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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording

     CCAMP Working Group                                       Zafar Ali
     Internet Draft                                       George Swallow
     Intended status: Standard Track                   Clarence Filsfils
     Expires: April 21, 2013                              Matt Hartley
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                            Kenji Kumaki
                                                        KDDI Corporation
                                                          Ruediger Kunze
                                                     Deutsche Telekom AG
     
                                                       October 22, 2012
     
     
          Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
           extension for recording TE Metric of a Label Switched Path
                   draft-ali-ccamp-te-metric-recording-03.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 21, 2013.
     
     Copyright Notice
     
     
     Copyright (c) 2012 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
     
     
     
     
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils, et al    Expires April 2013     [Page 1]


     Internet-Draft    draft-ali-ccamp-te-metric-recording-03.txt
     
     Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
     warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
     
     This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
     Contributions published or made publicly available before November
     10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
     material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
     modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
     Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s)
     controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not
     be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative
     works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process,
     except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it
     into languages other than English.
     
     
     Abstract
     
     There are many scenarios in which Traffic Engineering (TE) metrics
     such as cost, latency and latency variation associated with a
     Forwarding Adjacency (FA) or Routing Adjacency (RA) Label Switched
     Path (LSP) are not available to the ingress and egress nodes. This
     draft provides extensions for the Resource ReserVation Protocol-
     Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for the support of the discovery of
     cost, latency and latency variation of an LSP.
     
     
     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].
     
     Table of Contents
     
     
        Copyright Notice...............................................1
        1. Introduction................................................3
        2. RSVP-TE Requirement.........................................3
     2.1. Cost, Latency and Latency Variation Collection Indication....4
     2.2. Cost, Latency and Latency Variation Collection...............4
     2.3. Cost, Latency and Latency Variation Update...................4
        3. RSVP-TE signaling extensions................................4
     3.1. Cost Collection Flag.........................................4
     3.2. Latency Collection Flag......................................5
     3.3. Latency Variation Collection Flag............................5
     3.4. Cost subobject...............................................5
     3.5. Latency subobject............................................6
     3.6. Latency Variation subobject..................................7
     3.7. Signaling Procedures.........................................7
        4. Security Considerations.....................................9
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils         Expires September 2012     [Page 2]


     Internet-Draft    draft-ali-ccamp-te-metric-recording-03.txt
     
        5. IANA Considerations.........................................9
     5.1. RSVP Attribute Bit Flags.....................................9
     5.2. New RSVP error sub-code.....................................10
        6. Acknowledgments............................................10
        7. References.................................................11
     7.1. Normative References........................................11
     7.2. Informative References......................................11
     
     1. Introduction
     
        There are many scenarios in packet and optical networks where
        the route information of an LSP may not be provided to the
        ingress node for confidentiality reasons and/ or the ingress
        node may not run the same routing instance as the intermediate
        nodes traversed by the path. In such scenarios, the ingress node
        cannot determine the cost, latency and latency variation
        properties of the LSP's route. Similarly, in Generalized Multi-
        Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) networks signaling
        bidirectional LSP, the egress node cannot determine the cost,
        latency and latency variation properties of the LSP route.  A
        multi-domain or multi-layer network is an example of such
        networks. Similarly, a GMPLS User-Network Interface (UNI)
        [RFC4208] is also an example of such networks.
     
        In certain networks, such as financial information networks,
        network performance information (e.g. latency, latency
        variation) is becoming as critical to data path selection as
        other metrics [DRAFT-OSPF-TE-METRIC], [DRAFT-ISIS-TE-METRIC]. If
        cost, latency or latency variation associated with an FA or an
        RA LSP is not available to the ingress or egress node, it cannot
        be advertised as an attribute of the FA or RA. One possible way
        to address this issue is to configure cost, latency and latency
        variation values manually. However, in the event of an LSP being
        rerouted (e.g. due to re-optimization), such configuration
        information may become invalid. Consequently, in case where that
        an LSP is advertised as a TE-Link, the ingress and/ or egress
        nodes cannot provide the correct latency, latency variation and
        cost attribute associated with the TE-Link automatically.
     
        In summary, there is a requirement for the ingress and egress
        nodes to learn the cost, latency and latency variation
        attributes of an FA or RA LSP. This draft provides extensions to
        the Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
        for the support of the automatic discovery of these attributes.
     
     2. RSVP-TE Requirement
     
        This section outlines RSVP-TE requirements for the support of
        the automatic discovery of cost, latency and latency variation
        attributes of an LSP. These requirements are very similar to the
        requirement of discovering the Shared Risk Link Groups (SRLGs)
     
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils         Expires September 2012     [Page 3]


     Internet-Draft    draft-ali-ccamp-te-metric-recording-03.txt
     
        associated with the route taken by an LSP [DRAFT-SRLG-
        RECORDING].
     
     2.1. Cost, Latency and Latency Variation Collection Indication
     
           The ingress and egress nodes of the LSP must be capable of
        indicating whether the cost, latency and latency variation
        attributes of the LSP should be collected during the signaling
        procedure of setting up the LSP. No cost, latency or latency
        variation information is collected without an explicit request
        being made by the ingress node.
     
     2.2. Cost, Latency and Latency Variation Collection
     
           If requested, cost, latency and latency variation is
        collected during the setup of an LSP. The endpoints of the LSP
        may use the collected information and use it for routing,
        flooding and TE link configuration purposes.
     
     2.3. Cost, Latency and Latency Variation Update
     
           When the cost, latency and latency variation property of a TE
        link along the route of a LSP for which that property was
        collected changes, e.g., if the administrator changes cost of a
        TE link, the node where the change occurred needs to be capable
        of updating the cost, latency and latency variation information
        of the path and signaling this to the end-points. Similarly, if
        a path segment of the LSP is rerouted, the endpoints of the re-
        routed segment need to be capable of updating the cost, latency
        and latency variation information of the path. Any node which
        adds cost, latency or latency variation information to an LSP
        during initial setup must signal changes to these values to both
        endpoints.
     
     3. RSVP-TE signaling extensions
     
     3.1. Cost Collection Flag
     
           In order to indicate that cost collection is desired, a new
        flag in the Attribute Flags TLV which can be carried in an
        LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Objects is required:
     
        Cost Collection flag (to be assigned by IANA, recommended bit
        position 11)
     
           The Cost Collection flag is meaningful in a Path message. If
        the Cost Collection flag is set to 1, the transit nodes SHOULD
        report the cost information in the Path Record Route Object
        (RRO) and the Resv RRO.
     
        The procedure for processing the Attribute Flags TLV follows
        [RFC5420].
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils         Expires September 2012     [Page 4]


     Internet-Draft    draft-ali-ccamp-te-metric-recording-03.txt
     
     3.2. Latency Collection Flag
     
           In order to indicate that latency collection is desired, a
        new flag in the Attribute Flags TLV which can be carried in an
        LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object is required:
     
        Latency Collection flag (to be assigned by IANA, recommended bit
        position 12)
     
           The Latency Collection flag is meaningful on a Path message.
        If the Latency Collection flag is set to 1, the transit nodes
        SHOULD report the latency information in the Path RRO and the
        Resv RRO.
     
        The procedure for the processing the Attribute Flags TLV follows
        [RFC5420].
     
     3.3. Latency Variation Collection Flag
     
           In order to indicate that latency variation collection is
        desired, a new flag in the Attribute Flags TLV which can be
        carried in an LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object
        is required:
     
        Latency Variation Collection flag (to be assigned by IANA,
        recommended bit position 13)
     
           The Latency Variation Collection flag is meaningful on a Path
        message. If the Latency Variation Collection flag is set to 1,
        the transit nodes SHOULD report the latency variation
        information in the Path RRO and the Resv RRO.
     
        The procedure for the processing the Attribute Flags TLV follows
        [RFC5420].
     
     3.4. Cost subobject
     
           A new cost subobject is defined for the RRO to record the
        cost information of the LSP. Its format is similar to the RRO
        subobjects defined in [RFC3209].
     
     
        0                   1                   2                   3
        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |   Type        |   Length      |    Reserved (must be zero)    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                         COST Value                            |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     
           Type: The type of the subobject, to be assigned by IANA
           (recommended value 35).
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils         Expires September 2012     [Page 5]


     Internet-Draft    draft-ali-ccamp-te-metric-recording-03.txt
     
           Length: The Length value is set to 8.
     
           Reserved: This field is reserved for future use. It MUST be
           set to 0 when sent and MUST be ignored when received.
     
           Cost Value: Cost of the link along the route of the LSP.
           Based on the policy at the recording node, the cost value can
           be set to the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) metric or TE
           metric of the link in question. This approach has been taken
           to avoid defining a flag for each cost type in the Attribute-
           Flags TLV. It is assumed that, based on policy, all nodes
           reports the same cost-type and that the ingress and egress
           nodes know the cost type reported in the RRO.
     
           The rules for processing the LSP_ATTRIBUTES and
           LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Objects and RRO are not changed.
     
     3.5. Latency subobject
     
        A new Latency subobject is defined for RRO to record the latency
        information of the LSP. Its format is similar the RRO subobjects
        defined in [RFC3209].
     
        0                   1                   2                   3
        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |   Type        |   Length      |    Reserved (must be zero)    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |A|  Reserved   |                      Delay                    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     
     
           Type: The type of the subobject, to be assigned by IANA
           (recommended value 36).
     
           Length: The Length value is set to 8.
     
           A-bit: This field represents the Anomalous (A) bit, as
           defined in [DRAFT-OSPF-TE-METRIC].
     
           Reserved: These fields are reserved for future use. They MUST
           be set to 0 when sent and MUST be ignored when received.
     
           Delay Value: This 24-bit field carries the average link delay
           over a configurable interval in micro-seconds, encoded as an
           integer value. When set to 0, it has not been measured. When
           set to the maximum value 16,777,215 (16.777215 sec), then the
           delay is at least that value and may be larger.
     
     
     
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils         Expires September 2012     [Page 6]


     Internet-Draft    draft-ali-ccamp-te-metric-recording-03.txt
     
           The rules for processing the LSP_ATTRIBUTES and
           LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Objects and RRO are not changed.
     
     3.6. Latency Variation subobject
     
           A new Latency Variation subobject is defined for RRO to
        record the Latency Variation information of the LSP. Its format
        is similar to the RRO subobjects defined in [RFC3209].
     
        0                   1                   2                   3
        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |   Type        |   Length      |    Reserved (must be zero)    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |A|  Reserved    |           Delay Variation                    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     
     
           Type: The type of the subobject, to be assigned by IANA
           (recommended value 37).
     
           Length: The Length value is set to 8.
     
           A-bit: This field represents the Anomalous (A) bit, as
           defined in [DRAFT-OSPF-TE-METRIC].
     
           Reserved: These fields are reserved for future use. It MUST
           be set to 0 when sent and MUST be ignored when received.
     
           Delay Variation Value: This 24-bit field carries the average
           link delay variation over a configurable interval in micro-
           seconds, encoded as an integer value. When set to 0, it has
           not been measured. When set to the maximum value 16,777,215
           (16.777215 sec), then the delay is at least that value and
           may be larger.
     
           The rules for processing the LSP_ATTRIBUTES and
           LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Objects and RRO are not changed.
     
     3.7. Signaling Procedures
     
           Typically, the ingress node learns the route of an LSP by
        adding a RRO in the Path message. If an ingress node also
        desires cost, latency and/or latency variation recording, it
        sets the appropriate flag(s) in the Attribute Flags TLV of the
        LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object. None, all or
        any of the Cost Collection, Latency Collection or Latency
        Variation Collection flags may be set in the Attribute Flags TLV
        of the LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object.
     
           When a node receives a Path message which carries an
        LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object and the Cost, Latency and/or
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils         Expires September 2012     [Page 7]


     Internet-Draft    draft-ali-ccamp-te-metric-recording-03.txt
     
        Latency Variation Collection Flag(s) is (are) set, if local
        policy disallows providing the requested information to the
        endpoints, the node MUST return a Path Error message with error
        code "Policy Control Failure (2)" and one of the following error
        subcodes:
     
        .  "Cost Recoding Rejected" (value to be assigned by IANA,
          suggest value 105) if Cost Collection Flag is set.
     
        .  "Latency Recording Rejected" (value to be assigned by IANA,
          suggest value 106) if Latency Collection Flag is set.
     
        .  "Latency Variation Recording Rejected" (value to be assigned
          by IANA, suggest value 107) if Latency Variation Collection
          Flag is set.
     
        When a node receives a Path message which carries an
        LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object and the Cost, Latency and/or Latency
        Variation Collection Flag(s) is (are) set, if local policy
        disallows providing the requested information to the endpoints,
        the node MAY return a Path Error as described for the
        LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object.
     
        If local policy permits the provision of the requested
        information, the processing node SHOULD add the requested
        subobject(s) with the cost, latency or/ and latency variation
        metric value(s) associated with the local hop to the Path RRO.
        It then forwards the Path message to the next node in the
        downstream direction.
     
           Following the steps described above, the intermediate nodes
        of the LSP provide the requested metric value(s) associated with
        the local hop in the Path RRO. When the Path message is received
        by the egress node, the egress node can calculate the end-to-end
        cost, latency and/or latency variation properties of the LSP.
     
           Before the Resv message is sent to the upstream node, the
        egress node adds the requested subobject(s) with the cost,
        latency or/ and latency variation metric value(s) associated
        with the local hop to the Resv RRO in a similar manner to that
        specified above for the addition of Path RRO sub-objects by
        midpoint nodes.
     
        Similarly, the intermediate nodes of the LSP provide the
        requested metric value(s) associated with the local hop in the
        Resv RRO. When the Resv message is received by the ingress node,
        it can calculate the end-to-end cost, latency or/ and latency
        variation properties of the LSP.
     
        Typically, cost and latency are additive metrics, but latency
        variation is not an additive metric. The means by which the
        ingress and egress nodes compute the end-to-end cost, latency
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils         Expires September 2012     [Page 8]


     Internet-Draft    draft-ali-ccamp-te-metric-recording-03.txt
     
        and latency variation metric from information recorded in the
        RRO is beyond the scope of this document.
     
        Based on the local policy, the ingress and egress nodes can
        advertise the calculated end-to-end cost, latency and/or latency
        variation properties of the FA/ RA LSP in TE link advertisement
        to the routing instance based on the procedure described in
        [DRAFT-OSPF-TE-METRIC], [DRAFT-ISIS-TE-METRIC].
     
        Based on the local policy, a transit node (e.g. the edge node of
        a domain) may edit a Path or Resv RRO to remove route
        information (e.g. node or interface identifier information)
        before forwarding it. A node that does this SHOULD summarize the
        cost, latency and latency variation data removed as a single
        value for each for the loose hop that is summarized by the
        transit node. How a transit node calculates the cost, latency
        or/ and latency variation metric for the segment summarized by
        the transit node is beyond the scope of this document.
     
     4. Security Considerations
     
        This document does not introduce any additional security issues
        above those identified in [RFC5920], [RFC5420], [RFC2205],
        [RFC3209], and [RFC3473].
     
     5. IANA Considerations
     
     5.1. RSVP Attribute Bit Flags
     
           The IANA has created a registry and manages the space of
        attributes bit flags of Attribute Flags TLV as described in
        section 11.3 of [RFC5420]. It is requested that the IANA makes
        assignments from the Attribute Bit Flags defined in this
        document.
     
           This document introduces the following three new Attribute
        Bit Flag:
     
              - Bit number: TBD (recommended bit position 11)
     
              - Defining RFC: this I-D
     
              - Name of bit: Cost Collection Flag
     
     
     
              - Bit number: TBD (recommended bit position 12)
     
              - Defining RFC: this I-D
     
              - Name of bit: Latency Collection Flag
     
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils         Expires September 2012     [Page 9]


     Internet-Draft    draft-ali-ccamp-te-metric-recording-03.txt
     
     
     
              - Bit number: TBD (recommended bit position 13)
     
              - Defining RFC: this I-D
     
              - Name of bit: Latency Variation Flag
     
     
     
        5.2. ROUTE_RECORD subobject
     
           This document introduces the following three new RRO
        subobject:
     
                     Type       Name                        Reference
     
                     ---------  ----------------------      ---------
     
                     TBD (35)   Cost subobject              This I-D
     
                     TBD (36)   Latency subobject           This I-D
     
                     TBD (37)   Latency Variation subobject This I-D
     
     5.2. New RSVP error sub-code
     
        For Error Code = 2 "Policy Control Failure" (see [RFC2205]) the
        following sub-code is defined.
     
           Sub-code                              Value
           --------                              -----
     
           Cost Recoding Rejected                To be assigned by IANA.
                                                 Suggested Value: 105.
     
           Latency Recoding Rejected             To be assigned by IANA.
                                                 Suggested Value: 106.
     
           Latency Variation Recoding Rejected   To be assigned by IANA.
                                                 Suggested Value: 107.
     
     6. Acknowledgments
     
        Authors would like to thank Ori Gerstel, Gabriele Maria
        Galimberti, Luyuan Fang and Walid Wakim for their review
        comments.
     
     
     
     
     
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils         Expires September 2012     [Page 10]


     Internet-Draft    draft-ali-ccamp-te-metric-recording-03.txt
     
     7. References
     
     7.1. 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.
     
        [RFC5420] Farrel, A., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, JP., and
                  A. Ayyangarps, "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP
                  Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol
                  Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 5420, February
                  2009.
     
        [DRAFT-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.
     
        [DRAFT-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.
     
        [DRAFT-SRLG-RECORDING] F. Zhang, D. Li, O. Gonzalez de Dios, C.
                  Margaria,, "RSVP-TE Extensions for Collecting SRLG
                  Information", draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-
                  collect.txt, work in progress.
     
     7.2. Informative References
     
        [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.
     
        [RFC2209] Braden, R. and L. Zhang, "Resource ReSerVation
                  Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Message Processing
                  Rules", RFC 2209, September 1997.
     
        [RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
                  Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
     
     
     
     Authors' Addresses
     
     
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils         Expires September 2012     [Page 11]


     Internet-Draft    draft-ali-ccamp-te-metric-recording-03.txt
     
     
        Zafar Ali
        Cisco Systems, Inc.
        Email: zali@cisco.com
     
        George Swallow
        Cisco Systems, Inc.
        swallow@cisco.com
     
        Clarence Filsfils
        Cisco Systems, Inc.
        cfilsfil@cisco.com
     
        Matt Hartley
        Cisco Systems
        Email: mhartley@cisco.com
     
        Kenji Kumaki
        KDDI Corporation
        Email: ke-kumaki@kddi.com
     
        Rudiger Kunze
        Deutsche Telekom AG
        Ruediger.Kunze@telekom.de
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils         Expires September 2012     [Page 12]
     

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