFC5307]. 
        
    4. Multi-Region Signaling  

       Section 6.2 of [RFC4206] specifies that when a region boundary 
       node receives a Path message, the node determines whether or 
       not it is at the edge of an LSP region with respect to the ERO 
       carried in the message. If the node is at the edge of a region, 
       it must then determine the other edge of the region with 
       respect to the Explicit Route Object (ERO), using the IGP 
       database. The node then extracts from the ERO the sub-sequence 
       of hops from itself to the other end of the region.  
            
       The node then compares the sub-sequence of hops with all 
       existing FA-LSPs originated by the node:   
           
       o If a match is found, that FA-LSP has enough unreserved  
         bandwidth for the LSP being signaled, and the G-PID of the  
         FA-LSP is compatible with the G-PID of the LSP being  
         signaled, the node uses that FA-LSP as follows. The Path  
         message for the original LSP is sent to the egress of the FA- 
         LSP. The PHOP in the message is the address of the node at  
         the head-end of the FA-LSP. Before sending the Path message,  
         the ERO in that message is adjusted by removing the  
         subsequence of the ERO that lies in the FA-LSP, and replacing  
         it with just the end point of the FA-LSP.  
           
       o If no existing FA-LSP is found, the node sets up a new FA- 
         LSP. That is, it initiates a new LSP setup just for the FA- 
         LSP.    
            

        
        
    D. Papadimitriou       Expires August 20, 2010           [Page 9] 
    

    Internet Draft                                  February 21, 2010 
           

         Note: compatible G-PID implies that traffic can be processed  
         by both ends of the FA-LSP without dropping traffic after its  
         establishment.  
            
       Applying the procedure of [RFC4206], in a MRN environment MAY 
       lead to setup single-hop FA-LSPs between each pair of nodes. 
       Therefore, considering that the path computation is able to 
       take into account richness of information with regard to the SC 
       available on given nodes belonging to the path, it is 
       consistent to provide enough signaling information to indicate 
       the SC to be used and over which link. Particularly, in case a 
       TE link has multiple SCs advertised as part of its ISCD sub-
       TLVs, an ERO does not provide a mechanism to select a 
       particular SC.  
            
       In order to limit the modifications to existing RSVP-TE 
       procedures ([RFC3473] and referenced), this document defines a 
       new sub-object of the eXclude Route Object (XRO), see 
       [RFC4874], called the Switching Capability sub-object. This 
       sub-object enables (when desired) the explicit identification 
       of at least one switching capability to be excluded from the 
       resource selection process described above. 
            
       Including this sub-object as part of the XRO that explicitly 
       indicates which SCs have to be excluded (before initiating the 
       procedure described here above) over a specified TE link, 
       solves the ambiguous choice among SCs that are potentially used 
       along a given path and give the possibility to optimize 
       resource usage on a multi-region basis. Note that implicit SC 
       inclusion is easily supported by explicitly excluding other SCs 
       (e.g. to include LSC, it is required to exclude PSC, L2SC, TDM 
       and FSC).  
        
       The approach followed here is to concentrate exclusions in XRO 
       and inclusions in ERO. Indeed, the ERO specifies the 
       topological characteristics of the path to be signaled. Usage 
       of EXRS subobjects would also lead in the exclusion over 
       certain portions of the LSP during the FA-LSP setup. Thus, it 
       is more suited to extend generality of the elements excluded by 
       the XRO but also prevent complex consistency checks as well as 
       transpositions between EXRS and XRO at FA-LSP head-ends.  
            
    4.1. XRO Subobjects  

       The contents of an EXCLUDE_ROUTE object defined in [RFC4874] 
       are a series of variable-length data items called subobjects.  

        
        
    D. Papadimitriou       Expires August 20, 2010          [Page 10] 
    

    Internet Draft                                  February 21, 2010 
           

           
       This document defines the Switching Capability (SC) subobject 
       of the XRO (Type 35), its encoding and processing. It also 
       complements the subobjects defined in [RFC4874] with a Label 
       subobject (Type 3). 
           
    4.1.1 SC Subobject  
         
       XRO subobject Type 35: Switching Capability  
            
        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  
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  
       |L|   Type=35   |    Length     |   Attribute   | Switching Cap |  
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  
            
          L (1 bit) 
         
             0 indicates that the attribute specified MUST be excluded 
         
             1 indicates that the attribute specified SHOULD be  
               avoided  
            
          Type (7 bits) 
        
             The Type of the XRO SC subobject is 35.   
        
          Length (8 bits) 
        
             The total length of the subobject in bytes (including the  
             Type and Length fields). The Length of the XRO SC  
             subobject is 4. 
        
          Attribute (8 bits) 
              
             0 reserved value  
                 
             1 indicates that the specified SC SHOULD be excluded or   
               avoided with respect to the preceding numbered (Type 1  
               or Type 2) or unnumbered interface (Type) subobject.  
             
          Switching Cap (8 bits)  
               
             Switching Capability value to be excluded.  
            


        
        
    D. Papadimitriou       Expires August 20, 2010          [Page 11] 
    

    Internet Draft                                  February 21, 2010 
           

       The Switching Capability subobject MUST follow the set of one 
       or more numbered or unnumbered interface sub-objects to which 
       this sub-object refers.  
        
       In case, of loose hop ERO subobject, the XRO sub-object MUST 
       precede the loose-hop sub-object identifying the tail-end 
       node/interface of the traversed region(s).  
        
    4.1.2 Label Subobject  
        
       The encoding of the XRO Label subobject is identical to the 
       Label ERO subobject defined in [RFC3473] with the exception of 
       the L bit. The XRO Label subobject is defined as follows: 
        
       XRO Subobject Type 3: Label Subobject  
           
        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 
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
       |L|  Type=3     |    Length     |U|   Reserved  |   C-Type      | 
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
       |                             Label                             | 
       |                              ...                              | 
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
           
          L (1 bit) 
         
             0 indicates that the attribute specified MUST be  
               excluded. 
             
             1 indicates that the attribute specified SHOULD be  
               avoided 
            
          Type (7 bits) 
        
             The Type of the XRO Label subobject is 3.   
        
          Length (8 bits) 
        
             The total length of the subobject in bytes (including the  
             Type and Length fields). The Length is always divisible  
             by 4. 
           
          U (1 bit) 
        
             See [RFC3471]. 

        
        
    D. Papadimitriou       Expires August 20, 2010          [Page 12] 
    

    Internet Draft                                  February 21, 2010 
           

           
          C-Type (8 bits) 
        
             The C-Type of the included Label Object. Copied from the  
             Label Object (see [RFC3471]). 
        
          Label  
        
           See [RFC3471]. 
        
        
       XRO Label subobjects MUST follow the numbered or unnumbered 
       interface sub-objects to which they refer, and, when present, 
       MUST also follow the Switching Capability sub-object. 
        
       When XRO Label subobjects are following the Switching 
       Capability sub-object, the corresponding label values MUST be 
       compatible with the SC capability to be explicitly excluded.  
        
    5. Virtual TE link  

       A virtual TE link is defined as a TE link between two upper 
       layer nodes that is not associated with a fully provisioned FA-
       LSP in a lower layer [RFC5212]. A virtual TE link is advertised 
       as any TE link, following the rules in [RFC4206] defined for 
       fully provisioned TE links. A virtual TE link represents thus 
       the potentiality to setup an FA-LSP in the lower layer to 
       support the TE link that has been advertised. In particular, 
       the flooding scope of a virtual TE link is within an IGP area, 
       as is the case for any TE link.   
        
       Two techniques can be used for the setup, operation, and 
       maintenance of virtual TE links. The corresponding GMPLS 
       protocols extensions are described in this section. The 
       procedures described in this section complement those defined 
       in [RFC4206] and [HIER-BIS]. 
            
    5.1. Edge-to-edge Association     

       This approach, that does not require state maintenance on 
       transit LSRs, relies on extensions to the GMPLS RSVP-TE Call 
       procedure (see [RFC4974]). This technique consists of 
       exchanging identification and TE attributes information 
       directly between TE link end points through the establishment 
       of a call between terminating LSRs. These TE link end-points 
       correspond to the LSP head-end and tail-end points of the LSPs 

        
        
    D. Papadimitriou       Expires August 20, 2010          [Page 13] 
    

    Internet Draft                                  February 21, 2010 
           

       that will be established. The end-points MUST belong to the 
       same (LSP) region. 
            
       Once the call is established the resulting association 
       populates the local Traffic Engineering DataBase (TEDB) and the 
       resulting virtual TE link is advertised as any other TE link. 
       The latter can then be used to attract traffic. When an upper 
       layer/region LSP tries to make use of this virtual TE link, one 
       or more FA LSPs MUST be established using the procedures 
       defined in [RFC4206] to make the virtual TE link "real" and 
       allow it to carry traffic by nesting the upper layer/region 
       LSP. 
            
       In order to distinguish usage of such call from the call and 
       associated procedures defined in [RFC4974], a CALL ATTRIBUTES 
       object is introduced.  
            
    5.1.1 CALL_ATTRIBUTES Object  
            
       The CALL_ATTRIBUTES object is used to signal attributes 
       required in support of a call, or to indicate the nature or use 
       of a call. It is modeled on the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object defined 
       in [RFC5420]. The CALL_ATTRIBUTES object MAY also be used to 
       report call operational state on a Notify message. 
        
       The CALL_ATTRIBUTES object class is 201 (TBD by IANA) of the 
       form 11bbbbbb. This C-Num value (see [RFC2205], Section 3.10) 
       ensures that LSRs that do not recognize the object pass it on 
       transparently.   
            
       One C-Type is defined, C-Type = 1 for Call Attributes. This 
       object is OPTIONAL and MAY be placed on Notify messages to 
       convey additional information about the desired attributes of 
       the call.  
         
       CALL_ATTRIBUTES class = 201, C-Type = 1  
            
        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  
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  
       |                                                               |  
       //                      Call Attributes TLVs                   //  
       |                                                               |  
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  
               


        
        
    D. Papadimitriou       Expires August 20, 2010          [Page 14] 
    

    Internet Draft                                  February 21, 2010  
           

       The Call Attributes TLVs are encoded as described in Section 
       5.1.3.  
        
    5.1.2 Processing  
            
       If an egress (or intermediate) LSR does not support the object, 
       it forwards it unexamined and unchanged. This facilitates the 
       exchange of attributes across legacy networks that do not 
       support this new object.  
         
    5.1.3 Call Attributes TLVs  
            
       Attributes carried by the CALL_ATTRIBUTES object are encoded 
       within TLVs names Call Attributes TLVs. One or more Call 
       Attributes TLVs MAY be present in each object.  
            
       There are no ordering rules for Call Attributes TLVs, and no 
       interpretation SHOULD be placed on the order in which these 
       TLVs are received.  
            
       Each Call Attributes TLV carried by the CALL_ATTRIBUTES object 
       is encoded as follows:  
            
      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  
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  
     |             Type              |           Length              |  
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  
     |                                                               |  
     //                            Value                            //  
     |                                                               |  
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  
              
          Type  
            
             The identifier of the TLV.  
            
          Length  
             
             Indicates the total length of the TLV in octets. That  
             is, the combined length of the Type, Length, and Value  
             fields, i.e., four plus the length of the Value field in  
             octets. 
         
             The entire TLV MUST be padded with between zero and three 
             trailing zeros to make it four-octet aligned.  The Length  

        
        
    D. Papadimitriou       Expires August 20, 2010          [Page 15] 
    

    Internet Draft                                  February 21, 2010  
           

             field does not count any padding. 
                              
          Value  
                
             The data field for the TLV padded as described above.  
        
       Assignment of Call Attributes TLV types MUST follow the rules 
       specified in Section 8 (IANA Considerations).  
        
    5.1.4 Call Attributes Flags TLV  
            
       The Call Attributes TLV of Type 1 defines the Call Attributes 
       Flags TLV. The Call Attributes Flags TLV MAY be present in a 
       CALL_ATTRIBUTES object.    
            
       The Call Attribute Flags TLV value field is an array of units 
       of 32 flags numbered from the most significant bit as bit zero. 
       The Length field for this TLV MUST therefore always be a 
       multiple of 4 bytes, regardless of the number of bits carried 
       and no padding is required.  
           
       Unassigned bits are considered as reserved and MUST be set to 
       zero on transmission by the originator of the object. Bits not 
       contained in the Call Attribute Flags TLV MUST be assumed to be 
       set to zero. If the Call Attribute Flags TLV is absent either 
       because it is not contained in the CALL_ATTRIBUTES object or 
       because this object is itself absent, all processing MUST be 
       performed as though the bits were present and set to zero. In 
       other terms, assigned bits that are not present either because 
       the Call Attribute Flags TLV is deliberately foreshortened or 
       because the TLV is not included MUST be treated as though they 
       are present and are set to zero.  
         
    5.1.5 Call Inheritance Flag  
            
       This document introduces a specific Call Inheritance Flag at 
       position bit 0 (most significant bit) in the Attributes Flags 
       TLV. This flag indicates that the association initiated between 
       the end-points belonging to a call results into a (virtual) TE 
       link advertisement. 
            
       The Call Inheritance Flag MUST be set to 1 in order to indicate 
       that the established association is to be translated into a TE 
       link advertisement. The value of this flag SHALL by default be 
       set to 1. Setting this flag to 0 results in a hidden TE link or 
       in deleting the corresponding TE link advertisement (by setting 

        
        
    D. Papadimitriou       Expires August 20, 2010          [Page 16] 
    

    Internet Draft                                  February 21, 2010 
           

       the corresponding Opaque LSA Age to MaxAge) if the association 
       had been established with this flag set to 1. In the latter 
       case, the corresponding FA-LSP SHOULD also be torn down to 
       prevent unused resources. 
         
       The Notify message used for establishing the association is 
       defined as per [RFC4974]. Additionally, the Notify message MUST 
       carry an LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID Object, that allows 
       identifying unnumbered FA-LSPs ([RFC3477], [RFC4206], [HIER-
       BIS]) and numbered FA-LSPs ([RFC4206], [HIER-BIS]). 
        
    5.2. Soft Forwarding Adjacency (Soft FA)                          

       The Soft Forwarding Adjacency (Soft FA) approach consists of 
       setting up the FA LSP at the control plane level without 
       actually committing resources in the data plane. This means 
       that the corresponding LSP exists only in the control plane 
       domain. Once such FA is established the corresponding TE link 
       can be advertised following the procedures described in 
       [RFC4206].  
            
       There are two techniques to setup Soft FAs:  
        
       o The first one consists in setting up the FA LSP by precluding  
         resource commitment during its establishment. These are known  
         as pre-planned LSPs. 
        
       o The second technique consists in making use of path  
         provisioned LSPs only. In this case, there is no associated  
         resource demand during the LSP establishment. This can be  
         considered as the RSVP-TE equivalent of the Null service type  
         specified in [RFC2997].   
            
    5.2.1 Pre-Planned LSP Flag   
            
       The LSP ATTRIBUTES object and Attributes Flags TLV are defined 
       in [RFC5420]. The present document defines a new flag, the Pre-
       Planned LSP flag, in the existing Attributes Flags TLV 
       (numbered as Type 1).   
            
       The position of this flag is TBD in accordance with IANA 
       assignment. This flag, part of the Attributes Flags TLV, 
       follows general processing of [RFC5420] for 
       LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTE object. That is, LSRs that do not 
       recognize the object reject the LSP setup effectively saying 
       that they do not support the attributes requested. Indeed, the 

        
        
    D. Papadimitriou       Expires August 20, 2010          [Page 17] 
    

    Internet Draft                                  February 21, 2010 
           

       newly defined attribute requires examination at all transit 
       LSRs along the LSP being established.    
            
       The Pre-Planned LSP flag can take one of the following values:  
            
       o When set to 0 this means that the LSP MUST be fully  
         provisioned. Absence of this flag (hence corresponding TLV)  
         is therefore compliant with the signaling message processing  
         per [RFC3473]).  
            
       o When set to 1 this means that the LSP MUST be provisioned in  
         the control plane only.  
        
       If an LSP is established with the Pre-Planned flag set to 1, no 
       resources are committed at the data plane level. 
            
       The operation of committing data plane resources occurs by re-
       signaling the same LSP with the Pre-Planned flag set to 0. It 
       is RECOMMENDED that no other modifications are made to other 
       RSVP objects during this operation. That is each intermediate 
       node, processing a flag transiting from 1 to 0 shall only be 
       concerned with the commitment of data plane resources and no 
       other modification of the LSP properties and/or attributes.   
            
       If an LSP is established with the Pre-Planned flag set to 0, it 
       MAY be re-signaled by setting the flag to 1.    
            
    5.2.2 Path Provisioned LSPs  
            
       There is a difference in between an LSP that is established 
       with 0 bandwidth (path provisioning) and an LSP that is 
       established with a certain bandwidth value not committed at the 
       data plane level (i.e. pre-planned LSP).   
        
       Mechanisms for provisioning (pre-planned or not) LSP with 0 
       bandwidth is straightforward for PSC LSP: in the SENDER_TSPEC/ 
       FLOWSPEC object, the Peak Data Rate field of Int-Serv objects 
       (see [RFC2210]) MUST be set to 0. For L2SC LSP: the CIR, EIR, 
       CBS, and EBS values MUST be set to 0 in the Type 2 sub-TLV of 
       the Ethernet Bandwidth Profile TLV. In both cases, upon LSP 
       resource commitment, actual traffic parameter values are used 
       to perform corresponding resource reservation.  
            
       However, mechanisms for provisioning (pre-planned or not) TDM 
       or LSC LSP with 0 bandwidth is currently not possible because 
       the exchanged label value is tightly coupled with resource 

        
        
    D. Papadimitriou       Expires August 20, 2010          [Page 18] 
    

    Internet Draft                                  February 21, 2010 
           

       allocation during LSP signaling (see e.g. [RFC4606] for 
       SDH/SONET LSP). For TDM and LSC LSP, a NULL Label value is used 
       to prevent resource allocation at the data plane level. In 
       these cases, upon LSP resource commitment, actual label value 
       exchange is performed to commit allocation of timeslots/ 
       wavelengths. 
        
    6. Backward Compatibility  

       New objects and procedures defined in this document are running 
       within a given TE domain, defined as group of LSRs that 
       enforces a common TE policy. Thus, the extensions defined in 
       this document are expected to run in the context of a 
       consistent TE policy. Specification of a consistent TE policy 
       is outside the scope of this document. 
            
       In such TE domains, we distinguish between edge LSRs and 
       intermediate LSRs. Edge LSRs MUST be able to process Call 
       Attribute as defined in Section 5.1 if this is the method 
       selected for creating edge-to-edge associations. In that 
       domain, intermediate LSRs are by definition transparent to the 
       Call processing.    
            
       In case the Soft FA method is used for the creation of virtual 
       TE links, edge and intermediate LSRs MUST support processing of 
       the LSP ATTRIBUTE object per Section 5.2. 
        
    7. Security Considerations 

       This document does not introduce any new security consideration 
       from the ones already detailed in [MPLS-SEC] that describes the 
       MPLS and GMPLS security threats, the related defensive 
       techniques, and the mechanisms for detection and reporting. 
       Indeed, the applicability of the proposed GMPLS extensions is 
       limited to single TE domain. Such a domain is under the 
       authority of a single administrative entity. In this context, 
       multiple switching layers comprised within such TE domain are 
       under the control of a single GMPLS control plane instance.  
         
       Nevertheless, Call initiation, as depicted in Section 5.1, MUST 
       strictly remain under control of the TE domain administrator. 
       To prevent any abuse of Call setup, edge nodes MUST ensure 
       isolation of their call controller (i.e. the latter is not 
       reachable via external TE domains). To further prevent man-in-
       the-middle attack, security associations MUST be established 
       between edge nodes initiating and terminating calls. For this 

        
        
    D. Papadimitriou       Expires August 20, 2010          [Page 19] 
    

    Internet Draft                                  February 21, 2010 
           

       purpose, IKE [RFC4306] MUST be used for performing mutual 
       authentication and establishing and maintaining these security 
       associations. 
        
    8. IANA Considerations 

    8.1 RSVP     

       IANA has made the following assignments in the "Class Names, 
       Class Numbers, and Class Types" section of the "RSVP 
       PARAMETERS" registry located at 
       http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters. 
        
       This document introduces a new class named CALL_ATTRIBUTES has 
       been created in the 11bbbbbb range (201) with the following 
       definition: 
        
       Class Number  Class Name                         Reference 
       ------------  -----------------------            --------- 
       201           CALL ATTRIBUTES                    [This I-D] 
           
                     Class Type (C-Type): 
           
                     1   Call Attributes                [This.I-D] 
           
       Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to establish 
       a "Call attributes TLV" registry. The following types should be 
       defined: 
           
       TLV Value  Name                                  Reference 
       ---------  -------------------------             --------- 
       0          Reserved                              [This I-D]   
       1          Call Attributes Flags TLV             [This I-D] 
        
       The values should be allocated based on the following 
       allocation policy as defined in [RFC5226]. 
        
       Range         Registration Procedures 
       -----         ------------------------ 
       0-32767       RFC 
       32768-65535   Private Use 
        
       Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to establish 
       a "Call attributes flags" registry. The following flags should 
       be defined: 
           

        
        
    D. Papadimitriou       Expires August 20, 2010          [Page 20] 
    

    Internet Draft                                  February 21, 2010  
           

       Bit Number  32-bit Value  Name                   Reference 
       ----------  ------------  ---------------------  --------- 
       0           0x80000000    Call Inheritance Flag  [This I-D] 
       
       The values should be allocated based on the RFC allocation   
       policy as defined in [RFC5226]. 
   
       This document introduces a new Flag in the Attributes Flags 
       TLV defined in [RFC5420]:
  
       Bit Number  32-bit Value  Name                   Reference 
       ----------  ------------  ---------------------  --------- 
       TBD         TBD           Pre-Planned LSP Flag   [This I-D]                
                      
       This document introduces two new subobjects for the 
       EXCLUDE_ROUTE object [RFC4874], C-Type 1. 
                   
       Subobject Type   Subobject Description 
       --------------   --------------------- 
       3                Label 
       35               Switching Capability (SC) 
           
    8.2 OSPF   

       IANA maintains Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) Traffic 
       Engineering TLVs Registries included below for Top level Types 
       in TE LSAs and Types for sub-TLVs of TE Link TLV (Value 2). 
           
       This document defines the following sub-TLV of TE Link TLV 
       (Value 2) 
            
       Value  Sub-TLV                                               
       -----  -------------------------------------------------    
       25     Interface Adjustment Capability Descriptor (IACD) 
           
    8.3 IS-IS   

       This document defines the following new sub-TLV type of top-
       level TLV 22 that need to be reflected in the ISIS sub-TLV 
       registry for TLV 22: 

       Type  Description                                        Length 
       ----  -------------------------------------------------  ------ 
       25    Interface Adjustment Capability Descriptor (IACD)  Var. 
              
    9. References 
           
    9.1 Normative References
        
        
    D. Papadimitriou       Expires August 20, 2010          [Page 21] 
    

    Internet Draft                                  February 21, 2010 
           
          
       [IEEE]     IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Binary Floating-Point 
                  Arithmetic", Standard 754-1985, 1985. 
           
       [RFC2205]  Braden, R., et al., "Resource ReSerVation Protocol 
                  (RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional Specification", 
                  RFC 2205, September 1997.  
            
       [RFC2210]  Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF  
                  Integrated Services", RFC 2210, September 1997.  
             
       [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 
                  Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 
           
       [RFC2997]  Bernet, Y., Smith, A., and B. Davie, "Specification 
                  of the Null Service Type", RFC2997, November 2000.  
           
       [RFC3471]  Berger, L., et al., "Generalized Multi-Protocol  
                  Label Switching (GMPLS) - Signaling Functional   
                  Description", RFC 3471, January 2003.  
               
       [RFC3473]  Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label  
                  Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation  
                  Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions",  
                  RFC 3473, January 2003.  
           
       [RFC3477]  Kompella, K., and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered  
                  Links in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic 
                  Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, January 2003. 
                
       [RFC3630]  Katz, D., et al., "Traffic Engineering (TE)  
                  Extensions to OSPF Version 2," RFC 3630, September  
                  2003.  
               
       [RFC3945]  Mannie, E. and al., "Generalized Multi-Protocol  
                  Label Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945,  
                  October 2004.  
               
       [RFC4201]  Kompella, K., et al., "Link Bundling in MPLS Traffic      
                  Engineering", RFC 4201, October 2005.  
               
       [RFC4202]  Kompella, K., Ed., and Rekhter, Y. Ed., "Routing  
                  Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS", RFC  
                  4202, October 2005.  
               
       [RFC4203]  Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF  
                  Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol  
                  Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005.  
        
        
    D. Papadimitriou       Expires August 20, 2010          [Page 22] 
    

    Internet Draft                                  February 21, 2010 
           

              
       [RFC4206]  Kompella, K., and Rekhter, Y., "LSP Hierarchy with 
                  Generalized MPLS TE", RFC4206, October 2005. 
           
       [RFC4306]  Kaufman, C., Ed., "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2)  
                  Protocol", RFC 4306, December 2005. 
                
       [RFC4606]  Mannie, E., and D. Papadimitriou, D., "Generalized  
                  Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions  
                  for Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and  
                  Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control,  
                  RFC 4606, August 2006.  
                     
       [RFC5226]  Narten, T., Alvestrand, H., "Guidelines for Writing  
                  an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC  
                  5226, May 2008. 
           
       [RFC5305]  Smit, H. and T. Li, "Intermediate System to  
                  Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions for Traffic  
                  Engineering (TE)", RFC 5305, October 2008. 
            
       [RFC5307]  Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed.,  
                  "Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS)  
                  Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol  
                  Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 5307, October 2005. 
                                      
       [RFC5420]  Farrel, A., et al., "Encoding of Attributes for  
                  Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched  
                  Path (LSP) Establishment Using Resource ReserVation  
                  Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 5420,  
                  February 2009.  
               
       [RFC4874]  Lee, C.Y., et al. "Exclude Routes - Extension to  
                  RSVP-TE," RFC 4874, April 2007.  
               
       [RFC4974]  Papadimitriou, D., and Farrel, A., "Generalized MPLS  
                  (GMPLS) RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions in support of  
                  Calls," RFC 4974, August 2007. 
           
    9.2 Informative References 
        
       [GMPLS-RR]  Berger, L., Papadimitriou, D., and JP. Vasseur, 
                   "PathErr Message Triggered MPLS and GMPLS LSP  
                   Reroute", RFC 5710, January 2010.   
           


        
        
    D. Papadimitriou       Expires August 20, 2010          [Page 23] 
    

    Internet Draft                                  February 21, 2010 
           

       [HIER-BIS]  Shiomoto, K., and Farrel, A., "Procedures for 
                   Dynamically Signaled Hierarchical Label Switched 
                   Paths", draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-hierarchy-bis, Work in 
                   progress.   
           
       [GR-TELINK] Ali, Z., et al., "Graceful Shutdown in MPLS and 
                   Generalized MPLS Traffic Engineering Networks", 
                   draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown, Work in 
                   progress. 
           
       [MPLS-SEC]  Fang, L. Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and 
                   GMPLS Networks", draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-
                   security-framework, Work in progress. 
          
       [RFC5212]   Shiomoto, K., et al., "Requirements for GMPLS-based  
                   multi-region and multi-layer networks (MRN/MLN)",    
                   RFC 5212, July 2008.  
           
       [RFC5339]   Leroux, J.-L., et al., "Evaluation of existing  
                   GMPLS Protocols against Multi Region and Multi  
                   Layer Networks (MRN/MLN)", RFC 5339, September  
                   2008. 
                
    Acknowledgments 
        
       The authors would like to thank Mr. Wataru Imajuku for the 
       discussions on adjustment between regions. 
                    
    Author's Addresses 

       Dimitri Papadimitriou 
       Alcatel-Lucent   
       Copernicuslaan 50 
       B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium 
       Phone: +32 3 2408491 
       Email: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel-lucent.com 
        
       Martin Vigoureux  
       Alcatel-Lucent    
       Route de Villejust  
       91620 Nozay, France  
       Phone: +33 1 30772669  
       Email: martin.vigoureux@alcatel-lucent.fr  
            
       Kohei Shiomoto   
       NTT   

        
        
    D. Papadimitriou       Expires August 20, 2010          [Page 25] 
    

    Internet Draft                                  February 21, 2010 
           

       3-9-11 Midori-cho  
       Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180-8585, Japan  
       Phone: +81 422 594402  
       Email: shiomoto.kohei@lab.ntt.co.jp  
            
       Deborah Brungard   
       ATT  
       Rm. D1-3C22 - 200 S. Laurel Ave.  
       Middletown, NJ 07748, USA  
       Phone: +1 732 4201573  
       Email: dbrungard@att.com   
            
       Jean-Louis Le Roux   
       France Telecom  
       Avenue Pierre Marzin  
       22300 Lannion, France  
       Phone: +33 2 96053020  
       Email: jean-louis.leroux@rd.francetelecom.com 
        
    Contributors 
         
       Eiji Oki 
       University of Electro-Communications 
       1-5-1 Chofugaoka 
       Chofu, Tokyo 182-8585, Japan 
       Email: oki@ice.uec.ac.jp 
        
       Ichiro Inoue  
       NTT Network Service Systems Laboratories  
       3-9-11 Midori-cho  
       Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180-8585, Japan  
       Phone : +81 422 596076  
       Email: ichiro.inoue@lab.ntt.co.jp  
         
       Emmanuel Dotaro    
       Alcatel-Lucent France  
       Route de Villejust  
       91620 Nozay, France  
       Phone : +33 1 69634723  
       Email: emmanuel.dotaro@alcatel-lucent.fr  
            
       Gert Grammel   
       Alcatel-Lucent SEL  
       Lorenzstrasse, 10  
       70435 Stuttgart, Germany  
       Email: gert.grammel@alcatel-lucent.de 

        
        
    D. Papadimitriou       Expires August 20, 2010          [Page 24] 
    
