New Liaison Statement, "Recent GMPLS and ASON-Related RFCs publ;ished"

[Adrian Farrel (IETF CCAMP WG) <adrian@olddog.co.uk>]

Title: Recent GMPLS and ASON-Related RFCs publ;ished
Submission Date: 2007-02-21
URL of the IETF Web page: https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/liaison_detail.cgi?detail_id=301 

From: Adrian Farrel(IETF CCAMP WG) <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: ITU-T Study Group 15(Greg Jones <greg.jones@itu.int>)
Cc: Stephen Trowbridge <sjtrowbridge@alcatel-lucent.com>
Kam Lam <hklam@alcatel-lucent.com>
Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>
Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net>
Deborah Brungard <dbrungard@att.com>
CCAMP <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
Reponse Contact: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Technical Contact: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Purpose: For information 
Body: The IETF's CCAMP working group is pleased to inform Study 
Group 15 of the ITU-T of the publication of several new 
RFCs that are relevant to the work that you are doing with
optical and packet transport networks. Several of these 
RFCs received useful review and input from Study Group 15
participants for which CCAMP would like to express its 
thanks.


RFC 4558
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4558.txt
Title
   Node-ID Based Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP)
   Hello: A Clarification Statement
Abstract
   Use of Node-ID based Resource Reservation Protocol
   (RSVP) Hello messages is implied in a number of cases,
   e.g., when data and control planes are separated, when 
   TE links are unnumbered.  Furthermore, when link level 
   failure detection is performed by some means other than
   exchanging RSVP Hello messages, use of a Node-ID based 
   Hello session is optimal for detecting signaling 
   adjacency failure for Resource reSerVation Protocol-
   Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE). Nonetheless, this implied
   behavior is unclear, and this document formalizes use of
   the Node-ID based RSVP Hello session in some scenarios. 
   The procedure described in this document applies to both
   Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized
   MPLS (GMPLS) capable nodes.


RFC 4652
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4652.txt
Title
   Evaluation of Existing Routing Protocols against
   Automatic Switched Optical Network (ASON) Routing
   Requirements
Abstract
   The Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) suite of protocols has been
   defined to control different switching technologies as
   well as different applications.  These include support
   for requesting TDM connections including Synchronous 
   Optical Network/Synchronous Digital Hierarchy
   (SONET/SDH) and Optical Transport Networks (OTNs).

   This document provides an evaluation of the IETF Routing
   Protocols against the routing requirements for an 
   Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON) as defined
   by ITU-T.


RFC 4726
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4726.txt
Title
   A Framework for Inter-Domain Multiprotocol Label 
   Switching Traffic Engineering
Abstract
   This document provides a framework for establishing and
   controlling Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and 
   Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineered (TE) Label 
   Switched Paths (LSPs) in multi-domain networks.

   For the purposes of this document, a domain is
   considered to be any collection of network elements 
   within a common sphere of address management or path
   computational responsibility.  Examples of such domains
   include Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) areas and 
   Autonomous Systems (ASes).


RFC 4736
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4736.txt
Title
   Reoptimization of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) 
   Traffic Engineering (TE) Loosely Routed Label Switched 
   Path (LSP)
Abstract
   This document defines a mechanism for the reoptimization
   of loosely routed MPLS and GMPLS (Generalized 
   Multiprotocol Label Switching) Traffic Engineering (TE) 
   Label Switched Paths (LSPs) signaled with Resource 
   Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE).  
   This document proposes a mechanism that allows a TE LSP
   head-end Label Switching Router (LSR) to trigger a new 
   path re-evaluation on every hop that has a next hop 
   defined as a loose or abstract hop and a mid-point LSR
   to signal to the head-end LSR that a better path exists
   (compared to the current path) or that the TE LSP must 
   be reoptimized (because of maintenance required on the 
   TE LSP path).  The proposed mechanism applies to the 
   cases of intra- and inter-domain (Interior Gateway
   Protocol area (IGP area) or Autonomous System) packet
   and non-packet TE LSPs following a loosely routed path.


RFC 4783
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4783.txt
Title
   GMPLS - Communication of Alarm Information
Abstract
   This document describes an extension to Generalized MPLS
   (Multi-Protocol Label Switching) signaling to support 
   communication of alarm information.  GMPLS signaling 
   already supports the control of alarm reporting, but not
   the communication of alarm information.  This document 
   presents both a functional description and GMPLS-RSVP
   specifics of such an extension.  This document also 
   proposes modification of the RSVP ERROR_SPEC object.

   This document updates RFC 3473, "Generalized Multi-
   Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource
   ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) 
   Extensions", through the addition of new, optional 
   protocol elements.  It does not change, and is fully
   backward compatible with, the procedures specified in
   RFC 3473.


All IETF RFCs can be downloaded for free from
http://www.ietf.org/rfc.html

The current work plan and progress status of the CCAMP
working group can be viewed at 
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ccamp-charter.html

The CCAMP working group welcomes questions and discussion
about all of its work from individuals or organisations. 
The CCAMP mailing list is open to anyone. Details of
subscription can be found on the CCAMP charter page.

Regards,
Adrian Farrel and Deborah Brungard
CCAMP Working Group chairs
Attachment(s):
No document has been attached