GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc5467

Network Working Group L. Berger Request for Comments: 5467 LabN Category: Experimental A. Takacs

                                                              Ericsson
                                                           D. Caviglia
                                                              Ericsson
                                                              D. Fedyk
                                                                Nortel
                                                             J. Meuric
                                                        France Telecom
                                                            March 2009
GMPLS Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs)

Status of This Memo

 This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
 community.  It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
 Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested.
 Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
 document authors.  All rights reserved.
 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
 publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
 Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
 and restrictions with respect to this document.
 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.

Berger, et al. Experimental [Page 1] RFC 5467 Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSP March 2009

Abstract

 This document defines a method for the support of GMPLS asymmetric
 bandwidth bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs).  The presented
 approach is applicable to any switching technology and builds on the
 original Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) model for the transport
 of traffic-related parameters.  The procedures described in this
 document are experimental.

Table of Contents

 1. Introduction ....................................................2
    1.1. Background .................................................3
    1.2. Approach Overview ..........................................3
    1.3. Conventions Used in This Document ..........................4
 2. Generalized Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs .............4
    2.1. UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object ...................................5
         2.1.1. Procedures ..........................................5
    2.2. UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object ......................................5
         2.2.1. Procedures ..........................................5
    2.3. UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object .....................................6
         2.3.1. Procedures ..........................................6
 3. Packet Formats ..................................................6
 4. Compatibility ...................................................7
 5. IANA Considerations .............................................8
    5.1. UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object ...................................8
    5.2. UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object ......................................8
    5.3. UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object .....................................8
 6. Security Considerations .........................................8
 7. References ......................................................9
    7.1. Normative References .......................................9
    7.2. Informative References .....................................9
 Appendix A. Alternate Approach Using ADSPEC Object.................11
    A.1. Applicability .............................................11
    A.2. Overview ..................................................11
    A.3. Procedures ................................................12
    A.4. Compatibility .............................................13

1. Introduction

 GMPLS [RFC3473] introduced explicit support for bidirectional Label
 Switched Paths (LSPs).  The defined support matched the switching
 technologies covered by GMPLS, notably Time Division Multiplexing
 (TDM) and lambdas; specifically, it only supported bidirectional LSPs
 with symmetric bandwidth allocation.  Symmetric bandwidth
 requirements are conveyed using the semantics objects defined in
 [RFC2205] and [RFC2210].

Berger, et al. Experimental [Page 2] RFC 5467 Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSP March 2009

 Recent work ([GMPLS-PBBTE] and [MEF-TRAFFIC]) has looked at extending
 GMPLS to control Ethernet switching.  In this context, there has been
 discussion of the support of bidirectional LSPs with asymmetric
 bandwidth.  (That is, bidirectional LSPs that have different
 bandwidth reservations in each direction.)  This discussion motivated
 the extensions defined in this document, which may be used with any
 switching technology to signal asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional
 LSPs.  The procedures described in this document are experimental.

1.1. Background

 Bandwidth parameters are transported within RSVP ([RFC2210],
 [RFC3209], and [RFC3473]) via several objects that are opaque to
 RSVP.  While opaque to RSVP, these objects support a particular model
 for the communication of bandwidth information between an RSVP
 session sender (ingress) and receiver (egress).  The original model
 of communication, defined in [RFC2205] and maintained in [RFC3209],
 used the SENDER_TSPEC and ADSPEC objects in Path messages and the
 FLOWSPEC object in Resv messages.  The SENDER_TSPEC object was used
 to indicate a sender's data generation capabilities.  The FLOWSPEC
 object was issued by the receiver and indicated the resources that
 should be allocated to the associated data traffic.  The ADSPEC
 object was used to inform the receiver and intermediate hops of the
 actual resources allocated for the associated data traffic.
 With the introduction of bidirectional LSPs in [RFC3473], the model
 of communication of bandwidth parameters was implicitly changed.  In
 the context of [RFC3473] bidirectional LSPs, the SENDER_TSPEC object
 indicates the desired resources for both upstream and downstream
 directions.  The FLOWSPEC object is simply confirmation of the
 allocated resources.  The definition of the ADSPEC object is either
 unmodified and only has meaning for downstream traffic, or is
 implicitly or explicitly ([RFC4606] and [MEF-TRAFFIC]) irrelevant.

1.2. Approach Overview

 The approach for supporting asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSPs
 defined in this document builds on the original RSVP model for the
 transport of traffic-related parameters and GMPLS's support for
 bidirectional LSPs.  An alternative approach was considered and
 rejected in favor of the more generic approach presented below.  For
 reference purposes only, the rejected approach is summarized in
 Appendix A.
 The defined approach is generic and can be applied to any switching
 technology supported by GMPLS.  With this approach, the existing
 SENDER_TSPEC, ADSPEC, and FLOWSPEC objects are complemented with the
 addition of new UPSTREAM_TSPEC, UPSTREAM_ADSPEC, and

Berger, et al. Experimental [Page 3] RFC 5467 Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSP March 2009

 UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC objects.  The existing objects are used in the
 original fashion defined in [RFC2205] and [RFC2210], and refer only
 to traffic associated with the LSP flowing in the downstream
 direction.  The new objects are used in exactly the same fashion as
 the old objects, but refer to the upstream traffic flow.  Figure 1
 shows the bandwidth-related objects used for asymmetric bandwidth
 bidirectional LSPs.
                      |---|        Path        |---|
                      | I |------------------->| E |
                      | n | -SENDER_TSPEC      | g |
                      | g | -ADSPEC            | r |
                      | r | -UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC | e |
                      | e |                    | s |
                      | s |        Resv        | s |
                      | s |<-------------------|   |
                      |   | -FLOWSPEC          |   |
                      |   | -UPSTREAM_TSPEC    |   |
                      |   | -UPSTREAM_ADSPEC   |   |
                      |---|                    |---|
       Figure 1: Generic Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs
 The extensions defined in this document are limited to Point-to-Point
 (P2P) LSPs.  Support for Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) bidirectional
 LSPs is not currently defined and, as such, not covered in this
 document.

1.3. 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].

2. Generalized Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs

 The setup of an asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP is signaled
 using the bidirectional procedures defined in [RFC3473] together with
 the inclusion of the new UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC, UPSTREAM_TSPEC, and
 UPSTREAM_ADSPEC objects.
 The new upstream objects carry the same information and are used in
 the same fashion as the existing downstream objects; they differ in
 that they relate to traffic flowing in the upstream direction while
 the existing objects relate to traffic flowing in the downstream
 direction.  The new objects also differ in that they are used on
 messages in the opposite directions.

Berger, et al. Experimental [Page 4] RFC 5467 Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSP March 2009

2.1. UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object

 The format of an UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object is the same as a FLOWSPEC
 object.  This includes the definition of class types and their
 formats.  The class number of the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object is 120 (of
 the form 0bbbbbbb).

2.1.1. Procedures

 The Path message of an asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP MUST
 contain an UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object and MUST use the bidirectional
 LSP formats and procedures defined in [RFC3473].  The C-Type of the
 UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object MUST match the C-Type of the SENDER_TSPEC
 object used in the Path message.  The contents of the
 UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object MUST be constructed using a format and
 procedures consistent with those used to construct the FLOWSPEC
 object that will be used for the LSP, e.g., [RFC2210] or [RFC4328].
 Nodes processing a Path message containing an UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC
 object MUST use the contents of the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object in the
 upstream label and the resource allocation procedure defined in
 Section 3.1 of [RFC3473].  Consistent with [RFC3473], a node that is
 unable to allocate a label or internal resources based on the
 contents of the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object MUST issue a PathErr message
 with a "Routing problem/MPLS label allocation failure" indication.

2.2. UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object

 The format of an UPSTREAM_TSPEC object is the same as a SENDER_TSPEC
 object.  This includes the definition of class types and their
 formats.  The class number of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object is 121 (of
 the form 0bbbbbbb).

2.2.1. Procedures

 The UPSTREAM_TSPEC object describes the traffic flow that originates
 at the egress.  The UPSTREAM_TSPEC object MUST be included in any
 Resv message that corresponds to a Path message containing an
 UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object.  The C-Type of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object
 MUST match the C-Type of the corresponding UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object.
 The contents of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object MUST be constructed using a
 format and procedures consistent with those used to construct the
 FLOWSPEC object that will be used for the LSP, e.g., [RFC2210] or
 [RFC4328].  The contents of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object MAY differ from
 contents of the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object based on application data
 transmission requirements.

Berger, et al. Experimental [Page 5] RFC 5467 Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSP March 2009

 When an UPSTREAM_TSPEC object is received by an ingress, the ingress
 MAY determine that the original reservation is insufficient to
 satisfy the traffic flow.  In this case, the ingress MAY issue a Path
 message with an updated UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object to modify the
 resources requested for the upstream traffic flow.  This modification
 might require the LSP to be re-routed, and in extreme cases might
 result in the LSP being torn down when sufficient resources are not
 available.

2.3. UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object

 The format of an UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object is the same as an ADSPEC
 object.  This includes the definition of class types and their
 formats.  The class number of the UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object is 122 (of
 the form 0bbbbbbb).

2.3.1. Procedures

 The UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object MAY be included in any Resv message that
 corresponds to a Path message containing an UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object.
 The C-Type of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object MUST be consistent with the
 C-Type of the corresponding UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object.  The contents
 of the UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object MUST be constructed using a format and
 procedures consistent with those used to construct the ADSPEC object
 that will be used for the LSP, e.g., [RFC2210] or [MEF-TRAFFIC].  The
 UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object is processed using the same procedures as the
 ADSPEC object and, as such, MAY be updated or added at transit nodes.

3. Packet Formats

 This section presents the RSVP message-related formats as modified by
 this section.  This document modifies formats defined in [RFC2205],
 [RFC3209], and [RFC3473].  See [RSVP-BNF] for the syntax used by
 RSVP.  Unmodified formats are not listed.  Three new objects are
 defined in this section:
    Object name            Applicable RSVP messages
    ---------------        ------------------------
    UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC      Path, PathTear, PathErr, and Notify
                               (via sender descriptor)
    UPSTREAM_TSPEC         Resv, ResvConf, ResvTear, ResvErr, and
                               Notify (via flow descriptor list)
    UPSTREAM_ADSPEC        Resv, ResvConf, ResvTear, ResvErr, and
                               Notify (via flow descriptor list)

Berger, et al. Experimental [Page 6] RFC 5467 Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSP March 2009

 The format of the sender description for bidirectional asymmetric
 LSPs is:
    <sender descriptor> ::=  <SENDER_TEMPLATE> <SENDER_TSPEC>
                             [ <ADSPEC> ]
                             [ <RECORD_ROUTE> ]
                             [ <SUGGESTED_LABEL> ]
                             [ <RECOVERY_LABEL> ]
                             <UPSTREAM_LABEL>
                             <UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC>
 The format of the flow descriptor list for bidirectional asymmetric
 LSPs is:
    <flow descriptor list> ::= <FF flow descriptor list>
                             | <SE flow descriptor>
    <FF flow descriptor list> ::= <FLOWSPEC>
                             <UPSTREAM_TSPEC> [ <UPSTREAM_ADSPEC> ]
                             <FILTER_SPEC>
                             <LABEL> [ <RECORD_ROUTE> ]
                             | <FF flow descriptor list>
                             <FF flow descriptor>
    <FF flow descriptor> ::= [ <FLOWSPEC> ]
                             [ <UPSTREAM_TSPEC>] [ <UPSTREAM_ADSPEC> ]
                             <FILTER_SPEC> <LABEL>
                             [ <RECORD_ROUTE> ]
    <SE flow descriptor> ::= <FLOWSPEC>
                             <UPSTREAM_TSPEC> [ <UPSTREAM_ADSPEC> ]
                             <SE filter spec list>
    <SE filter spec list> is unmodified by this document.

4. Compatibility

 This extension reuses and extends semantics and procedures defined in
 [RFC2205], [RFC3209], and [RFC3473] to support bidirectional LSPs
 with asymmetric bandwidth.  To indicate the use of asymmetric
 bandwidth, three new objects are defined.  Each of these objects is
 defined with class numbers in the form 0bbbbbbb.  Per [RFC2205],
 nodes not supporting this extension will not recognize the new class
 numbers and should respond with an "Unknown Object Class" error.  The
 error message will propagate to the ingress, which can then take
 action to avoid the path with the incompatible node or may simply
 terminate the session.

Berger, et al. Experimental [Page 7] RFC 5467 Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSP March 2009

5. IANA Considerations

 IANA has assigned new values for namespaces defined in this section
 and reviewed in this subsection.
 The IANA has made the assignments described below in the "Class
 Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types" section of the "RSVP
 PARAMETERS" registry.

5.1. UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object

 A new class named UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC has been created in the 0bbbbbbb
 range (120) with the following definition:
    Class Types or C-types:
    Same values as FLOWSPEC object (C-Num 9)

5.2. UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object

 A new class named UPSTREAM_TSPEC has been created in the 0bbbbbbb
 range (121) with the following definition:
    Class Types or C-types:
    Same values as SENDER_TSPEC object (C-Num 12)

5.3. UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object

 A new class named UPSTREAM_ADSPEC has been created in the 0bbbbbbb
 range (122) with the following definition:
    Class Types or C-types:
    Same values as ADSPEC object (C-Num 13)

6. Security Considerations

 This document introduces new message objects for use in GMPLS
 signaling [RFC3473] -- specifically the UPSTREAM_TSPEC,
 UPSTREAM_ADSPEC, and UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC objects.  These objects
 parallel the exiting SENDER_TSPEC, ADSPEC, and FLOWSPEC objects but
 are used in the opposite direction.  As such, any vulnerabilities
 that are due to the use of the old objects now apply to messages
 flowing in the reverse direction.

Berger, et al. Experimental [Page 8] RFC 5467 Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSP March 2009

 From a message standpoint, this document does not introduce any new
 signaling messages or change the relationship between LSRs that are
 adjacent in the control plane.  As such, this document introduces no
 additional message- or neighbor-related security considerations.
 See [RFC3473] for relevant security considerations, and [SEC-
 FRAMEWORK] for a more general discussion on RSVP-TE security
 discussions.

7. References

7.1. Normative References

 [RFC2205]       Braden, R., Ed., 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.
 [RFC2119]       Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
                 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 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.
 [RFC3473]       Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
                 Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation
                 Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions",
                 RFC 3473, January 2003.

7.2. Informative References

 [GMPLS-PBBTE]   Fedyk, D., et al "GMPLS Control of Ethernet", Work in
                 Progress, July 2008.
 [MEF-TRAFFIC]   Papadimitriou, D., "MEF Ethernet Traffic Parameters,"
                 Work in Progress, October 2008.
 [RFC4606]       Mannie, E. and D. Papadimitriou, "Generalized Multi-
                 Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for
                 Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous
                 Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control", RFC 4606, August
                 2006.

Berger, et al. Experimental [Page 9] RFC 5467 Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSP March 2009

 [RFC4328]       Papadimitriou, D., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol
                 Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for
                 G.709 Optical Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328,
                 January 2006.
 [RSVP-BNF]      Farrel, A. "Reduced Backus-Naur Form (RBNF) A Syntax
                 Used in Various Protocol Specifications", Work in
                 Progress, November 2008.
 [SEC-FRAMEWORK] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
                 Networks", Work in Progress, November 2008.

Berger, et al. Experimental [Page 10] RFC 5467 Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSP March 2009

A. Appendix A: Alternate Approach Using ADSPEC Object

 This section is included for historic purposes and its implementation
 is NOT RECOMMENDED.

A.1. Applicability

 This section presents an alternate method for the support of
 asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP establishment with a single
 RSVP-TE signaling session.  This approach differs in applicability
 and generality from the approach presented in the main body of this
 document.  In particular, this approach is technology-specific; it
 uses the ADSPEC object to carry traffic parameters for upstream data
 and requires the Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) Ethernet Traffic
 Parameter, while the approach presented above is suitable for use
 with any technology.
 The generalized asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP presented in
 the main body of this document has the benefit of being applicable to
 any switching technology, but requires support for three new types of
 object classes, i.e., the UPSTREAM_TSPEC, UPSTREAM_ADSPEC, and
 UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC objects.
 The solution presented in this section is based on the
  Ethernet-specific ADSPEC object, and is referred to as the "ADSPEC
 Object" approach.  This approach limits applicability to cases where
 the [MEF-TRAFFIC] traffic parameters are appropriate, and to
 switching technologies that define no use for the ADSPEC object.
 While ultimately it is this limited scope that has resulted in this
 approach being relegated to an Appendix, the semantics of this
 approach are quite simple in that they only require the definition of
 a new ADSPEC object C-Type.
 In summary, the "ADSPEC Object" approach presented in this section
 SHOULD NOT be implemented.

A.2. Overview

 The "ADSPEC Object" approach is specific to Ethernet and uses [MEF-
 TRAFFIC] traffic parameters.  This approach is not generic and is
 aimed at providing asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSPs for just
 Ethernet transport.  With this approach, the ADSPEC object carries
 the traffic parameters for the upstream data flow.  SENDER_TSPEC
 object is used to indicate the traffic parameters for the downstream
 data flow.  The FLOWSPEC object provides confirmation of the
 allocated downstream resources.  Confirmation of the upstream
 resource allocation is a Resv message, as any resource allocation

Berger, et al. Experimental [Page 11] RFC 5467 Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSP March 2009

 failure for the upstream direction will always result in a PathErr
 message.  Figure 2 shows the bandwidth-related objects used in the
 first approach.
                          |---|        Path      |---|
                          | I |----------------->| E |
                          | n | -SENDER_TSPEC    | g |
                          | g | -ADSPEC          | r |
                          | r |                  | e |
                          | e |        Resv      | s |
                          | s |<-----------------| s |
                          | s | -FLOWSPEC        |   |
                          |---|                  |---|
 Figure 2: Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs Using ADSPEC Object
 In the "ADSPEC Object" approach, the setup of an asymmetric bandwidth
 bidirectional LSP would be signaled using the bidirectional
 procedures defined in [RFC3473] together with the inclusion of a new
 ADSPEC object.  The new ADSPEC object would be specific to Ethernet
 and could be called the Ethernet Upstream Traffic Parameter ADSPEC
 object.  The Ethernet Upstream Traffic Parameter ADSPEC object would
 use the Class-Number 13 and C-Type UNASSIGNED (this approach should
 not be implemented).  The format of the object would be the same as
 the Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object defined in [MEF-TRAFFIC].
 This approach would not modify behavior of symmetric bandwidth LSPs.
 Per [MEF-TRAFFIC], such LSPs are signaled either without an ADSPEC or
 with an INTSERV ADSPEC.
 The defined approach could be reused to support asymmetric bandwidth
 bidirectional LSPs for other types of switching technologies.  All
 that would be needed would be to define the proper ADSPEC object.

A.3. Procedures

 Using the approach presented in this section, the process of
 establishing an asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP would follow
 the process of establishing a symmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP,
 as defined in Section 3 of [RFC3473], with two modifications.  These
 modifications would be followed when an incoming Path message is
 received containing an Upstream_Label object and the Ethernet
 Upstream Traffic Parameter ADSPEC object.
 The first modification to the symmetric bandwidth process would be
 that when allocating the upstream label, the bandwidth associated
 with the upstream label would be taken from the Ethernet Upstream
 Traffic Parameter ADSPEC object, see Section 3.1 of [RFC3473].

Berger, et al. Experimental [Page 12] RFC 5467 Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSP March 2009

 Consistent with [RFC3473], a node that is unable to allocate a label
 or internal resources based on the contents of the ADSPEC object,
 would issue a PathErr message with a "Routing problem/MPLS label
 allocation failure" indication.
 The second modification would be that the ADSPEC object would not be
 modified by transit nodes.

A.4. Compatibility

 The approach presented in this section reuses semantics and
 procedures defined in [RFC3473].  To indicate the use of asymmetric
 bandwidth, a new ADSPEC object C-type would be defined.  Per
 [RFC2205], nodes not supporting the approach should not recognize
 this new C-type and respond with an "Unknown object C-Type" error.

Berger, et al. Experimental [Page 13] RFC 5467 Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSP March 2009

Authors' Addresses

 Lou Berger
 LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
 EMail: lberger@labn.net
 Attila Takacs
 Ericsson
 1. Laborc u.
 1037 Budapest, Hungary
 Phone: +36-1-4377044
 EMail: attila.takacs@ericsson.com
 Diego Caviglia
 Ericsson
 Via A. Negrone 1/A
 Genova-Sestri Ponente, Italy
 Phone: +390106003738
 EMail: diego.caviglia@ericsson.com
 Don Fedyk
 Nortel Networks
 600 Technology Park Drive
 Billerica, MA, USA 01821
 Phone: +1-978-288-3041
 EMail: dwfedyk@nortel.com
 Julien Meuric
 France Telecom
 Research & Development
 2, avenue Pierre Marzin
 22307 Lannion Cedex - France
 Phone: +33 2 96 05 28 28
 EMail: julien.meuric@orange-ftgroup.com

Berger, et al. Experimental [Page 14]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc5467.txt · Last modified: 2009/03/04 23:34 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki