1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
|
<pre>Network Working Group L. Berger, Ed.
Request for Comments: 4783 LabN
Updates: <a href="./rfc3473">3473</a> December 2006
Category: Standards Track
<span class="h1">GMPLS - Communication of Alarm Information</span>
Status of This Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2006).
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 <a href="./rfc3473">RFC 3473</a>, "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 <a href="./rfc3473">RFC 3473</a>.
<span class="grey">Berger Standards Track [Page 1]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-2" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc4783">RFC 4783</a> GMPLS - Communication of Alarm Information December 2006</span>
Table of Contents
<a href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction ....................................................<a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-1.1">1.1</a>. Background .................................................<a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-2">2</a>. Alarm Information Communication .................................<a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-3">3</a>. GMPLS-RSVP Details ..............................................<a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-3.1">3.1</a>. ALARM_SPEC Objects .........................................<a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-3.1.1">3.1.1</a>. IF_ID ALARM_SPEC (and ERROR_SPEC) TLVs ..............<a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-3.1.2">3.1.2</a>. Procedures ..........................................<a href="#page-9">9</a>
<a href="#section-3.1.3">3.1.3</a>. Error Codes and Values .............................<a href="#page-10">10</a>
<a href="#section-3.1.4">3.1.4</a>. Backwards Compatibility ............................<a href="#page-11">11</a>
<a href="#section-3.2">3.2</a>. Controlling Alarm Communication ...........................<a href="#page-11">11</a>
<a href="#section-3.2.1">3.2.1</a>. Updated Admin_Status Object ........................<a href="#page-11">11</a>
<a href="#section-3.2.2">3.2.2</a>. Procedures .........................................<a href="#page-11">11</a>
<a href="#section-3.3">3.3</a>. Message Formats ...........................................<a href="#page-12">12</a>
<a href="#section-3.4">3.4</a>. Relationship to GMPLS UNI .................................<a href="#page-13">13</a>
<a href="#section-3.5">3.5</a>. Relationship to GMPLS E-NNI ...............................<a href="#page-14">14</a>
<a href="#section-4">4</a>. Security Considerations ........................................<a href="#page-14">14</a>
<a href="#section-5">5</a>. IANA Considerations ............................................<a href="#page-15">15</a>
<a href="#section-5.1">5.1</a>. New RSVP Object ...........................................<a href="#page-15">15</a>
<a href="#section-5.2">5.2</a>. New Interface ID Types ....................................<a href="#page-16">16</a>
<a href="#section-5.3">5.3</a>. New Registry for Admin-Status Object Bit Fields ...........<a href="#page-16">16</a>
<a href="#section-5.4">5.4</a>. New RSVP Error Code .......................................<a href="#page-16">16</a>
<a href="#section-6">6</a>. References .....................................................<a href="#page-17">17</a>
<a href="#section-6.1">6.1</a>. Normative References ......................................<a href="#page-17">17</a>
<a href="#section-6.2">6.2</a>. Informative References ....................................<a href="#page-17">17</a>
<a href="#section-7">7</a>. Acknowledgments ................................................<a href="#page-18">18</a>
<a href="#section-8">8</a>. Contributors ...................................................<a href="#page-18">18</a>
<span class="grey">Berger Standards Track [Page 2]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-3" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc4783">RFC 4783</a> GMPLS - Communication of Alarm Information December 2006</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction</span>
GMPLS signaling provides mechanisms that can be used to control the
reporting of alarms associated with a label switched path (LSP).
This support is provided via Administrative Status Information
[<a href="./rfc3471" title=""Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description"">RFC3471</a>] and the Admin_Status object [<a href="./rfc3473" title=""Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions"">RFC3473</a>]. These mechanisms
only control if alarm reporting is inhibited. No provision is made
for communication of alarm information within GMPLS.
The extension described in this document defines how the alarm
information associated with a GMPLS LSP may be communicated along the
path of the LSP. Communication both upstream and downstream is
supported. The value in communicating such alarm information is that
this information is then available at every node along the LSP for
display and diagnostic purposes. Alarm information may also be
useful in certain traffic protection scenarios, but such uses are out
of the scope of this document. Alarm communication is supported via
a new object, new error/alarm information TLVs, and a new
Administrative Status Information bit.
The communication of alarms, as described in this document, is
controllable on a per-LSP basis. Such communication may be useful
within network configurations where not all nodes support
communication to a user for reporting of alarms and/or communication
is needed to support specific applications. The support of this
functionality is optional.
The communication of alarms within GMPLS does not imply any
modification in behavior of processing of alarms, or for the
communication of alarms outside of GMPLS. Additionally, the
extension described in this document is not intended to replace any
(existing) data plane fault propagation techniques.
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 [<a href="./rfc2119" title=""Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels"">RFC2119</a>].
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-1.1" href="#section-1.1">1.1</a>. Background</span>
Problems with data plane state can often be detected by associated
data plane hardware components. Such data plane problems are
typically filtered based on elapsed time and local policy. Problems
that pass the filtering process are normally raised as alarms. These
alarms are available for display to operators. They also may be
collected centrally through means that are out of the scope of this
document.
<span class="grey">Berger Standards Track [Page 3]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-4" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc4783">RFC 4783</a> GMPLS - Communication of Alarm Information December 2006</span>
Not all data plane problems cause the LSP to be immediately torn
down. Further, there may be a desire, particularly in optical
transport networks, to retain an LSP and communicate relevant alarm
information even when the data plane state has failed completely.
Although error information can be reported using PathErr, ResvErr,
and Notify messages, these messages typically indicate a problem in
signaling state and can only report one problem at a time. This
makes it hard to correlate all of the problems that may be associated
with a single LSP and to allow an operator examining the status of an
LSP to view a full list of current problems. This situation is
exacerbated by the absence of any way to communicate that a problem
has been resolved and a corresponding alarm cleared.
The extensions defined in this document allow an operator or a
software component to obtain a full list of current alarms associated
with all of the resources used to support an LSP. The extensions
also ensure that this list is kept up-to-date and synchronized with
the real alarm status in the network. Finally, the extensions make
the list available at every node traversed by an LSP.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-2" href="#section-2">2</a>. Alarm Information Communication</span>
A new object is introduced to carry alarm information details. The
details of alarm information are much like the error information
carried in the existing ERROR_SPEC objects. For this reason the
communication of alarm information uses a format that is based on the
communication of error information.
The new object introduced to carry alarm information details is
called an ALARM_SPEC object. This object has the same format as the
ERROR_SPEC object, but uses a new C-Num to avoid the semantics of
error processing. Also, additional TLVs are defined for the IF_ID
ALARM_SPEC objects to support the communication of information
related to a specific alarm. These TLVs may also be useful when
included in ERROR_SPEC objects, e.g., when the ERROR_SPEC object is
carried within a Notify message.
While the details of alarm information are like the details of
existing error communication, the semantics of processing differ.
Alarm information will typically relate to changes in data plane
state, without changes in control state. Alarm information will
always be associated with in-place LSPs. Such information will also
typically be most useful to operators and applications other than
control plane protocol processing. Finally, while error information
is communicated within PathErr, ResvErr, and Notify messages
[<a href="./rfc3473" title=""Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions"">RFC3473</a>], alarm information will be carried within Path and Resv
messages.
<span class="grey">Berger Standards Track [Page 4]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-5" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc4783">RFC 4783</a> GMPLS - Communication of Alarm Information December 2006</span>
Path messages are used to carry alarm information to downstream
nodes, and Resv messages are used to carry alarm information to
upstream nodes. The intent of sending alarm information both
upstream and downstream is to provide the same visibility to alarm
information at any point along an LSP. The communication of multiple
alarms associated with an LSP is supported. In this case, multiple
ALARM_SPEC objects will be carried in the Path or Resv messages.
The addition of alarm information to Path and Resv messages is
controlled via a new Administrative Status Information bit.
Administrative Status Information is carried in the Admin_Status
object.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>. GMPLS-RSVP Details</span>
This section provides the GMPLS-RSVP [<a href="./rfc3473" title=""Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions"">RFC3473</a>] specification for
communication of alarm information. The communication of alarm
information is OPTIONAL. This section applies to nodes that support
communication of alarm information.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.1" href="#section-3.1">3.1</a>. ALARM_SPEC Objects</span>
The ALARM_SPEC objects use the same format as the ERROR_SPEC object,
but with class number of 198 (assigned by IANA in the form 11bbbbbb,
per <a href="#section-3.1.4">Section 3.1.4</a>).
o Class = 198, C-Type = 1
Reserved. (C-Type value defined for ERROR_SPEC, but is not
defined for use with ALARM_SPEC.)
o Class = 198, C-Type = 2
Reserved. (C-Type value defined for ERROR_SPEC, but is not
defined for use with ALARM_SPEC.)
o IPv4 IF_ID ALARM_SPEC object: Class = 198, C-Type = 3
Definition same as IPv4 IF_ID ERROR_SPEC [<a href="./rfc3473" title=""Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions"">RFC3473</a>].
o IPv6 IF_ID ALARM_SPEC object: Class = 198, C-Type = 4
Definition same as IPv6 IF_ID ERROR_SPEC [<a href="./rfc3473" title=""Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions"">RFC3473</a>].
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.1.1" href="#section-3.1.1">3.1.1</a>. IF_ID ALARM_SPEC (and ERROR_SPEC) TLVs</span>
The following new TLVs are defined for use with the IPv4 and IPv6
IF_ID ALARM_SPEC objects. They may also be used with the IPv4 and
IPv6 IF_ID ERROR_SPEC objects. See <a href="./rfc3471#section-9.1.1">[RFC3471] Section 9.1.1</a> for the
original definition of these values. Note the length provided below
is for the total TLV. All TLVs defined in this section are OPTIONAL.
<span class="grey">Berger Standards Track [Page 5]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-6" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc4783">RFC 4783</a> GMPLS - Communication of Alarm Information December 2006</span>
The defined TLVs MUST follow any interface identifying TLVs. No
rules apply to the relative ordering of the TLVs defined in this
section.
Type Length Description
----------------------------------
512 8 REFERENCE_COUNT
513 8 SEVERITY
514 8 GLOBAL_TIMESTAMP
515 8 LOCAL_TIMESTAMP
516 variable ERROR_STRING
The Reference Count TLV has the following format:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reference Count |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Reference Count: 32 bits
The number of times this alarm has been repeated as determined
by the reporting node. This field MUST NOT be set to zero, and
TLVs received with this field set to zero MUST be ignored.
Only one Reference Count TLV may be included in an object.
The Severity TLV has the following format:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved |Impact | Severity |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Reserved: 20 bits
This field is reserved. It MUST be set to zero on generation,
MUST be ignored on receipt, and MUST be forwarded unchanged and
unexamined by transit nodes.
<span class="grey">Berger Standards Track [Page 6]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-7" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc4783">RFC 4783</a> GMPLS - Communication of Alarm Information December 2006</span>
Impact: 4 bits
Indicates the impact of the alarm indicated in the TLV. See
[<a href="#ref-M.20" title=""MAINTENANCE PHILOSOPHY FOR TELECOMMUNICATION NETWORKS"">M.20</a>] for a general discussion on classification of failures.
The following values are defined in this document. The details
of the semantics may be found in [<a href="#ref-M.20" title=""MAINTENANCE PHILOSOPHY FOR TELECOMMUNICATION NETWORKS"">M.20</a>].
Value Definition
----- ---------------------
0 Unspecified impact
1 Non-Service Affecting (Data traffic not interrupted)
2 Service Affecting (Data traffic is interrupted)
Severity: 8 bits
Indicates the impact of the alarm indicated in the TLV. See
[<a href="./rfc3877" title=""Alarm Management Information Base (MIB)"">RFC3877</a>] and [<a href="#ref-M.3100" title=""Generic Network Information Model"">M.3100</a>] for more information on severity. The
following values are defined in this document. The details of
the semantics may be found in [<a href="./rfc3877" title=""Alarm Management Information Base (MIB)"">RFC3877</a>] and [<a href="#ref-M.3100" title=""Generic Network Information Model"">M.3100</a>]:
Value Definition
----- ----------
0 Cleared
1 Indeterminate
2 Critical
3 Major
4 Minor
5 Warning
Only one Severity TLV may be included in an object.
The Global Timestamp TLV has the following format:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Global Timestamp |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
<span class="grey">Berger Standards Track [Page 7]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-8" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc4783">RFC 4783</a> GMPLS - Communication of Alarm Information December 2006</span>
Global Timestamp: 32 bits
An unsigned fixed-point integer that indicates the number of
seconds since 00:00:00 UT on 1 January 1970 according to the
clock on the node that originates this TLV. This time MAY
include leap seconds if they are used by the local clock and
SHOULD contain the same time value as used by the node when the
alarm is reported through other systems (such as within the
Management Plane) if global time is used in those reports.
Only one Global Timestamp TLV may be included in an object.
The Local Timestamp TLV has the following format:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local Timestamp |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Local Timestamp: 32 bits
Number of seconds reported by the local system clock at the
time the associated alarm was detected on the node that
originates this TLV. This number is expected to be meaningful
in the context of the originating node. For example, it may
indicate the number of seconds since the node rebooted or may
be a local representation of an unsynchronized real-time clock.
Only one Local Timestamp TLV may be included in an object.
The Error String TLV has the following format:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Error String (NULL padded display string) //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
<span class="grey">Berger Standards Track [Page 8]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-9" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc4783">RFC 4783</a> GMPLS - Communication of Alarm Information December 2006</span>
Error String: 32 bits minimum (variable)
A string of characters in US-ASCII, representing the type of
error/alarm. This string is padded to the next largest 4-byte
boundary using null characters. Null padding is not required
when the string is 32-bit aligned. The contents of error
string are implementation dependent. See the condition types
listed in Appendices of [<a href="#ref-GR833" title=""Network Maintenance: Network Element and Transport Surveillance Messages"">GR833</a>] for a list of example strings.
Note length includes padding.
Multiple Error String TLVs may be included in an object.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.1.2" href="#section-3.1.2">3.1.2</a>. Procedures</span>
This section applies to nodes that support the communication of alarm
information. ALARM_SPEC objects are carried in Path and Resv
messages. Multiple ALARM_SPEC objects MAY be present.
Nodes that support the extensions defined in this document SHOULD
store any alarm information from received ALARM_SPEC objects for
future use. All ALARM_SPEC objects received in Path messages SHOULD
be passed unmodified downstream in the corresponding Path messages.
All ALARM_SPEC objects received in Resv messages SHOULD be passed
unmodified upstream in the corresponding Resv messages. ALARM_SPEC
objects are merged in transmitted Resv messages by including a copy
of all ALARM_SPEC objects received in corresponding Resv Messages.
To advertise local alarm information, a node generates an ALARM_SPEC
object for each alarm and adds it to both the Path and Resv messages
for the impacted LSP.
In all cases, appropriate Error Node Address, Error Code, and Error
Values MUST be set (see below for a discussion on Error Code and
Error Values). As the InPlace and NotGuilty flags only have meaning
in ERROR_SPEC objects, they SHOULD NOT be set. TLVs SHOULD be
included in the ALARM_SPEC object to identify the interface, if any,
associated with the alarm. The TLVs defined in [<a href="./rfc3471" title=""Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description"">RFC3471</a>] for
identifying interfaces in the IF_ID ERROR_SPEC object [<a href="./rfc3473" title=""Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions"">RFC3473</a>]
SHOULD be used for this purpose, but note that TLVs type 4 and 5
(component interfaces) are deprecated by [<a href="./rfc4201" title=""Link Bundling in MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)"">RFC4201</a>] and SHOULD NOT be
used. TLVs SHOULD also be included to indicate the severity
(Severity TLV), the time (Global Timestamp and/or Local Timestamp
TLVs), and a (brief) string (Error String TLV) associated with the
alarm. The reference count TLV MAY also be included to indicate the
number of times an alarm has been repeated at the reporting node.
ALARM_SPEC objects received from other nodes are not impacted by the
addition of local ALARM_SPEC objects, i.e., they continue to be
processed as described above. The choice of which alarm or alarms to
<span class="grey">Berger Standards Track [Page 9]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-10" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc4783">RFC 4783</a> GMPLS - Communication of Alarm Information December 2006</span>
advertise and which to omit is a local policy matter, and may be
configurable by the user.
There are two ways to indicate time. A global timestamp TLV is used
to provide an absolute time reference for the occurrence of an alarm.
The local timestamp TLV is used to provide time reference for the
occurrence of an alarm that is relative to other information
advertised by the node. The global timestamp SHOULD be used on nodes
that maintain an absolute time reference. Both timestamp TLVs MAY be
used simultaneously.
Note, ALARM_SPEC objects SHOULD NOT be added to the Path and Resv
states of LSPs that are in "alarm communication inhibited" state.
ALARM_SPEC objects MAY be added to the state of LSPs that are in an
"administratively down" state. These states are indicated by the I
and A bits of the Admin_Status object; see <a href="#section-3.2">Section 3.2</a>.
To remove local alarm information, a node simply removes the matching
locally generated ALARM_SPEC objects from the outgoing Path and Resv
messages. A node MAY modify a locally generated ALARM_SPEC object.
Normal refresh and trigger message processing applies to Path or Resv
messages that contain ALARM_SPEC objects. Note that changes in
ALARM_SPEC objects from one message to the next may include a
modification in the contents of a specific ALARM_SPEC object, or a
change in the number of ALARM_SPEC objects present. All changes in
ALARM_SPEC objects SHOULD be processed as trigger messages.
Failure to follow the above directives, in particular the ones
labeled "SHOULD" and "SHOULD NOT", may result in the alarm
information not being properly or fully communicated.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.1.3" href="#section-3.1.3">3.1.3</a>. Error Codes and Values</span>
The Error Codes and Values used in ALARM_SPEC objects are the same as
those used in ERROR_SPEC objects. New Error Code values for use with
both ERROR_SPEC and ALARM_SPEC objects may be assigned to support
alarm types defined by other standards.
In this document we define one new Error Code. The Error Code uses
the value 31 and is referred to as "Alarms". The values used in the
Error Values field when the Error Code is "Alarms" are the same as
the values defined in the IANAItuProbableCause Textual Convention of
IANA-ITU-ALARM-TC-MIB in the Alarm MIB [<a href="./rfc3877" title=""Alarm Management Information Base (MIB)"">RFC3877</a>]. Note that these
values are managed by IANA; see <a href="http://www.iana.org">http://www.iana.org</a>.
<span class="grey">Berger Standards Track [Page 10]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-11" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc4783">RFC 4783</a> GMPLS - Communication of Alarm Information December 2006</span>
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.1.4" href="#section-3.1.4">3.1.4</a>. Backwards Compatibility</span>
The support of ALARM_SPEC objects is OPTIONAL. Non-supporting nodes
will (according to the rules defined in [<a href="./rfc2205" title=""Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional Specification"">RFC2205</a>]) pass the objects
through the node unmodified, because the ALARM_SPEC object has a
C-Num of the form 11bbbbbb.
This allows alarm information to be collected and examined in a
network built from a collection of nodes some of which support the
communication of alarm information, and some of which do not.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.2" href="#section-3.2">3.2</a>. Controlling Alarm Communication</span>
Alarm information communication is controlled via Administrative
Status Information as carried in the Admin_Status object. A new bit
is defined, called the I bit, that indicates when alarm communication
is to be inhibited. The definition of this bit does not modify the
procedures defined in <a href="./rfc3473#section-7">Section 7 of [RFC3473]</a>.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.2.1" href="#section-3.2.1">3.2.1</a>. Updated Admin_Status Object</span>
The format of the Admin_Status object is updated to include the I
bit:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | Class-Num(196)| C-Type (1) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|R| Reserved |I| |T|A|D|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Inhibit Alarm Communication (I): 1 bit
When set, indicates that alarm communication is disabled for
the LSP and that nodes SHOULD NOT add local alarm information.
See <a href="./rfc3473#section-7.1">Section 7.1 of [RFC3473]</a> for the definition of the remaining
bits.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.2.2" href="#section-3.2.2">3.2.2</a>. Procedures</span>
The I bit may be set and cleared using the procedures defined in
Sections <a href="#section-7.2">7.2</a> and <a href="#section-7.3">7.3</a> of [<a href="./rfc3473" title=""Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions"">RFC3473</a>]. A node that receives (or
generates) an Admin_Status object with the A or I bits set (1),
SHOULD remove all locally generated alarm information from the
matching LSP's outgoing Path and Resv messages. When a node receives
(or generates) an Admin_Status object with the A and I bits clear (0)
and there is local alarm information present, it SHOULD add the local
<span class="grey">Berger Standards Track [Page 11]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-12" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc4783">RFC 4783</a> GMPLS - Communication of Alarm Information December 2006</span>
alarm information to the matching LSP's outgoing Path and Resv
messages.
The processing of non-locally generated ALARM_SPEC objects MUST NOT
be impacted by the contents of the Admin_Status object; that is,
received ALARM_SPEC objects MUST be forwarded unchanged regardless of
the received or transmitted settings of the I and A bits. Note that,
per [<a href="./rfc3473" title=""Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions"">RFC3473</a>], the absence of the Admin_Status object is equivalent
to receiving an object containing values all set to zero (0).
I bit related processing behavior MAY be overridden locally based on
configuration.
When generating Notify messages for LSPs with the I bit set, the TLVs
described in this document MAY be added to the ERROR_SPEC object sent
in the Notify message.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.3" href="#section-3.3">3.3</a>. Message Formats</span>
This section presents the RSVP message-related formats as modified by
this document. The formats specified in [<a href="./rfc3473" title=""Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions"">RFC3473</a>] served as the
basis of these formats. The objects are listed in suggested
ordering.
The format of a Path message is as follows:
<Path Message> ::= <Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ]
[ [<MESSAGE_ID_ACK> | <MESSAGE_ID_NACK>] ... ]
[ <MESSAGE_ID> ]
<SESSION> <RSVP_HOP>
<TIME_VALUES>
[ <EXPLICIT_ROUTE> ]
<LABEL_REQUEST>
[ <PROTECTION> ]
[ <LABEL_SET> ... ]
[ <SESSION_ATTRIBUTE> ]
[ <NOTIFY_REQUEST> ]
[ <ADMIN_STATUS> ]
[ <POLICY_DATA> ... ]
[ <ALARM_SPEC> ... ]
<sender descriptor>
<sender descriptor> is not modified by this document.
<span class="grey">Berger Standards Track [Page 12]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-13" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc4783">RFC 4783</a> GMPLS - Communication of Alarm Information December 2006</span>
The format of a Resv message is as follows:
<Resv Message> ::= <Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ]
[ [<MESSAGE_ID_ACK> | <MESSAGE_ID_NACK>] ... ]
[ <MESSAGE_ID> ]
<SESSION> <RSVP_HOP>
<TIME_VALUES>
[ <RESV_CONFIRM> ] [ <SCOPE> ]
[ <NOTIFY_REQUEST> ]
[ <ADMIN_STATUS> ]
[ <POLICY_DATA> ... ]
[ <ALARM_SPEC> ... ]
<STYLE> <flow descriptor list>
<flow descriptor list> is not modified by this document.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.4" href="#section-3.4">3.4</a>. Relationship to GMPLS UNI</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC4208">RFC4208</a>] defines how GMPLS may be used in an overlay model to
provide a user-to-network interface (UNI). In this model,
restrictions may be applied to the information that is signaled
between an edge-node and a core-node. This restriction allows the
core network to limit the information that is visible outside of the
core. This restriction may be made for confidentiality, privacy, or
security reasons. It may also be made for operational reasons, for
example, if the information is only applicable within the core
network.
The extensions described in this document are candidates for
filtering as described in [<a href="./rfc4208" title=""Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) User- Network Interface (UNI): Resource ReserVation Protocol- Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Support for the Overlay Model"">RFC4208</a>]. In particular, the following
observations apply.
o An ingress or egress core-node MAY filter alarms from the GMPLS
core to a client-node UNI LSP. This may be to protect information
about the core network, or to indicate that the core network is
performing or has completed recovery actions for the GMPLS LSP.
o An ingress or egress core-node MAY modify alarms from the GMPLS
core when sending to a client-node UNI LSP. This may facilitate
the UNI client's ability to understand the failure and its effect
on the data plane, and enable the UNI client to take corrective
actions in a more appropriate manner.
o Similarly, an egress core-node MAY choose not to request alarm
reporting on Path messages that it sends downstream to the overlay
network.
<span class="grey">Berger Standards Track [Page 13]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-14" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc4783">RFC 4783</a> GMPLS - Communication of Alarm Information December 2006</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.5" href="#section-3.5">3.5</a>. Relationship to GMPLS E-NNI</span>
GMPLS may be used at the external network-to-network interface
(E-NNI); see [<a href="#ref-ASON-APPL" title=""Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) RSVP-TE signaling usage in support of Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)"">ASON-APPL</a>]. At this interface, restrictions may be
applied to the information that is signaled between an egress and an
ingress core-node.
This restriction allows the ingress core network to limit the
information that is visible outside of its core network. This
restriction may be made for confidentiality, privacy, or security
reasons. It may also be made for operational reasons, for example,
if the information is only applicable within the core network.
The extensions described in this document are candidates for
filtering as described in [<a href="#ref-ASON-APPL" title=""Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) RSVP-TE signaling usage in support of Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)"">ASON-APPL</a>]. In particular, the following
observations apply.
o An ingress or egress core-node MAY filter internal core network
alarms. This may be to protect information about the internal
network or to indicate that the core network is performing or has
completed recovery actions for this LSP.
o An ingress or egress core-node MAY modify internal core network
alarms. This may facilitate the peering E-NNI (i.e., the egress
core-node) to understand the failure and its effect on the data
plane, and take corrective actions in a more appropriate manner or
prolong the generated alarms upstream/downstream as appropriated.
o Similarly, an egress/ingress core-node MAY choose not to request
alarm reporting on Path messages that it sends downstream.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>. Security Considerations</span>
Some operators may consider alarm information as sensitive. To
support environments where this is the case, implementations SHOULD
allow the user to disable the generation of ALARM_SPEC objects, or to
filter or correlate them at domain boundaries.
This document introduces no additional security considerations. See
[<a href="./rfc3473" title=""Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions"">RFC3473</a>] for relevant security considerations.
It may be noted that if the security considerations of [<a href="./rfc3473" title=""Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions"">RFC3473</a>] are
breached, alarm information may be spoofed. Such spoofing would be
at most annoying and cause slight degradation of control plane
performance since the details are provided for information only and
do not result in protocol actions beyond the exchange of messages to
convey the information. If the protocol security is able to be
breached sufficiently to allow spoofing of alarm information then
<span class="grey">Berger Standards Track [Page 14]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-15" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc4783">RFC 4783</a> GMPLS - Communication of Alarm Information December 2006</span>
considerably more interesting and exciting damage can be caused by
spoofing other elements of the protocol messages.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>. IANA Considerations</span>
IANA administered assignment of new values for namespaces defined in
this document and reviewed in this section.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.1" href="#section-5.1">5.1</a>. New RSVP Object</span>
IANA made the following assignments in the "Class Names, Class
Numbers, and Class Types" section of the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry
located at <a href="http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters">http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters</a>.
A new class named ALARM_SPEC (198) was created in the 11bbbbbb range
with following values
o Class = 198, C-Type = 1
<a href="./rfc4783">RFC 4783</a>
Reserved. (C-Type value defined for ERROR_SPEC, but is not
defined for use with ALARM_SPEC.)
o Class = 198, C-Type = 2
<a href="./rfc4783">RFC 4783</a>
Reserved. (C-Type value defined for ERROR_SPEC, but is not
defined for use with ALARM_SPEC.)
o IPv4 IF_ID ALARM_SPEC object: Class = 198, C-Type = 3
<a href="./rfc4783">RFC 4783</a>
Definition same as IPv4 IF_ID ERROR_SPEC [<a href="./rfc3473" title=""Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions"">RFC3473</a>].
o IPv6 IF_ID ALARM_SPEC object: Class = 198, C-Type = 4
<a href="./rfc4783">RFC 4783</a>
Definition same as IPv6 IF_ID ERROR_SPEC [<a href="./rfc3473" title=""Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions"">RFC3473</a>].
The ALARM_SPEC object uses the Error Code and Error Values from the
ERROR_SPEC object.
<span class="grey">Berger Standards Track [Page 15]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-16" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc4783">RFC 4783</a> GMPLS - Communication of Alarm Information December 2006</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.2" href="#section-5.2">5.2</a>. New Interface ID Types</span>
IANA made the following assignments in the "Interface_ID Types"
section of the "GMPLS Signaling Parameters" registry located at
<a href="http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters">http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters</a>.
512 8 REFERENCE_COUNT <a href="./rfc4783">RFC 4783</a>
513 8 SEVERITY <a href="./rfc4783">RFC 4783</a>
514 8 GLOBAL_TIMESTAMP <a href="./rfc4783">RFC 4783</a>
515 8 LOCAL_TIMESTAMP <a href="./rfc4783">RFC 4783</a>
516 variable ERROR_STRING <a href="./rfc4783">RFC 4783</a>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.3" href="#section-5.3">5.3</a>. New Registry for Admin-Status Object Bit Fields</span>
IANA created a new section titled "Administrative Status Information
Flags" in the "GMPLS Signaling Parameters" registry located at
<a href="http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters">http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters</a> and made the
following assignments:
Value Name Reference
----------- -------------------------------- -----------------
0x80000000 Reflect (R) [RFC3473/RFC3471]
0x00000010 Inhibit Alarm Communication (I) <a href="./rfc4783">RFC 4783</a>
0x00000004 Testing (T) [RFC3473/RFC3471]
0x00000002 Administratively down (A) [RFC3473/RFC3471]
0x00000001 Deletion in progress (D) [RFC3473/RFC3471]
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.4" href="#section-5.4">5.4</a>. New RSVP Error Code</span>
IANA made the following assignments in the "Error Codes and Values"
section of the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at
<a href="http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters">http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters</a>.
31 Alarms <a href="./rfc4783">RFC 4783</a>
The Error Value sub-codes for this Error Code have values and
meanings identical to the values and meanings defined in the
IANAItuProbableCause Textual Convention of IANA-ITU-ALARM-TC-MIB
in the Alarm MIB [<a href="./rfc3877" title=""Alarm Management Information Base (MIB)"">RFC3877</a>]. Note that these values are already
managed the IANA.
<span class="grey">Berger Standards Track [Page 16]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-17" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc4783">RFC 4783</a> GMPLS - Communication of Alarm Information December 2006</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-6" href="#section-6">6</a>. References</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.1" href="#section-6.1">6.1</a>. Normative References</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC2119">RFC2119</a>] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP 14</a>, <a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a>, March 1997.
[<a id="ref-RFC2205">RFC2205</a>] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and
S. Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) --
Version 1 Functional Specification", <a href="./rfc2205">RFC 2205</a>, September
1997.
[<a id="ref-RFC3471">RFC3471</a>] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", <a href="./rfc3471">RFC</a>
<a href="./rfc3471">3471</a>, January 2003.
[<a id="ref-RFC3473">RFC3473</a>] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", <a href="./rfc3473">RFC</a>
<a href="./rfc3473">3473</a>, January 2003.
[<a id="ref-RFC3877">RFC3877</a>] Chisholm, S. and D. Romascanu, "Alarm Management
Information Base (MIB)", <a href="./rfc3877">RFC 3877</a>, September 2004.
[<a id="ref-M.3100">M.3100</a>] ITU Recommendation M.3100, "Generic Network Information
Model", 1995.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.2" href="#section-6.2">6.2</a>. Informative References</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC4201">RFC4201</a>] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., and L. Berger, "Link Bundling
in MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)", <a href="./rfc4201">RFC 4201</a>, October
2005.
[<a id="ref-M.20">M.20</a>] ITU-T, "MAINTENANCE PHILOSOPHY FOR TELECOMMUNICATION
NETWORKS", Recommendation M.20, October 1992.
[<a id="ref-GR833">GR833</a>] Bellcore, "Network Maintenance: Network Element and
Transport Surveillance Messages" (GR-833-CORE), Issue 3,
February 1999.
[<a id="ref-RFC4208">RFC4208</a>] 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", <a href="./rfc4208">RFC 4208</a>, October 2005.
<span class="grey">Berger Standards Track [Page 17]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-18" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc4783">RFC 4783</a> GMPLS - Communication of Alarm Information December 2006</span>
[<a id="ref-ASON-APPL">ASON-APPL</a>] Papadimitriou, D., et al., "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
RSVP-TE signaling usage in support of Automatically
Switched Optical Network (ASON)", Work in Progress, July
2005.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-7" href="#section-7">7</a>. Acknowledgments</span>
Valuable comments and input were received from a number of people,
including Wes Doonan, Bert Wijnen for the DISMAN reference, and Tom
Petch for getting the DISMAN WG interactions started. We also thank
David Black, Lars Eggert, Russ Housley, Dan Romascanu, and Magnus
Westerlund for their valuable comments.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-8" href="#section-8">8</a>. Contributors</span>
Contributors are listed in alphabetical order:
Deborah Brungard
AT&T Labs, Room MT D1-3C22
200 Laurel Avenue
Middletown, NJ 07748, USA
Phone: (732) 420-1573
EMail: dbrungard@att.com
Igor Bryskin Adrian Farrel
Movaz Networks, Inc. Old Dog Consulting
7926 Jones Branch Drive
Suite 615
McLean VA, 22102, USA Phone: +44 (0) 1978 860944
EMail: ibryskin@movaz.com EMail: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel) Arun Satyanarayana
Francis Wellesplein 1 Cisco Systems, Inc
B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium 170 West Tasman Dr.
San Jose, CA 95134 USA
Phone: +32 3 240-8491 Phone: +1 408 853-3206
EMail: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be EMail: asatyana@cisco.com
Editor's Address
Lou Berger
LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
Phone: +1 301-468-9228
EMail: lberger@labn.net
<span class="grey">Berger Standards Track [Page 18]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-19" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc4783">RFC 4783</a> GMPLS - Communication of Alarm Information December 2006</span>
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2006).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp78">BCP 78</a>, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST,
AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT
THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp78">BCP 78</a> and <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp79">BCP 79</a>.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/ipr">http://www.ietf.org/ipr</a>.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Berger Standards Track [Page 19]
</pre>
|
