[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05

     CCAMP Working Group                                       Zafar Ali
     Internet Draft                                       George Swallow
     Intended status: Standard Track                   Clarence Filsfils
     Expires: April 18, 2014                                 Luyuan Fang
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                            Kenji Kumaki
                                                        KDDI Corporation
                                                          Ruediger Kunze
                                                     Deutsche Telekom AG
                                                      Daniele Ceccarelli
                                                                Ericsson
                                                              Xian Zhang
                                                                  Huawei
                                                        October 19, 2013
     
     
     
          Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
          Extension for Signaling Objective Function and Metric Bound
           draft-ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound-04.txt
     
     
     Status of this Memo
     
     This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
     provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
     
     Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
     Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
     working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current
     Internet-Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
     
     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."
     
     This Internet-Draft will expire on April 18, 2014.
     
     Copyright Notice
     
     
     Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
     document authors.  All rights reserved.
     
     This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
     Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
     (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
     publication of this document.  Please review these documents
     carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
     respect to this document.  Code Components extracted from this
     document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
     Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
     warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
     
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils       Expires April 2014        [Page 1]


     ID     draft-ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound-04.txt
     
     
     
     
     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
     
     In particular networks such as those used by financial
     institutions, network performance criteria such as latency are
     becoming critical to data path selection.  However cost is still an
     important consideration.  This leads to a situation where path
     calculation involves multiple metrics and more complex objective
     functions.
     
     When using GMPLS control plane, there are many scenarios in which a
     node may need to request a remote node to perform path computation
     or expansion, like for example multi-domain LSP setup, Generalized
     Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) User-Network Interface (UNI)
     or simply the utilization of a loose ERO in intra domain signaling.
     In such cases, the node requesting for the setup of an LSP needs to
     convey the required objective function to the remote node, to
     enable it to perform route computation in the desired fashion.
     Similarly, there are cases the ingress needs to indicate a TE
     metric bound for a loose segment that is expanded by a remote node.
     
     This document defines extensions to the RSVP-TE Protocol to allow
     an ingress node to request the required objective function for the
     route computation, as well as a metric bound to influence route
     computation decisions at a remote node(s).
     
     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 RFC 2119
     [RFC2119].
     
     
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils      Expires January 2014          [Page 2]


     ID     draft-ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound-04.txt
     
     
          Table of Contents
     
     
     Copyright Notice.....................................................1
     1. Introduction......................................................3
     2. RSVP-TE signaling extensions......................................4
           2.1. Objective Function (OF) Subobject.........................4
              2.1.1. Minimum TE Metric Cost Path Objective Function.......6
              2.1.2. Minimum IGP Metric Cost Path Objective Function......6
              2.1.3. Minimum Latency Path Objective Function..............6
              2.1.4. Minimum Latency Variation Path Objective Function....7
           2.2. Metric subobject..........................................7
           2.3. Processing Rules for the OF Subobjects....................8
           2.4. Processing Rules for the Metric subobject.................9
     3. Security Considerations..........................................11
     4. IANA Considerations..............................................11
     5. Acknowledgments..................................................12
     6. References.......................................................12
           6.1. Normative References.....................................12
           6.2. Informative References...................................12
     
     1. Introduction
     
       As noted in [OSPF-TE-METRIC] and [ISIS-TE-METRIC], in certain
       networks such as financial information networks (e.g. stock
       market data providers), performance criteria such as latency are
       becoming critical to data path selection along with other
       metrics. Such networks may require selection of a path that
       minimizes end-to-end latency. Or a path may need to be found that
       minimized some other TE metric(s), while subject to a latency
       bound. Thus there is a requirement to be able to find end-to-end
       paths with different optimization criteria.
     
       When the entire route for an LSP is computed at the ingress node,
       this requirement can be met by a local decision at that node.
       However, there are scenarios where partial or full route
       computations are performed by remote nodes. The scenarios include
       (but are not limited to):
     
       .  LSPs with loose hops in the Explicit Route Object (ERO),
          including intra-domain LSPs.
     
       .  GMPLS-UNI where route computation may be performed by the
          UNI-Network (server) node [RFC4208];
     
     
     
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils      Expires January 2014          [Page 3]


     ID     draft-ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound-04.txt
     
     
       .  Multi domain LSP setup with per domain path computation;
     
       In these scenarios, there is a need for the ingress node to
       convey the optimization criteria (e.g., IGP cost, TE cost, hop
       counts, latency, etc.) to be used for the path computation to the
       node performing route computation or expansion. Similarly, there
       is a need for the ingress node to indicate a TE metric bound for
       the loose segment being expanded by a remote node.
     
        [RFC5541] defines extensions to the Path Computation Element
        communication Protocol (PCEP) to allow a Path Computation Client
        (PCC) indicate in a path computation request the desired
        objective function. [RFC5440] and [ID-SERVICE-AWARE] defines
        extension to the PCEP to allow a PCC indicate in a path
        computation request a bound on given TE metric(s). This draft
        defines similar mechanisms for the RSVP-TE protocol allowing an
        ingress node to indicate in a Path request the desired objective
        function along with any associated TE metric bound(s). The nodes
        performing route expansion use this information to find the
        "best" candidate route.
     
     2. RSVP-TE signaling extensions
     
        This section defines RSVP-TE signaling extensions required to
        address the above-mentioned requirements.  Two new ERO subobject
        types, Objective Function (OF) and Metric, are defined. Their
        purpose is as follows.
     
       .  OF subobject conveys a set of one or more specific
          optimization criteria that needs be followed in expanding
          route of a TE-LSP in MultiProtocol Label Switching (MPLS) and
          GMPLS networks.
     
       .  Metric Bound subobject indicates the bound on the path metric
          that needs to be observed for the loose segment to be
          considered as acceptable by the ingress node.
     
       The scope of the Metric and OF subobjects is the node performing
       the expansion for loose ERO and the subsequent ERO subobject that
       identifies an abstract node. The following subsection provides
       the details.
     
     2.1. Objective Function (OF) Subobject
     
        A new ERO subobject type Objective Function (OF) is defined in
        order for the ingress node to indicate the required objective
        function on a loose hop. The ERO subobject type OF is optional.
        It MAY be carried within an ERO object of RSVP-TE Path message
     
     
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils      Expires January 2014          [Page 4]


     ID     draft-ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound-04.txt
     
     
        and its scope is limited to previous ERO subobject that
        identifies an abstract node. For more details please refer to
        the Processing Rules for the OF Subobjects section.
     
        The OF subobject 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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |L|    Type     |     Length    |    OF Code    |   Reserved    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     
     
        The fields of OF subobject are defined as follows:
     
           L bit: The L bit MUST be set to represent a loose hop in the
        explicit route.
     
           Type: The Type is to be assigned by IANA (suggested value:
        66).
     
           Length: The Length contains the total length of the subobject
        in bytes, including the Type field, the Length field. The Length
        of the subobject is 4.
     
           OF Code (1 byte): The identifier of the objective function.
        The following OF code values are suggested. These values are to
        be assigneyd by IANA.
     
           * OF code value 0 is reserved.
     
           * OF code value 1 (to be assigned by IANA) is for Minimum TE
        Metric Cost Path (MTMCP) OF defined in this document. See
        definition of MTCP OF in the following.
     
           * OF code value 2 (to be assigned by IANA) is for Minimum
        Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Metric Cost Path (MIMCP) OF
        defined in the following.
     
           * OF code value 3 (to be assigned by IANA) is for Minimum
        Load Path (MLP) OF as defined in RFC5541.
     
           * OF code value 4 (to be assigned by IANA) is for Maximum
        Residual Bandwidth Path (MBP) OF as defined in RFC5541.
     
           * OF code value 5 (to be assigned by IANA) is for Minimize
        Aggregate Bandwidth Consumption (MBC) OF as defined in RFC5541.
     
     
     
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils      Expires January 2014          [Page 5]


     ID     draft-ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound-04.txt
     
     
           * OF code value 6 (to be assigned by IANA) is for Minimize
        the Load of the most loaded Link (MLL) OF as defined in RFC5541.
     
           * OF code value 7 is skipped (to keep the objective function
        code values consistent between [RFC5541] and this draft.
     
           * OF code value 8 (to be assigned by IANA) is for Minimum
        Latency Path (MLP) OF defined in this document. See definition
        of MLP OF in the following.
     
           * OF code value 9 (to be assigned by IANA) is for Minimum
        Latency Variation Path (MLVP) OF defined in this document. See
        definition of MLVP OF in the following.
     
        Other objective functions may be defined in future.
     
           Reserved (5 bytes): This field MUST be set to zero on
        transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
     
     2.1.1. Minimum TE Metric Cost Path Objective Function
     
        Minimum TE Metric Cost Path (MTMCP) OF is defined as an
        Objective Function where a path is computed such that the sum of
        the TE metric of the links along the path is minimized. In the
        context of loose hop expansion, the ERO expanding node MUST try
        to find a route such that the sum of the TE metric of the links
        along the route is minimized.
     
     2.1.2. Minimum IGP Metric Cost Path Objective Function
     
        Minimum IGP Metric Cost Path (MIMCP) OF is defined as an
        Objective Function where a path is computed such that the sum of
        the IGP metric of the links along the path is minimized. In the
        context of loose hop expansion, the ERO expanding node MUST try
        to find a route such that the sum of the IGP metric of the links
        along the route is minimized.
     
     2.1.3. Minimum Latency Path Objective Function
     
        Minimum Latency Path (MLP) OF is defined as an Objective
        Function where a path is computed such that latency of the path
        is minimized. In the context of loose hop expansion, the ERO
        expanding node MUST try to find a route such that overall
        latency of the loose hop is minimized.
     
     
     
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils      Expires January 2014          [Page 6]


     ID     draft-ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound-04.txt
     
     
     2.1.4. Minimum Latency Variation Path Objective Function
     
        Minimum Latency Variation Path (MLVP) OF is defined as an
        Objective Function where a path is computed such that latency
        variation in the path is minimized. In the context of loose hop
        expansion, the ERO expanding node MUST try to find a route such
        that overall latency variation of the loose hop is minimized.
     
     2.2. Metric Bound subobject
     
        The ERO subobject type Metric Bound (MB) is optional. It MAY be
        carried within an ERO object of RSVP-TE Path message and its
        scope is limited to previous ERO subobject that identifies an
        abstract node. It is possible to identify different Metric Bound
        subobjects for different hops of the ERO to be expanded. For
        more details please refer to the Processing Rules for the Metric
        Bound Subobjects section.
     
        This subobject 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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |L|    Type     |     Length    | metric-type |B|   Reserved    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                          metric-bound                         |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     
        The fields of the Metric subobject are defined as follows:
     
          L bit: The L bit is set if the subobject represents a loose
          hop in the explicit route. If the bit is not set, the
          subobject represents a strict hop in the explicit route.
          Please note that use of MB subobject is also applicable to
          strict hops, e.g., in selecting a component link within a
          heterogeneous bundled TE link.
     
          Type: The Type is to be assigned by IANA (suggested value:
          67).
     
           Length: The Length is 8.
     
           Metric-type (8 bits):  Specifies the metric type associated
           with the partial route expended by the node processing the
           loose ERO. The following values are currently defined:
     
     
     
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils      Expires January 2014          [Page 7]


     ID     draft-ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound-04.txt
     
     
                 *  T=1: cumulative IGP cost
     
                 *  T=2: cumulative TE cost
     
                 *  T=3: Hop Counts
     
                 *  T=4: Cumulative Latency
     
                 *  T=5: Cumulative Latency Variation
     
           B bit: Best-effort bit. When the best-effort (B) bit is set,
           it means that the ingress allows for the set up of an LSP
           that does not meeting the MB requirement. When the best-
           effort (B) bit is not set, it means that the MB needs to be
           observed.
     
           Reserved:  This field MUST be set to zero on transmission and
           MUST be ignored on receipt.
     
           Metric-bound (32 bits):  The metric-bound indicates an upper
           bound for the path metric that MUST NOT be exceeded for the
           ERO expending node to consider the computed path as
           acceptable. The metric bound is encoded in 32 bits using IEEE
           floating point format as defined in [IEEE.754.1985]). When it
           indicates a time value (i.e. Latency or Latency Variation) it
           is expressed in milliseconds.
     
     2.3. Processing rules
     
          A single OF subobjects SHOULD be used between a pair of
          abstract nodes in ERO. Multiple Metric Bound subobjects MAY be
          indicated for each hop to be expanded and MUST be placed after
          each abstract node subobject. Different Metric Bounds MAY be
          identified for each hop expansion.
     
     2.3.1. Processing Rules for the OF Subobjects
     
        The basic processing rules of an ERO are not altered. Please
        refer to [RFC3209] for details.
     
        The scope of the OF subobject is the previous ERO subobject that
        identifies an abstract node, and the subsequent ERO subobject
        that identifies an abstract node.  Multiple OF subobjects may be
        present between any pair of abstract nodes. However, only first
        OF subobject is analyzed and others are ignored.
     
     
     
     
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils      Expires January 2014          [Page 8]


     ID     draft-ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound-04.txt
     
     
        The following conditions SHOULD result in Path Error with error
        code "Routing Problem" and error subcode "Bad EXPLICIT_ROUTE
        object":
     
       .  If the first OF subobject is not preceded by an ERO subobject
          identifying the next hop.
       .  If the OF subobject follows an ERO subobject identifying the
          next hop that does not have the L-bit set.
     
       If the processing node does not understand the OF subobject, it
       SHOULD send a PathErr with the error code "Routing Error" and
       error value of "Bad Explicit Route Object" toward the sender
       [RFC3209].
     
       If the processing node understands the OF subobject and the ERO
       passes the above mentioned sanity check and any other sanity
       checks associated with other ERO subobjects local to the node,
       the node takes the following actions:
     
       .  If the node supports the requested OF, the node expands the
          loose hop using the requested OF as optimization criterion for
          computing the route to the next abstract node. After
          processing, the OF subobjects are removed from the ERO. The
          rest of the steps for the loose ERO processing follow
          procedures outlined in [RFC3209].
       .  If the node understands the OF subobject but does not support
          the requested OF, it SHOULD send a Path Error with error code
          "Routing Problem" and a new error subcode "Unsupported
          Objective Function". The error subcode "Unsupported Objective
          Function" for Path Error code "Routing Problem" is to be
          assigned by IANA.
       .  If the OF is supported but policy does not permit applying
          it, the processing node SHOULD send a Path Error with error
          code "Policy control failure" (value 2) and subcode "objective
          function not allowed". The error subcode "objective function
          not allowed" for Path Error code "Policy control failure" is
          to be assigned by IANA.
     2.3.2. Processing Rules for the MB subobject
     
        The basic processing rules of an ERO are not altered. Please
        refer to [RFC3209] for details.
     
     
     
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils      Expires January 2014          [Page 9]


     ID     draft-ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound-04.txt
     
     
     
        The scope of the MB subobject is between the previous ERO
        subobject that identifies an abstract node, and the subsequent
        ERO subobject that identifies an abstract node.  Multiple MB
        subobjects may be present between any pair of abstract nodes.
     
       If the processing node does not understand the MB subobject, it
       SHOULD send a PathErr with the error code "Routing Error" and
       error value of "Bad Explicit Route Object" toward the sender
       [RFC3209].
     
       If the processing node understands the MB subobject and the ERO
       passes the above mentioned sanity check and any other sanity
       checks associated with other ERO subobjects local to the node,
       the node takes the following actions:
     
       .  For all the MB subobject(s), the node expands the ERO such
          that the requested metric bound(s) are met for the route
          between the two abstract nodes in the ERO. After processing,
          the Metric subobjects are removed from the ERO. The rest of
          the steps for the ERO processing follow procedure outlined in
          [RFC3209].
       .  If the node understands the MB subobject but cannot find a
          route to the next abstract node such that the requested metric
          bound(s) can be satisfied and the best-effort (B) bit is not
          set, it SHOULD send a Path Error with error code "Routing
          Problem" and a new error subcode "No route available toward
          destination with the requested metric bounds". The error
          subcode "No route available toward destination with the
          requested metric bounds" for Path Error code "Routing Problem"
          is to be assigned by IANA (See IANA section for details).
       .  If the node understands the Metric subobject but cannot find
          a route to the next abstract node such that the requested
          metric bound(s) can be satisfied and the best-effort (B) bit
          is set, it SHOULD send a Path Error message with error code
          "Notify Error" and a new error subcode "Route not matching the
          requested metric bounds" is to be assigned by IANA (See IANA
          section for details).
       .  The ERO expanding node SHOULD respect the Metric Bound
          constraints in realizing any segment recovery procedure to
          change the route of the segment expanded by the said node.  If
     
     
     
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils      Expires January 2014          [Page 10]


     ID     draft-ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound-04.txt
     
     
          best-effort (B) bit is set and the new recovery segment
          violates the Metric Bound constraints, the ERO expanding
          SHOULD send a Path Error message with error code "Notify
          Error" and a new error subcode "Route not matching the
          requested metric bounds" is to be assigned by IANA (See IANA
          section for details).
     
     3. Security Considerations
     
        This document does not introduce any additional security issues
        above those identified in [RFC5920], [RFC2205], [RFC3209], and
        [RFC3473].
     
     4. IANA Considerations
     
     4.1. ERO Subobject
     
        This document adds the following two new subobject of the
        existing entry for ERO (20, EXPLICIT_ROUTE):
     
        Value                         Description
     
        -----                         ------------
     
        TBA (suggest value: 66)       Objective Function (OF) subobject
     
        TBA (suggest value: 67)       Metric subobject
     
        These subobject may be present in the Explicit Route Object, but
        not in the Route Record Object.
     
        OF Code values carried in OF subobject requires an IANA entry
        with suggested values as defined in section 2.1.
     
     4.2. New RSVP error sub-code
     
        For Error Code = 24 "Routing Problem" (see [RFC2205]) the
        following sub-code is defined.
     
           Sub-code                              Value
           --------                              -----
     
           No route available toward destination To be assigned by IANA.
           with the requested metric bounds       Suggested Value: TBA.
     
        For Error Code = 25 "Notify Error" (see [RFC2205]) the following
        sub-code is defined.
     
     
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils      Expires January 2014          [Page 11]


     ID     draft-ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound-04.txt
     
     
     
           Sub-code                              Value
           --------                              -----
     
           Route not matching the requested      To be assigned by IANA.
           metric bounds                         Suggested Value: TBA.
     
     
     5. Acknowledgments
     
        Authors would like to thank Matt Hartley, Ori Gerstel, Gabriele
        Maria Galimberti, Luyuan Fang and Walid Wakim for their review
        comments.
     
     6. References
     
     6.1. Normative References
     
        [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., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
                  Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation
                  Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions",
                  RFC 3473, January 2003.
     
        [IEEE.754.1985] IEEE Standard 754, "Standard for Binary
                  Floating-Point Arithmetic", August 1985.
     
        [RFC4208] Swallow, G., Drake, J., Ishimatsu, H., and Y. Rekhter,
                  "Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
                  User-Network Interface (UNI): Resource ReserVation
                  Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Support for the
                  Overlay Model", RFC 4208, October 2005.
     
     
     
     6.2. Informative References
     
     
     
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils      Expires January 2014          [Page 12]


     ID     draft-ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound-04.txt
     
     
        [RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
                  Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
     
        [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed., and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path
                  Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol
                  (PCEP)", RFC 5440, March 2009.
     
        [RFC5541] Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., and Y. Lee, "Encoding of
                  Objective Functions in the Path Computation Element
                  Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5541, June 2009.
     
        [ID-SERVICE-AWARE] D. Dhody, V. Manral, Z. Ali, G. Swallow, K.
                  Kumaki, " Extensions to the Path Computation Element
                  Communication Protocol (PCEP) to compute service aware
                  Label Switched Path (LSP)", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-
                  service-aware, work in progress.
     
        [OSPF-TE-METRIC] S. Giacalone, D. Ward, J. Drake, A. Atlas, S.
                  Previdi, "OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
                  Extensions", draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions,
                  work in progress.
     
        [ISIS-TE-METRIC] S. Previdi, S. Giacalone, D. Ward, J. Drake, A.
                  Atlas, C. Filsfils, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE)
                  Metric Extensions", draft-previdi-isis-te-metric-
                  extensions, work in progress.
     
     
     
     Author's Addresses
     
     
        Zafar Ali
        Cisco Systems.
        Email: zali@cisco.com
     
        George Swallow
        Cisco Systems.
        swallow@cisco.com
     
        Clarence Filsfils
        Cisco Systems.
        cfilsfil@cisco.com
     
        Luyuan Fang
        Cisco Systems.
        lufang@cisco.com
     
     
     
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils      Expires January 2014          [Page 13]


     ID     draft-ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound-04.txt
     
     
        Kenji Kumaki
        KDDI Corporation
        Email: ke-kumaki@kddi.com
     
        Rudiger Kunze
        Deutsche Telekom AG
        Ruediger.Kunze@telekom.de
     
        Daniele Ceccarelli
        Ericsson
        Email: daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com
     
        Xian Zhang
        Huawei Technologies
        Email: zhang.xian@huawei.com
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils      Expires January 2014          [Page 14]
     

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.123, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/