GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc4606

Network Working Group E. Mannie Request for Comments: 4606 Perceval Obsoletes: 3946 D. Papadimitriou Category: Standards Track Alcatel

                                                           August 2006
 Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for
              Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and
            Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control

Status of This Memo

 This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
 Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
 improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
 Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
 and status of this protocol.  Distribution cof this memo is
 unlimited.

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

Abstract

 This document provides minor clarification to RFC 3946.
 This document is a companion to the Generalized Multi-protocol Label
 Switching (GMPLS) signaling.  It defines the Synchronous Optical
 Network (SONET)/Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) technology-
 specific information needed when GMPLS signaling is used.

Table of Contents

 1. Introduction ....................................................2
 2. SONET and SDH Traffic Parameters ................................3
    2.1. SONET/SDH Traffic Parameters ...............................3
    2.2. RSVP-TE Details ............................................9
    2.3. CR-LDP Details ............................................10
 3. SONET and SDH Labels ...........................................11
 4. Acknowledgements ...............................................16
 5. Security Considerations ........................................16
 6. IANA Considerations ............................................16
 Contributors ......................................................17
 Appendix 1. Signal Type Values Extension for VC-3 .................20
 Annex 1. Examples .................................................20
 Normative References ..............................................23

Mannie & Papadimitriou Standards Track [Page 1] RFC 4606 GMPLS Extensions for SONET & SDH Control August 2006

1. Introduction

 As described in [RFC3945], Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) extends MPLS from
 supporting packet (Packet Switching Capable, or PSC) interfaces and
 switching to include support of four new classes of interfaces and
 switching: Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC), Time-Division Multiplex
 (TDM), Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) and Fiber-Switch Capable (FSC).  A
 functional description of the extensions to MPLS signaling needed to
 support the new classes of interfaces and switching is provided in
 [RFC3471].  [RFC3473] describes RSVP-TE-specific formats and
 mechanisms needed to support all five classes of interfaces, and CR-
 LDP extensions can be found in [RFC3472].
 This document presents details that are specific to Synchronous
 Optical Network (SONET)/Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH).  Per
 [RFC3471], SONET/SDH-specific parameters are carried in the signaling
 protocol in traffic parameter specific objects.
 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].
 Moreover, the reader is assumed to be familiar with the terminology
 in American National Standards Institute (ANSI) [T1.105] and ITU-T
 [G.707], as well as with that in [RFC3471], [RFC3472], and [RFC3473].
 The following abbreviations are used in this document:
 DCC: Data Communications Channel.
 LOVC: Lower-Order Virtual Container
 HOVC: Higher-Order Virtual Container
 MS: Multiplex Section.
 MSOH: Multiplex Section overhead.
 POH: Path overhead.
 RS: Regenerator Section.
 RSOH: Regenerator Section overhead.
 SDH: Synchronous digital hierarchy.
 SOH: Section overhead.
 SONET: Synchronous Optical Network.
 SPE: Synchronous Payload Envelope.
 STM(-N): Synchronous Transport Module (-N) (SDH).
 STS(-N): Synchronous Transport Signal-Level N (SONET).
 VC-n: Virtual Container-n (SDH).
 VTn: Virtual Tributary-n (SONET).

Mannie & Papadimitriou Standards Track [Page 2] RFC 4606 GMPLS Extensions for SONET & SDH Control August 2006

2. SONET and SDH Traffic Parameters

 This section defines the GMPLS traffic parameters for SONET/SDH.  The
 protocol-specific formats, for the SONET/SDH-specific RSVP-TE objects
 and CR-LDP TLVs, are described in Sections 2.2 and 2.3, respectively.
 These traffic parameters specify a base set of capabilities for SONET
 ANSI [T1.105] and SDH ITU-T [G.707], such as concatenation and
 transparency.  Other documents may further enhance this set of
 capabilities in the future.  For instance, signaling for SDH over PDH
 ITU-T G.832 or sub-STM-0 ITU-T G.708 interfaces could be defined.
 The traffic parameters defined hereafter (see Section 2.1) MUST be
 used when the label is encoded as SUKLM as defined in this memo (see
 Section 3).  They MUST also be used when requesting one of Section/RS
 or Line/MS overhead transparent STS-1/STM-0, STS-3*N/STM-N (N=1, 4,
 16, 64, 256) signals.
 The traffic parameters and label encoding defined in [RFC3471],
 Section 3.2, MUST be used for fully transparent STS-1/STM-0,
 STS-3*N/STM-N (N=1, 4, 16, 64, 256) signal requests.  A fully
 transparent signal is one for which all overhead is left unmodified
 by intermediate nodes; i.e., when all defined Transparency (T) bits
 would be set if the traffic parameters defined in Section 2.1 were
 used.

2.1. SONET/SDH Traffic Parameters

 The traffic parameters for SONET/SDH are organized 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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |  Signal Type  |      RCC      |              NCC              |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |              NVC              |        Multiplier (MT)        |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                       Transparency (T)                        |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                           Profile (P)                         |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 Annex 1 lists examples of SONET and SDH signal coding.

Mannie & Papadimitriou Standards Track [Page 3] RFC 4606 GMPLS Extensions for SONET & SDH Control August 2006

 o) Signal Type (ST): 8 bits
 This field indicates the type of Elementary Signal that constitutes
 the requested Label Switched Path (LSP).  Several transforms can be
 applied successively on the Elementary Signal to build the Final
 Signal actually being requested for the LSP.
 Each transform application is optional and must be ignored if zero,
 except the Multiplier (MT), which cannot be zero and is ignored if
 equal to one.
 Transforms must be applied strictly in the following order:
  1. First, contiguous concatenation (by using the RCC and NCC fields)

can be optionally applied on the Elementary Signal, resulting in a

   contiguously concatenated signal.
  1. Second, virtual concatenation (by using the NVC field) can be

optionally applied on the Elementary Signal, resulting in a

   virtually concatenated signal.
  1. Third, some transparency (by using the Transparency field) can be

optionally specified when a frame is requested as signal rather

   than an SPE- or VC-based signal.
  1. Fourth, a multiplication (by using the Multiplier field) can be

optionally applied directly on the Elementary Signal, on the

   contiguously concatenated signal obtained from the first phase, on
   the virtually concatenated signal obtained from the second phase,
   or on these signals combined with some transparency.
 Permitted Signal Type values for SONET/SDH are
 Value  Type (Elementary Signal)
 -----  ------------------------
   1     VT1.5  SPE / VC-11
   2     VT2    SPE / VC-12
   3     VT3    SPE
   4     VT6    SPE / VC-2
   5     STS-1  SPE / VC-3
   6     STS-3c SPE / VC-4
   7     STS-1      / STM-0   (only when transparency is requested)
   8     STS-3      / STM-1   (only when transparency is requested)
   9     STS-12     / STM-4   (only when transparency is requested)
   10    STS-48     / STM-16  (only when transparency is requested)
   11    STS-192    / STM-64  (only when transparency is requested)
   12    STS-768    / STM-256 (only when transparency is requested)

Mannie & Papadimitriou Standards Track [Page 4] RFC 4606 GMPLS Extensions for SONET & SDH Control August 2006

 A dedicated signal type is assigned to a SONET STS-3c SPE instead of
 being coded as a contiguous concatenation of three STS-1 SPEs.  This
 is done in order to provide easy interworking between SONET and SDH
 signaling.
 Appendix 1 adds one signal type (optional) to the above values.
 o) Requested Contiguous Concatenation (RCC): 8 bits
 This field is used to request the optional SONET/SDH contiguous
 concatenation of the Elementary Signal.
 This field is a vector of flags.  Each flag indicates the support of
 a particular type of contiguous concatenation.  Several flags can be
 set at the same time to indicate a choice.
 These flags allow an upstream node to indicate to a downstream node
 the different types of contiguous concatenation that it supports.
 However, the downstream node decides which one to use according to
 its own rules.
 A downstream node receiving simultaneously more than one flag chooses
 a particular type of contiguous concatenation, if any is supported,
 and according to criteria that are out of this document's scope.  A
 downstream node that doesn't support any of the concatenation types
 indicated by the field must refuse the LSP request.  In particular,
 it must refuse the LSP request if it doesn't support contiguous
 concatenation at all.
 When several flags have been set, the upstream node retrieves the
 (single) type of contiguous concatenation the downstream node has
 selected by looking at the position indicated by the first label and
 the number of labels as returned by the downstream node (see also
 Section 3).
 The entire field is set to zero to indicate that no contiguous
 concatenation is requested at all (default value).  A non-zero field
 indicates that some contiguous concatenation is requested.
 The following flag is defined:
    Flag 1 (bit 1): Standard contiguous concatenation.
 Flag 1 indicates that the standard SONET/SDH contiguous
 concatenation, as defined in [T1.105]/[G.707], is supported.  Note
 that bit 1 is the low-order bit.  Other flags are reserved for
 extensions; if not used, they must be set to zero when sent and
 should be ignored when received.

Mannie & Papadimitriou Standards Track [Page 5] RFC 4606 GMPLS Extensions for SONET & SDH Control August 2006

 See note 1 in the section on the NCC about the SONET contiguous
 concatenation of STS-1 SPEs when the number of components is a
 multiple of three.
 o) Number of Contiguous Components (NCC): 16 bits
 This field indicates the number of identical SONET SPEs/SDH VCs
 (i.e., Elementary Signal) that are requested to be concatenated, as
 specified in the RCC field.
 Note 1: When a SONET STS-Nc SPE with N=3*X is requested, the
 Elementary Signal to be used must always be an STS-3c_SPE signal
 type, and the value of NCC must always be equal to X.  This allows
 facilitating the interworking between SONET and SDH.  In particular,
 it means that the contiguous concatenation of three STS-1 SPEs cannot
 be requested, as according to this specification this type of signal
 must be coded using the STS-3c SPE signal type.
 Note 2: When a transparent STS-N/STM-N signal is requested that is
 limited to a single contiguously concatenated STS-Nc_SPE/VC-4-Nc, the
 signal type must be STS-N/STM-N, RCC with flag 1, NCC set to 1.
 The NCC value must be consistent with the type of contiguous
 concatenation being requested in the RCC field.  In particular, this
 field is irrelevant if no contiguous concatenation is requested (RCC
 = 0).  In that case, it must be set to zero when sent and should be
 ignored when received.  A RCC value different from 0 implies a number
 of contiguous components greater than or equal to 1.
 Note 3: Following these rules, when a VC-4 signal is requested, the
 RCC and the NCC values SHOULD be set to 0, whereas for an STS-3c SPE
 signal, the RCC and the NCC values SHOULD be set 1.  However, if
 local conditions allow, since the setting of the RCC and NCC values
 is locally driven, the requesting upstream node MAY set the RCC and
 NCC values to either SDH or SONET settings without impacting the
 function.  Moreover, the downstream node SHOULD accept the requested
 values if local conditions allow.  If these values cannot be
 supported, the receiver downstream node SHOULD generate a
 PathErr/NOTIFICATION message (see Sections 2.2 and 2.3,
 respectively).
 o) Number of Virtual Components (NVC): 16 bits
 This field indicates the number of signals that are requested to be
 virtually concatenated.  These signals are all of the same type by
 definition.  They are Elementary Signal SPEs/VCs for which signal
 types are defined in this document; i.e., VT1.5_SPE/VC-11,

Mannie & Papadimitriou Standards Track [Page 6] RFC 4606 GMPLS Extensions for SONET & SDH Control August 2006

 VT2_SPE/VC-12, VT3_SPE, VT6_SPE/VC-2, STS-1_SPE/VC-3, or
 STS-3c_SPE/VC-4.
 This field is set to 0 (default value) to indicate that no virtual
 concatenation is requested.
 o) Multiplier (MT): 16 bits
 This field indicates the number of identical signals that are
 requested for the LSP; i.e., that form the Final Signal.  These
 signals can be identical Elementary Signals, identical contiguously
 concatenated signals, or identical virtually concatenated signals.
 Note that all of these signals thus belong to the same LSP.
 The distinction between the components of multiple virtually
 concatenated signals is done via the order of the labels that are
 specified in the signaling.  The first set of labels must describe
 the first component (set of individual signals belonging to the first
 virtual concatenated signal), the second set must describe the second
 component (set of individual signals belonging to the second virtual
 concatenated signal), and so on.
 This field is set to one (default value) to indicate that exactly one
 instance of a signal is being requested.  Intermediate and egress
 nodes MUST verify that the node itself and the interfaces on which
 the LSP will be established can support the requested multiplier
 value.  If the requested values cannot be supported, the receiver
 node MUST generate a PathErr/NOTIFICATION message (see Sections 2.2
 and 2.3, respectively).
 Zero is an invalid value.  If a zero is received, the node MUST
 generate a PathErr/NOTIFICATION message (see Sections 2.2 and 2.3,
 respectively).
 Note 1: When a transparent STS-N/STM-N signal is requested that is
 limited to a single contiguously concatenated STS-Nc-SPE/VC-4-Nc, the
 multiplier field MUST be equal to 1 (only valid value).
 o) Transparency (T): 32 bits
 This field is a vector of flags that indicates the type of
 transparency being requested.  Several flags can be combined to
 provide different types of transparency.  Not all combinations are
 necessarily valid.  The default value for this field is zero, i.e.,
 no transparency is requested.

Mannie & Papadimitriou Standards Track [Page 7] RFC 4606 GMPLS Extensions for SONET & SDH Control August 2006

 Transparency, as defined from the point of view of this signaling
 specification, is only applicable to the fields in the SONET/SDH
 frame overheads.  In the SONET case, these are the fields in the
 Section Overhead (SOH) and the Line Overhead (LOH).  In the SDH case,
 these are the fields in the Regenerator Section Overhead (RSOH), the
 Multiplex Section overhead (MSOH), and the pointer fields between the
 two.  With SONET, the pointer fields are part of the LOH.
 Note also that transparency is only applicable when the following
 signal types are used: STS-1/STM-0, STS-3/STM-1, STS-12/STM-4,
 STS-48/STM-16, STS-192/STM-64, and STS-768/STM-256.  At least one
 transparency type must be specified when such a signal type is
 requested.
 Transparency indicates precisely which fields in these overheads must
 be delivered unmodified at the other end of the LSP.  An ingress
 Label Switching Router (LSR) requesting transparency will pass these
 overhead fields that must be delivered to the egress LSR without any
 change.  From the ingress and egress LSRs point of views, these
 fields must be seen as being unmodified.
 Transparency is applied not at the interfaces with the initiating and
 terminating LSRs but only between intermediate LSRs.  The
 transparency field is used to request an LSP that supports the
 requested transparency type; it may also be used to set up the
 transparency process to be applied at each intermediate LSR.
 The different transparency flags are as follows:
    Flag 1 (bit 1): Section/Regenerator Section layer
    Flag 2 (bit 2): Line/Multiplex Section layer
 where bit 1 is the low-order bit.  Other flags are reserved; they
 should be set to zero when sent and ignored when received.  A flag is
 set to one to indicate that the corresponding transparency is
 requested.
 Intermediate and egress nodes MUST verify that the node itself and
 the interfaces on which the LSP will be established can support the
 requested transparency.  If the requested flags cannot be supported,
 the receiver node MUST generate a PathErr/NOTIFICATION message (see
 Sections 2.2 and 2.3, respectively).
 Section/Regenerator Section layer transparency means that the entire
 frames must be delivered unmodified.  This implies that pointers
 cannot be adjusted.  When Section/Regenerator Section layer
 transparency is used all other flags MUST be ignored.

Mannie & Papadimitriou Standards Track [Page 8] RFC 4606 GMPLS Extensions for SONET & SDH Control August 2006

 Line/Multiplex Section layer transparency means that the LOH/MSOH
 must be delivered unmodified.  This implies that pointers cannot be
 adjusted.
 o) Profile (P): 32 bits
 This field is intended to indicate particular capabilities that must
 be supported for the LSP; for example, monitoring capabilities.
 No standard profile is currently defined, and this field SHOULD be
 set to zero when transmitted and ignored when received.
 In the future, TLV-based extensions may be created.

2.2. RSVP-TE Details

 For RSVP-TE, the SONET/SDH traffic parameters are carried in the
 SONET/SDH SENDER_TSPEC and FLOWSPEC objects.  The same format is used
 both for the SENDER_TSPEC object and for FLOWSPEC objects.  The
 content of the objects is defined above, in Section 2.1.  The objects
 have the following class and type for SONET ANSI T1.105 and SDH ITU-T
 G.707:
    SONET/SDH SENDER_TSPEC object: Class = 12, C-Type = 4
    SONET/SDH FLOWSPEC object: Class = 9, C-Type = 4
 There is no Adspec associated with the SONET/SDH SENDER_TSPEC.
 Either the Adspec is omitted, or an int-serv Adspec with the Default
 General Characterization Parameters and Guaranteed Service fragment
 is used; see [RFC2210].
 For a particular sender in a session, the contents of the FLOWSPEC
 object received in a Resv message SHOULD be identical to the contents
 of the SENDER_TSPEC object received in the corresponding Path
 message.  If the objects do not match, a ResvErr message with a
 "Traffic Control Error/Bad Flowspec value" error SHOULD be generated.
 Intermediate and egress nodes MUST verify that the node itself and
 the interfaces on which the LSP will be established can support the
 requested Signal Type, RCC, NCC, NVC and Multiplier (as defined in
 Section 2.1).  If the requested value(s) can not be supported, the
 receiver node MUST generate a PathErr message with a "Traffic Control
 Error/ Service unsupported" indication (see [RFC2205]).
 In addition, if the MT field is received with a zero value, the node
 MUST generate a PathErr message with a "Traffic Control Error/Bad
 Tspec value" indication (see [RFC2205]).

Mannie & Papadimitriou Standards Track [Page 9] RFC 4606 GMPLS Extensions for SONET & SDH Control August 2006

 Intermediate nodes MUST also verify that the node itself and the
 interfaces on which the LSP will be established can support the
 requested Transparency (as defined in Section 2.1).  If the requested
 value(s) cannot be supported, the receiver node MUST generate a
 PathErr message with a "Traffic Control Error/Service unsupported"
 indication (see [RFC2205]).

2.3. CR-LDP Details

 For CR-LDP, the SONET/SDH traffic parameters are carried in the
 SONET/SDH Traffic Parameters TLV.  The content of the TLV is defined
 above, in Section 2.1.  The header of the TLV has the following
 format:
  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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |U|F|          Type             |      Length                   |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 The type field for the SONET/SDH Traffic Parameters TLV is 0x0838.
 Intermediate and egress nodes MUST verify that the node itself and
 the interfaces on which the LSP will be established can support the
 requested Signal Type, RCC, NCC, NVC, and Multiplier (as defined in
 Section 2.1).  If the requested value(s) cannot be supported, the
 receiver node MUST generate a NOTIFICATION message with a "Resource
 Unavailable" status code (see [RFC3212]).
 In addition, if the MT field is received with a zero value, the node
 MUST generate a NOTIFICATION message with a "Resource Unavailable"
 status code (see [RFC3212]).
 Intermediate nodes MUST also verify that the node itself and the
 interfaces on which the LSP will be established can support the
 requested Transparency (as defined in Section 2.1).  If the requested
 value(s) cannot be supported, the receiver node MUST generate a
 NOTIFICATION message with a "Resource Unavailable" status code (see
 [RFC3212]).

Mannie & Papadimitriou Standards Track [Page 10] RFC 4606 GMPLS Extensions for SONET & SDH Control August 2006

3. SONET and SDH Labels

 SONET and SDH each define a multiplexing structure.  Both structures
 are trees whose roots are, respectively, an STS-N or an STM-N and
 whose leaves are the signals that can be transported via the time-
 slots and switched between time-slots within an ingress port and
 time-slots within an egress port; i.e., a VTx SPE, an STS-x SPE, or a
 VC-x.  A SONET/SDH label will identify the exact position (i.e.,
 first time-slot) of a particular VTx SPE, STS-x SPE, or VC-x signal
 in a multiplexing structure.  SONET and SDH labels are carried in the
 Generalized Label per [RFC3473] and [RFC3472].
 Note that by time-slots we mean the time-slots as they appear
 logically and sequentially in the multiplex, not as they appear after
 any possible interleaving.
 These multiplexing structures will be used as naming trees to create
 unique multiplex entry names or labels.  The same format of label is
 used for SONET and SDH.  As explained in [RFC3471], a label does not
 identify the "class" to which the label belongs.  This is implicitly
 determined by the link on which the label is used.
 In case of signal concatenation or multiplication, a list of labels
 can appear in the Label field of a Generalized Label.
 In case of contiguous concatenation, only one label appears in the
 Label field.  This unique label is encoded as a single 32-bit label
 value (as defined in this section) of the Generalized Label object
 (Class-Num = 16, C-Type = 2)/TLV (0x0825).  This label identifies the
 lowest time-slot occupied by the contiguously concatenated signal.
 By lowest time-slot, we mean the one having the lowest label (value)
 when compared as an integer value; i.e., the time-slot occupied by
 the first component signal of the concatenated signal encountered
 descending the tree.
 In case of virtual concatenation, the explicit ordered list of all
 labels in the concatenation is given.  This ordered list of labels is
 encoded as a sequence of 32-bit label values (as defined in this
 section) of the Generalized Label object (Class-Num = 16, C-Type =
 2)/TLV (0x0825).  Each label indicates the first time-slot occupied
 by a component of the virtually concatenated signal.  The order of
 the labels must reflect the order of the payloads to concatenate (not
 the physical order of time-slots).  The above representation limits
 virtual concatenation to remain within a single (component) link; it
 imposes, as such, a restriction compared to the ANSI [T1.105]/ ITU-T
 [G.707] recommendations.  The standard definition for virtual
 concatenation allows each virtual concatenation components to travel
 over diverse paths.  Within GMPLS, virtual concatenation components

Mannie & Papadimitriou Standards Track [Page 11] RFC 4606 GMPLS Extensions for SONET & SDH Control August 2006

 must travel over the same (component) link if they are part of the
 same LSP.  This is due to the way that labels are bound to a
 (component) link.  Note, however, that the routing of components on
 different paths is indeed equivalent to establishing different LSPs,
 each one having its own route.  Several LSPs can be initiated and
 terminated between the same nodes, and their corresponding components
 can then be associated together (i.e., virtually concatenated).
 In case of multiplication (i.e., using the multiplier transform), the
 explicit ordered list of all labels that take part in the Final
 Signal is given.  This ordered list of labels is encoded as a
 sequence of 32-bit label values (as defined in this section) of the
 Generalized Label object (Class-Num = 16, C-Type = 2)/TLV (0x0825).
 In case of multiplication of virtually concatenated signals, the
 explicit ordered list of the set of labels that take part in the
 Final Signal is given.  The first set of labels indicates the time-
 slots occupied by the first virtually concatenated signal, the second
 set of labels indicates the time-slots occupied by the second
 virtually concatenated signal, and so on.  The above representation
 limits multiplication to remain within a single (component) link.
 The format of the label for SONET and/or SDH TDM-LSR link is
  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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |               S               |   U   |   K   |   L   |   M   |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 This is an extension of the numbering scheme defined in [G.707],
 Sections 7.3.7 through 7.3.13; i.e., the (K, L, M) numbering.  Note
 that the higher order numbering scheme defined in [G.707], Sections
 7.3.1 through 7.3.6, is not used here.
 Each letter indicates a possible branch number starting at the parent
 node in the multiplex structure.  Branches are considered as being
 numbered in increasing order, starting from the top of the
 multiplexing structure.  The numbering starts at 1; zero is used to
 indicate a non-significant or ignored field.
 When a field is not significant or ignored in a particular context,
 it MUST be set to zero when transmitted and ignored when received.
 When a hierarchy of SONET/SDH LSPs is used, a higher-order LSP with a
 given bandwidth can be used to carry lower-order LSPs.  Remember that
 a higher-order LSP is established through a SONET/SDH higher-order
 path layer network, and a lower-order LSP through a SONET/SDH lower-
 order path layer network (see also ITU-T G.803, Section 3, for the

Mannie & Papadimitriou Standards Track [Page 12] RFC 4606 GMPLS Extensions for SONET & SDH Control August 2006

 corresponding definitions).  In this context, the higher-order
 SONET/SDH LSP behaves as a "virtual link" with a given bandwidth
 (e.g., VC-3); it may also be used as a Forwarding Adjacency.  A
 lower-order SONET/SDH LSP can be established through that higher-
 order LSP.  Since a label is local to a (virtual) link, the highest
 part of that label (i.e., the S, U, and K fields) is non-significant
 and is set to zero; i.e., the label is "0,0,0,L,M".  Similarly, if
 the structure of the lower-order LSP is unknown or not relevant, the
 lowest part of that label (i.e., the L and M fields) is non-
 significant and is set to zero; i.e., the label is "S,U,K,0,0".
 For instance, a VC-3 LSP can be used to carry lower-order LSPs.  In
 that case, the labels allocated between the two ends of the VC-3 LSP
 for the lower-order LSPs will have S, U, and K set to zero (i.e.,
 non-significant) while L and M will be used to indicate the signal
 allocated in that VC-3.
 In case of tunneling, such as VC-4 containing VC-3 containing
 VC-12/VC-11, where the SUKLM structure is not adequate to represent
 the full signal structure, a hierarchical approach must be used;
 i.e., per layer network signaling.
 The possible values of S, U, K, L, and M are defined as follows:
 1.  S=1->N is the index of a particular STS-3/AUG-1 inside an
     STS-N/STM-N multiplex.  S is only significant for SONET STS-N
     (N>1) and SDH STM-N (N>0).  S must be 0 and ignored for STS-1 and
     STM-0.
 2.  U=1->3 is the index of a particular STS-1_SPE/VC-3 within an
     STS-3/AUG-1.  U is only significant for SONET STS-N (N>1) and SDH
     STM-N (N>0).  U must be 0 and ignored for STS-1 and STM-0.
 3.  K=1->3 is the index of a particular TUG-3 within a VC-4.  K is
     only significant for an SDH VC-4 structured in TUG-3s.  K must be
     0 and ignored in all other cases.
 4.  L=1->7 is the index of a particular VT_Group/TUG-2 within an
     STS-1_SPE/TUG-3 or VC-3.  L must be 0 and ignored in all other
     cases.
 5.  M is the index of a particular VT1.5_SPE/VC-11, VT2_SPE/VC-12, or
     VT3_SPE within a VT_Group/TUG-2.  M=1->2 indicates a specific VT3
     SPE inside the corresponding VT Group; these values MUST NOT be
     used for SDH, since there is no equivalent of VT3 with SDH.
     M=3->5 indicates a specific VT2_SPE/VC-12 inside the
     corresponding VT_Group/TUG-2.  M=6->9 indicates a specific
     VT1.5_SPE/VC-11 inside the corresponding VT_Group/TUG-2.

Mannie & Papadimitriou Standards Track [Page 13] RFC 4606 GMPLS Extensions for SONET & SDH Control August 2006

 Note that a label always has to be interpreted according the
 SONET/SDH traffic parameters; i.e., a label by itself does not allow
 knowing which signal is being requested (a label is context
 sensitive).
 The label format defined in this section, referred to as SUKLM, MUST
 be used for any SONET/SDH signal requests that are not transparent;
 i.e., when all Transparency (T) bits defined in Section 2.1 are set
 to zero.  Any transparent STS-1/STM-0/STS-3*N/STM-N (N=1, 4, 16, 64,
 256) signal request MUST use a label format as defined in [RFC3471].
 The S encoding is summarized in the following table:
  S    SDH                     SONET
 ------------------------------------------------
  0    other                   other
  1    1st AUG-1               1st STS-3
  2    2nd AUG-1               2nd STS-3
  3    3rd AUG-1               3rd STS-3
  4    4rd AUG-1               4rd STS-3
  :    :                       :
  N    Nth AUG-1               Nth STS-3
 The U encoding is summarized in the following table:
  U    SDH AUG-1               SONET STS-3
 -------------------------------------------------
  0    other                   other
  1    1st VC-3                1st STS-1 SPE
  2    2nd VC-3                2nd STS-1 SPE
  3    3rd VC-3                3rd STS-1 SPE
 The K encoding is summarized in the following table:
  K    SDH VC-4
 ---------------
  0    other
  1    1st TUG-3
  2    2nd TUG-3
  3    3rd TUG-3

Mannie & Papadimitriou Standards Track [Page 14] RFC 4606 GMPLS Extensions for SONET & SDH Control August 2006

 The L encoding is summarized in the following table:
  L    SDH TUG-3    SDH VC-3    SONET STS-1 SPE
 -------------------------------------------------
  0    other        other       other
  1    1st TUG-2    1st TUG-2   1st VTG
  2    2nd TUG-2    2nd TUG-2   2nd VTG
  3    3rd TUG-2    3rd TUG-2   3rd VTG
  4    4th TUG-2    4th TUG-2   4th VTG
  5    5th TUG-2    5th TUG-2   5th VTG
  6    6th TUG-2    6th TUG-2   6th VTG
  7    7th TUG-2    7th TUG-2   7th VTG
 The M encoding is summarized in the following table:
  M    SDH TUG-2                 SONET VTG
 -------------------------------------------------
  0    other                     other
  1    -                         1st VT3 SPE
  2    -                         2nd VT3 SPE
  3    1st VC-12                 1st VT2 SPE
  4    2nd VC-12                 2nd VT2 SPE
  5    3rd VC-12                 3rd VT2 SPE
  6    1st VC-11                 1st VT1.5 SPE
  7    2nd VC-11                 2nd VT1.5 SPE
  8    3rd VC-11                 3rd VT1.5 SPE
  9    4th VC-11                 4th VT1.5 SPE
 Examples of Labels
 Example 1: the label for the STS-3c_SPE/VC-4 in the Sth
            STS-3/AUG-1 is: S>0, U=0, K=0, L=0, M=0.
 Example 2: the label for the VC-3 within the Kth-1 TUG-3 within
            the VC-4 in the Sth AUG-1 is: S>0, U=0, K>0, L=0, M=0.
 Example 3: the label for the Uth-1 STS-1_SPE/VC-3 within the Sth
            STS-3/AUG-1 is: S>0, U>0, K=0, L=0, M=0.
 Example 4: the label for the VT6/VC-2 in the Lth-1 VT Group/TUG-2
            in the Uth-1 STS-1_SPE/VC-3 within the Sth STS-3/AUG-1
            is: S>0, U>0, K=0, L>0, M=0.
 Example 5: the label for the 3rd VT1.5_SPE/VC-11 in the Lth-1 VT
            Group/TUG-2 within the Uth-1 STS-1_SPE/VC-3 within the
            Sth STS-3/AUG-1 is: S>0, U>0, K=0, L>0, M=8.

Mannie & Papadimitriou Standards Track [Page 15] RFC 4606 GMPLS Extensions for SONET & SDH Control August 2006

 Example 6: the label for the STS-12c SPE/VC-4-4c which uses the
            9th STS-3/AUG-1 as its first timeslot is: S=9, U=0,
            K=0, L=0, M=0.
 In case of contiguous concatenation, the label that is used is the
 lowest label (value) of the contiguously concatenated signal, as
 explained before.  The higher part of the label indicates where the
 signal starts, and the lowest part is not significant.
 In case of STM-0/STS-1, the values of S, U, and K must be equal to
 zero, according to the field coding rules.  For instance, when a VC-3
 in an STM-0 is requested, the label is S=0, U=0, K=0, L=0, M=0.  When
 a VC-11 in a VC-3 in an STM-0 is requested, the label is S=0, U=0,
 K=0, L>0, M=6..9.
 Note: when a Section/RS or Line/MS transparent STS-1/STM-0/
 STS-3*N/STM-N (N=1, 4, 16, 64, 256) signal is requested, the SUKLM
 label format and encoding is not applicable, and the label encoding
 MUST follow the rules defined in [RFC3471], Section 3.2.

4. Acknowledgements

 Valuable comments and input were received from the CCAMP mailing
 list, where outstanding discussions took place.
 The authors would like to thank Richard Rabbat for his valuable
 input, which lead to this revision.

5. Security Considerations

 This document introduces no new security considerations to either
 [RFC3473] or [RFC3472].  GMPLS security is described in Section 11 of
 [RFC3471] and refers to [RFC3209] for RSVP-TE and to [RFC3212] for
 CR-LDP.

6. IANA Considerations

 Three values defined by IANA for RFC 3946 now apply to this document.
 Two RSVP C-Types in registry:
    http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters
  1. A SONET/SDH SENDER_TSPEC object: Class = 12, C-Type = 4 (see

Section 2.2).

  1. A SONET/SDH FLOWSPEC object: Class = 9, C-Type = 4 (see Section

2.2).

Mannie & Papadimitriou Standards Track [Page 16] RFC 4606 GMPLS Extensions for SONET & SDH Control August 2006

 One LDP TLV Type in registry:
    http://www.iana.org/assignments/ldp-namespaces
  1. A type field for the SONET/SDH Traffic Parameters TLV (see Section

2.3).

Contributors

 Contributors are listed in alphabetical order:
 Stefan Ansorge (Alcatel)
 Lorenzstrasse 10
 70435 Stuttgart, Germany
 EMail: stefan.ansorge@alcatel.de
 Peter Ashwood-Smith (Nortel)
 PO. Box 3511 Station C,
 Ottawa, ON K1Y 4H7, Canada
 EMail:petera@nortelnetworks.com
 Ayan Banerjee (Calient)
 5853 Rue Ferrari
 San Jose, CA 95138, USA
 EMail: abanerjee@calient.net
 Lou Berger (Movaz)
 7926 Jones Branch Drive
 McLean, VA 22102, USA
 EMail: lberger@movaz.com
 Greg Bernstein (Ciena)
 10480 Ridgeview Court
 Cupertino, CA 94014, USA
 EMail: greg@ciena.com
 Angela Chiu (Celion)
 One Sheila Drive, Suite 2
 Tinton Falls, NJ 07724-2658
 EMail: angela.chiu@celion.com
 John Drake (Calient)
 5853 Rue Ferrari
 San Jose, CA 95138, USA
 EMail: jdrake@calient.net

Mannie & Papadimitriou Standards Track [Page 17] RFC 4606 GMPLS Extensions for SONET & SDH Control August 2006

 Yanhe Fan (Axiowave)
 100 Nickerson Road
 Marlborough, MA 01752, USA
 EMail: yfan@axiowave.com
 Michele Fontana (Alcatel)
 Via Trento 30,
 I-20059 Vimercate, Italy
 EMail: michele.fontana@alcatel.it
 Gert Grammel (Alcatel)
 Lorenzstrasse, 10
 70435 Stuttgart, Germany
 EMail: gert.grammel@alcatel.de
 Juergen Heiles (Siemens)
 Hofmannstr. 51
 D-81379 Munich, Germany
 EMail: juergen.heiles@siemens.com
 Suresh Katukam (Cisco)
 1450 N. McDowell Blvd,
 Petaluma, CA 94954-6515, USA
 EMail: suresh.katukam@cisco.com
 Kireeti Kompella (Juniper)
 1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
 Sunnyvale, CA 94089, USA
 EMail: kireeti@juniper.net
 Jonathan P. Lang (Calient)
 25 Castilian
 Goleta, CA 93117, USA
 EMail: jplang@calient.net
 Fong Liaw (Solas Research)
 EMail: fongliaw@yahoo.com
 Zhi-Wei Lin (Lucent)
 101 Crawfords Corner Rd
 Holmdel, NJ  07733-3030, USA
 EMail: zwlin@lucent.com
 Ben Mack-Crane (Tellabs)
 EMail: ben.mack-crane@tellabs.com

Mannie & Papadimitriou Standards Track [Page 18] RFC 4606 GMPLS Extensions for SONET & SDH Control August 2006

 Dimitrios Pendarakis (Tellium)
 2 Crescent Place, P.O. Box 901
 Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901, USA
 EMail: dpendarakis@tellium.com
 Mike Raftelis (White Rock)
 18111 Preston Road
 Dallas, TX 75252, USA
 Bala Rajagopalan (Tellium)
 2 Crescent Place, P.O. Box 901
 Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901, USA
 EMail: braja@tellium.com
 Yakov Rekhter (Juniper)
 1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
 Sunnyvale, CA 94089, USA
 EMail: yakov@juniper.net
 Debanjan Saha (Tellium)
 2 Crescent Place, P.O. Box 901
 Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901, USA
 EMail: dsaha@tellium.com
 Vishal Sharma (Metanoia)
 335 Elan Village Lane
 San Jose, CA 95134, USA
 EMail: vsharma87@yahoo.com
 George Swallow (Cisco)
 250 Apollo Drive
 Chelmsford, MA 01824, USA
 EMail: swallow@cisco.com
 Z. Bo Tang (Tellium)
 2 Crescent Place, P.O. Box 901
 Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901, USA
 EMail: btang@tellium.com
 Eve Varma (Lucent)
 101 Crawfords Corner Rd
 Holmdel, NJ  07733-3030, USA
 EMail: evarma@lucent.com
 Yangguang Xu (Lucent)
 21-2A41, 1600 Osgood Street
 North Andover, MA 01845, USA
 EMail: xuyg@lucent.com

Mannie & Papadimitriou Standards Track [Page 19] RFC 4606 GMPLS Extensions for SONET & SDH Control August 2006

Appendix 1. Signal Type Values Extension for VC-3

 This appendix defines the following optional additional Signal
 Type value for the Signal Type field of Section 2.1:
 Value         Type
 -----  ---------------------
  20     "VC-3 via AU-3 at the end"
 According to the ITU-T [G.707] recommendation, a VC-3 in the TU-
 3/TUG-3/VC-4/AU-4 branch of the SDH multiplex cannot be structured in
 TUG-2s; however, a VC-3 in the AU-3 branch can be.  In addition, a
 VC-3 could be switched between the two branches, if required.
 A VC-3 circuit could be terminated on an ingress interface of an LSR
 (e.g., forming a VC-3 forwarding adjacency).  This LSR could then
 want to demultiplex this VC-3 and switch internal low-order LSPs.
 For implementation reasons, this could be only possible if the LSR
 receives the VC-3 in the AU-3 branch.  For example, for an LSR not
 able to switch internally from a TU-3 branch to an AU-3 branch on its
 incoming interface before demultiplexing and then switching the
 content with its switch fabric.
 In that case, it is useful to indicate that the VC-3 LSP must be
 terminated at the end in the AU-3 branch instead of the TU-3 branch.
 This is achieved by using the "VC-3 via AU-3 at the end" signal type.
 This information can be used, for instance, by the penultimate LSR to
 switch an incoming VC-3 received in any branch to the AU-3 branch on
 the outgoing interface to the destination LSR.
 The "VC-3 via AU-3 at the end" signal type does not imply that the
 VC-3 must be switched via the AU-3 branch at some other places in the
 network.  The VC-3 signal type just indicates that a VC-3 in any
 branch is suitable.

Annex 1. Examples

 This annex defines examples of SONET and SDH signal coding.  The
 objective is to help the reader to understand how the traffic
 parameter coding works and not to give examples of typical SONET or
 SDH signals.
 As stated above, signal types are Elementary Signals to which
 successive concatenation, multiplication, and transparency transforms
 can be applied to obtain Final Signals.

Mannie & Papadimitriou Standards Track [Page 20] RFC 4606 GMPLS Extensions for SONET & SDH Control August 2006

 1.   A VC-4 signal is formed by the application of RCC with value 0,
      NCC with value 0, NVC with value 0, MT with value 1, and T with
      value 0 to a VC-4 Elementary Signal.
 2.   A VC-4-7v signal is formed by the application of RCC with value
      0, NCC with value 0, NVC with value 7 (virtual concatenation of
      7 components), MT with value 1, and T with value 0 to a VC-4
      Elementary Signal.
 3.   A VC-4-16c signal is formed by the application of RCC with value
      1 (standard contiguous concatenation), NCC with value 16, NVC
      with value 0, MT with value 1, and T with value 0 to a VC-4
      Elementary Signal.
 4.   An STM-16 signal with Multiplex Section layer transparency is
      formed by the application of RCC with value 0, NCC with value 0,
      NVC with value 0, MT with value 1, and T with flag 2 to an
      STM-16 Elementary Signal.
 5.   An STM-4 signal with Multiplex Section layer transparency is
      formed by the application of RCC with value 0, NCC with value 0,
      NVC with value 0, MT with value 1, and T with flag 2 applied to
      an STM-4 Elementary Signal.
 6.   An STM-256 signal with Multiplex Section layer transparency is
      formed by the application of RCC with value 0, NCC with value 0,
      NVC with value 0, MT with value 1, and T with flag 2 applied to
      an STM-256 Elementary Signal.
 7.   An STS-1 SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC with
      value 0, NCC with value 0, NVC with value 0, MT with value 1,
      and T with value 0 to an STS-1 SPE Elementary Signal.
 8.   An STS-3c SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC with
      value 1 (standard contiguous concatenation), NCC with value 1,
      NVC with value 0, MT with value 1, and T with value 0 to an
      STS-3c SPE Elementary Signal.
 9.   An STS-48c SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC with
      value 1 (standard contiguous concatenation), NCC with value 16,
      NVC with value 0, MT with value 1, and T with value 0 to an
      STS-3c SPE Elementary Signal.
 10.  An STS-1-3v SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC with
      value 0, NVC with value 3 (virtual concatenation of 3
      components), MT with value 1, and T with value 0 to an STS-1 SPE
      Elementary Signal.

Mannie & Papadimitriou Standards Track [Page 21] RFC 4606 GMPLS Extensions for SONET & SDH Control August 2006

 11.  An STS-3c-9v SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC with
      value 1, NCC with value 1, NVC with value 9 (virtual
      concatenation of 9 STS-3c), MT with value 1, and T with value 0
      to an STS-3c SPE Elementary Signal.
 12.  An STS-12 signal with Section layer (full) transparency is
      formed by the application of RCC with value 0, NCC with value 0,
      NVC with value 0, MT with value 1, and T with flag 1 to an
      STS-12 Elementary Signal.
 13.  A 3 x STS-768c SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC
      with value 1, NCC with value 256, NVC with value 0, MT with
      value 3, and T with value 0 to an STS-3c SPE Elementary Signal.
 14.  A 5 x VC-4-13v composed signal is formed by the application of
      RCC with value 0, NVC with value 13, MT with value 5, and T with
      value 0 to a VC-4 Elementary Signal.
 The encoding of these examples is summarized in the following table:
 Signal                     ST   RCC   NCC   NVC   MT   T
 --------------------------------------------------------
 VC-4                        6     0     0     0    1   0
 VC-4-7v                     6     0     0     7    1   0
 VC-4-16c                    6     1    16     0    1   0
 STM-16 MS transparent      10     0     0     0    1   2
 STM-4 MS transparent        9     0     0     0    1   2
 STM-256 MS transparent     12     0     0     0    1   2
 STS-1 SPE                   5     0     0     0    1   0
 STS-3c SPE                  6     1     1     0    1   0
 STS-48c SPE                 6     1    16     0    1   0
 STS-1-3v SPE                5     0     0     3    1   0
 STS-3c-9v SPE               6     1     1     9    1   0
 STS-12 Section transparent  9     0     0     0    1   1
 3 x STS-768c SPE            6     1   256     0    3   0
 5 x VC-4-13v                6     0     0    13    5   0

Mannie & Papadimitriou Standards Track [Page 22] RFC 4606 GMPLS Extensions for SONET & SDH Control August 2006

Normative References

 [G.707]     ITU-T Recommendation G.707, "Network Node Interface for
             the Synchronous Digital Hierarchy", October 2000.
 [RFC2119]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
             Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
 [RFC2205]   Braden, R., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
             Jamin, "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.
 [RFC3209]   Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
             and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
             Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
 [RFC3212]   Jamoussi, B., Andersson, L., Callon, R., Dantu, R., Wu,
             L., Doolan, P., Worster, T., Feldman, N., Fredette, A.,
             Girish, M., Gray, E., Heinanen, J., Kilty, T., and A.
             Malis, "Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP", RFC 3212,
             January 2002.
 [RFC3471]   Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
             (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471,
             January 2003.
 [RFC3472]   Ashwood-Smith, P. and L. Berger, "Generalized Multi-
             Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Constraint-
             based Routed Label Distribution Protocol (CR-LDP)
             Extensions", RFC 3472, January 2003.
 [RFC3473]   Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
             (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
             Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January
             2003.
 [RFC3945]   Mannie, E., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
             (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004.
 [T1.105]   "Synchronous Optical Network (SONET): Basic Description
             Including Multiplex Structure, Rates, and Formats", ANSI
             T1.105, October 2000.

Mannie & Papadimitriou Standards Track [Page 23] RFC 4606 GMPLS Extensions for SONET & SDH Control August 2006

Authors' Addresses

 Eric Mannie
 Perceval
 Rue Tenbosch, 9
 1000 Brussels
 Belgium
 Phone: +32-2-6409194
 EMail: eric.mannie@perceval.net
 Dimitri Papadimitriou
 Alcatel
 Copernicuslaan 50
 B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
 Phone: +32 3 240-8491
 EMail: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be

Mannie & Papadimitriou Standards Track [Page 24] RFC 4606 GMPLS Extensions for SONET & SDH Control August 2006

Full Copyright Statement

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
 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 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.

Intellectual Property

 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.

Acknowledgement

 Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
 Administrative Support Activity (IASA).

Mannie & Papadimitriou Standards Track [Page 25]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc4606.txt · Last modified: 2006/08/18 18:39 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki