draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-01.txt		draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-02.txt
	Network work group Mach Chen		Network work group Mach Chen
	Internet Draft Renhai Zhang		Internet Draft Renhai Zhang
	Expires: March 2008 Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd		Expires: May 2008 Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd
	Category: Standards Track September 6, 2007		Category: Standards Track Xiaodong Duan
			China Mobile
			November 19, 2007
	OSPF Traffic Engineering (OSPF-TE) Extensions in Support of Inter-AS		OSPF Extensions in Support of Inter-AS Multiprotocol Label Switching
	Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)		(MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering
	Traffic Engineering		draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-02.txt
	draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-01.txt
	Status of this Memo		Status of this Memo
	By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that		By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that
	any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is		any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is
	aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she		aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she
	becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of		becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of
	BCP 79.		BCP 79.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	skipping to change at page 1, line 35		skipping to change at page 1, line 36
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at		The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
	http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt		http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
	The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at		The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
	http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html		http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
	This Internet-Draft will expire on March 6, 2008.		This Internet-Draft will expire on May 19, 2008.
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document describes extensions to the OSPF v2 and v3 Traffic		This document describes extensions to the OSPF version 2 and 3
	Engineering (OSPF-TE) mechanisms to support Multiprotocol Label		protocols to support Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and
	Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering(TE)		Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering(TE) for multiple
	for multiple Autonomous Systems (ASes). It defines OSPF-TE extensions		Autonomous Systems (ASes). OSPF-TE v2 and v3 extensions are defined
	for the flooding of TE information about inter-AS links which can be		for the flooding of TE information about inter-AS links which can be
	used to perform inter-AS TE path computation.		used to perform inter-AS TE path computation.
			No support for flooding TE information from other outside the AS is
			proposed or defined in this document.
	Conventions used in this document		Conventions used in this document
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",		The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
	"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this		"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
	document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119].		document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119].
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction.................................................2		1. Introduction.................................................2
	2. Problem Statement............................................3		2. Problem Statement............................................3
	2.1. A Note on Non-Objectives................................3		2.1. A Note on Non-Objectives................................4
	2.2. Per-Domain Path Determination...........................4		2.2. Per-Domain Path Determination...........................4
	2.3. Backward Recursive Path Computation.....................6		2.3. Backward Recursive Path Computation.....................6
	3. Extensions to OSPF-TE........................................7		3. Extensions to OSPF...........................................7
	3.1. Remote AS Number Sub-TLV................................7		3.1. LSA Definitions.........................................8
	3.2. Inter-AS Link Type......................................8		3.1.1. Inter-AS-TE-v2 LSA.................................8
	3.3. Link ID.................................................8		3.1.2. Inter-AS-TE-v3 LSA.................................8
	4. Procedure for Inter-AS TE Links..............................8		3.2. LSA Payload.............................................9
	5. Security Considerations......................................9		3.2.1. Link TLV...........................................9
	6. IANA Considerations.........................................10		3.3. Sub-TLV Detail.........................................10
	6.1. OSPF LSA Sub-TLVs type.................................10		3.3.1. Remote AS Number Sub-TLV..........................10
	6.2. OSPF TE Link Type......................................10		3.3.2. IPv4 Remote ASBR ID Sub-TLV.......................11
	7. Acknowledgments.............................................10		3.3.3. IPv6 Remote ASBR ID Sub-TLV.......................11
	8. References..................................................11		4. Procedure for Inter-AS TE Links.............................12
	8.1. Normative References...................................11		4.1. Origin of Proxied TE Information.......................13
	8.2. Informative References.................................11		5. Security Considerations.....................................14
	Authors' Addresses.............................................12		6. IANA Considerations.........................................14
	Intellectual Property Statement................................12		6.1. Inter-AS TE OSPF LSA...................................14
	Disclaimer of Validity.........................................13		6.2. OSPF LSA Sub-TLVs type.................................15
	Copyright Statement............................................13		7. Acknowledgments.............................................15
			8. References..................................................15
			8.1. Normative References...................................15
			8.2. Informative References.................................16
			Authors' Addresses.............................................17
			Intellectual Property Statement................................17
			Disclaimer of Validity.........................................18
			Copyright Statement............................................18
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	[OSPF-TE] defines extensions to the OSPF protocol [OSPF] to support		[OSPF-TE] defines extensions to the OSPF protocol [OSPF] to support
	intra-area Traffic Engineering (TE). The extensions provide a way of		intra-area Traffic Engineering (TE). The extensions provide a way of
	encoding the TE information for TE-enabled links within the network		encoding the TE information for TE-enabled links within the network
	(TE links) and flooding this information within an area. Type 10		(TE links) and flooding this information within an area. Type 10
	opaque LSAs [RFC2370] are used to carry such TE information. Two top-		opaque LSAs [RFC2370] are used to carry such TE information. Two top-
	level TLVs are defined in [OSPF-TE]: Router Address TLV and Link TLV.		level TLVs are defined in [OSPF-TE]: Router Address TLV and Link TLV.
	The Link TLV has several nested sub-TLVs which describe the TE		The Link TLV has several nested sub-TLVs which describe the TE
	attributes for a TE link.		attributes for a TE link.
	[OSPF-TE-V3] defines similar extensions to OSPFv3 [OSPFV3].		[OSPF-V3-TE] defines similar extensions to OSPFv3 [OSPFV3]. It
			defines a new LSA, which is referred to as the Intra-Area-TE LSA, to
			advertise TE information. [OSPF-V3-TE] uses "Traffic Engineering
			Extensions to OSPF" [OSPF-TE] as a base for TLV definitions and
			defines some new TLVs and sub-TLVs to extend TE capabilities to IPv6
			networks.
	Requirements for establishing Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) TE		Requirements for establishing Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic
	Label Switched Paths (LSPs) that cross multiple Autonomous Systems		Engineering (MPLS-TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) that cross multiple
	(ASes) are described in [INTER-AS-TE-REQ]. As described in [INTER-AS-		Autonomous Systems (ASes) are described in [INTER-AS-TE-REQ]. As
	TE-REQ], a method SHOULD provide the ability to compute a path		described in [INTER-AS-TE-REQ], a method SHOULD provide the ability
	spanning multiple ASes. So a path computation entity that may be the		to compute a path spanning multiple ASes. So a path computation
	head-end Label Switching Router (LSR), an AS Border Router (ASBR), or		entity that may be the head-end Label Switching Router (LSR), an AS
	a Path Computation Element (PCE [PCE]) needs to know the TE		Border Router (ASBR), or a Path Computation Element (PCE [PCE]) needs
	information not only of the links within an AS, but also of the links		to know the TE information not only of the links within an AS, but
	that connect to other ASes.		also of the links that connect to other ASes.
	In this document, some extensions to OSPF-TE are defined in support		In this document, two new separate LSAs are defined to advertise
	of carrying inter-AS TE link information for inter-AS Traffic		inter-AS TE information for OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 respectively, and three
	Engineering. A new sub-TLV is added to the Link TLV and a new link		new sub-TLVs are added to the existing Link TLV to extend TE
	type is introduced. The extensions are equally applicable to OSPFv2		capabilities for inter-AS Traffic Engineering. The detailed
	and OSPFv3 as identical extensions to [OSPF-TE] and [OSPF-TE-V3]. The		definitions and procedures are discussed in the following sections.
	detailed definitions and procedures are discussed in the following
	sections.		This document does not propose or define any mechanisms to advertise
			any other extra-AS TE information within OSPF. See Section 2.1 for a
			full list of non-objectives for this work.
	2. Problem Statement		2. Problem Statement
	As described in [INTER-AS-TE-REQ], in the case of establishing an		As described in [INTER-AS-TE-REQ], in the case of establishing an
	inter-AS TE LSP traversing multiple ASes, the Path message [RFC3209]		inter-AS TE LSP traversing multiple ASes, the Path message [RFC3209]
	may include the following elements in the Explicit Route Object (ERO)		may include the following elements in the Explicit Route Object (ERO)
	in order to describe the path of the LSP:		in order to describe the path of the LSP:
	- a set of AS numbers as loose hops; and/or		- a set of AS numbers as loose hops; and/or
	- a set of LSRs including ASBRs as loose hops.		- a set of LSRs including ASBRs as loose hops.
	Two methods for determining inter-AS paths are currently discussed.		Two methods for determining inter-AS paths are currently being
	The per-domain method [PD-PATH] determines the path one domain at a		discussed. The per-domain method [PD-PATH] determines the path one
	time. The backward recursive method [BRPC] uses cooperation between		domain at a time. The backward recursive method [BRPC] uses
	PCEs to determine an optimum inter-domain path. The sections that		cooperation between PCEs to determine an optimum inter-domain path.
	follow examine how inter-AS TE link information could be useful in		The sections that follow examine how inter-AS TE link information
	both cases.		could be useful in both cases.
	2.1. A Note on Non-Objectives		2.1. A Note on Non-Objectives
	It is important to note that this document does not make any change		It is important to note that this document does not make any change
	to the confidentiality and scaling assumptions surrounding the use of		to the confidentiality and scaling assumptions surrounding the use of
	ASes in the Internet. In particular, this document is conformant to		ASes in the Internet. In particular, this document is conformant to
	the requirements set out in [INTER-AS-TE-REQ].		the requirements set out in [INTER-AS-TE-REQ].
	The following lists of features are explicit exclusions.		The following features are explicitly excluded.:
	o There is no attempt to distribute TE information from within one		o There is no attempt to distribute TE information from within one
	AS to another AS.		AS to another AS.
	o There is no mechanism proposed to distribute any form of TE		o There is no mechanism proposed to distribute any form of TE
	reachability information for destinations outside the AS.		reachability information for destinations outside the AS.
	o There is no proposed change to the PCE architecture or usage.		o There is no proposed change to the PCE architecture or usage.
	o TE aggregation is not supported or recommended.		o TE aggregation is not supported or recommended.
	o There is no exchange of private information between ASes.		o There is no exchange of private information between ASes.
	o No OSPF adjacencies are formed on the inter-AS link.		o No OSPF adjacencies are formed on the inter-AS link.
	Note further that the extensions proposed in this document are		Note also that the extensions proposed in this document are used only
	limited to use for information about inter-AS TE links. L1VPN Auto-		to advertise information about inter-AS TE links. As such these
	Discovery [L1VPN-OSPF-AD] defines how TE information about links		extensions address an entirely different problem from L1VPN Auto-
	between Customer Edge (CE) equipment and Provider Edge (PE) equipment		Discovery [L1VPN-OSPF-AD] which defines how TE information about
	can be advertised in OSPF-TE alongside the auto-discovery information		links between Customer Edge (CE) equipment and Provider Edge (PE)
	for the CE-PE links. That is separate functionality and does not		equipment can be advertised in OSPF-TE alongside the auto-discovery
	overlap with the function defined in this document.		information for the CE-PE links. There is no overlap between this
			document and [L1VPN-OSPF-AD].
	2.2. Per-Domain Path Determination		2.2. Per-Domain Path Determination
	In the per-domain method of determining an inter-AS path for an MPLS-		In the per-domain method of determining an inter-AS path for an MPLS-
	TE LSP, when an LSR that is an entry-point to an AS receives a PATH		TE LSP, when an LSR that is an entry-point to an AS receives a PATH
	message from an upstream AS with an ERO containing a next hop that is		message from an upstream AS with an ERO containing a next hop that is
	an AS number, it needs to find which LSRs (ASBRs) within the local AS		an AS number, it needs to find which LSRs (ASBRs) within the local AS
	are connected to the downstream AS so that it can compute a TE LSP		are connected to the downstream AS so that it can compute a TE LSP
	segment across the AS to one of those LSRs and forward the PATH		segment across the local AS to one of those LSRs and forward the PATH
	message to the LSR and hence into the next AS. See the figure below		message to it and hence into the next AS. See Figure 1 for an
	for an example:		example :
	R1------R3----R5-----R7------R9-----R11		R1------R3----R5-----R7------R9-----R11
	| | \ | / |		| | \ | / |
	| | \ | ---- |		| | \ | ---- |
	| | \ | / |		| | \ | / |
	R2------R4----R6 --R8------R10----R12		R2------R4----R6 --R8------R10----R12
	: :		: :
	<-- AS1 -->:<---- AS2 --->:<--- AS3 --->		<-- AS1 -->:<---- AS2 --->:<--- AS3 --->
	Figure 1: Inter-AS Reference Model		Figure 1: Inter-AS Reference Model
	The figure shows three ASes (AS1, AS2, and AS3) and twelve LSRs (R1		The figure shows three ASes (AS1, AS2, and AS3) and twelve LSRs (R1
	through R12). R3 and R4 are ASBRs in AS1. R5, R6, R7, and R8 are		through R12). R3 and R4 are ASBRs in AS1. R5, R6, R7, and R8 are
	ASBRs in AS2. R9 and R10 are ASBRs in AS3.		ASBRs in AS2. R9 and R10 are ASBRs in AS3.
	If an inter-AS TE LSP is planned to be established from R1 to R12,		If an inter-AS TE LSP is planned to be established from R1 to R12,
	the AS sequence is limited as: AS1, AS2, AS3.		the AS sequence will be: AS1, AS2, AS3.
	Suppose that the Path message enters AS2 from R3. The next hop in the		Suppose that the Path message enters AS2 from R3. The next hop in the
	ERO shows AS3, and R5 must determine a path segment across AS2 to		ERO shows AS3, and R5 must determine a path segment across AS2 to
	reach AS3. It has a choice of three exit points from AS2 (R6, R7, and		reach AS3. It has a choice of three exit points from AS2 (R6, R7, and
	R8) and it needs to know which of these provide TE connectivity to		R8) and it needs to know which of these provide TE connectivity to
	AS3, and whether the TE connectivity (for example, available		AS3, and whether the TE connectivity (for example, available
	bandwidth) is adequate for the requested LSP.		bandwidth) is adequate for the requested LSP.
	Alternatively, if the next hop in the ERO is the entry ASBR for AS3		Alternatively, if the next hop in the ERO is the entry ASBR for AS3
	(say R9), R5 needs to know which of its exit ASBRs has a TE link that		(say R9), R5 needs to know which of its exit ASBRs has a TE link that
	connects to R9. Since there may be multiple exist ASBRs that are		connects to R9. Since there may be multiple ASBRs that are connected
	connected to R9 (both R7 and R8 in this example), R5 also needs to		to R9 (both R7 and R8 in this example), R5 also needs to know the TE
	know the TE properties of the inter-AS TE links so that it can select		properties of the inter-AS TE links so that it can select the correct
	the correct exit ASBR.		exit ASBR.
	Once the path message reaches the exit ASBR, any choice of inter-AS		Once the path message reaches the exit ASBR, any choice of inter-AS
	TE link can be made by the ASBR if not already made by entry ASBR		TE link can be made by the ASBR if not already made by entry ASBR
	that computed the segment.		that computed the segment.
	More details can be found in the Section 4.0 of [PD-PATH], which		More details can be found in the Section 4.0 of [PD-PATH], which
	clearly points out why advertising of inter-AS links is desired.		clearly points out why advertising of inter-AS links is desired.
	To enable R5 to make the correct choice of exit ASBR the following		To enable R5 to make the correct choice of exit ASBR the following
	information is needed:		information is needed:
	skipping to change at page 6, line 46		skipping to change at page 7, line 23
	: :		: :
	<-- AS1 -->:<---- AS2 --->:<--- AS3 --->		<-- AS1 -->:<---- AS2 --->:<--- AS3 --->
	Figure 2: BRPC for Inter-AS Reference Model		Figure 2: BRPC for Inter-AS Reference Model
	The figure shows three ASes (AS1, AS2, and AS3), three PCEs (PCE1,		The figure shows three ASes (AS1, AS2, and AS3), three PCEs (PCE1,
	PCE2, and PCE3), and twelve LSRs (R1 through R12). R3 and R4 are		PCE2, and PCE3), and twelve LSRs (R1 through R12). R3 and R4 are
	ASBRs in AS1. R5, R6, R7, and R8 are ASBRs in AS2. R9 and R10 are		ASBRs in AS1. R5, R6, R7, and R8 are ASBRs in AS2. R9 and R10 are
	ASBRs in AS3. PCE1, PCE2, and PCE3 cooperate to perform inter-AS path		ASBRs in AS3. PCE1, PCE2, and PCE3 cooperate to perform inter-AS path
	computation and are responsible for path segment computation within		computation and are responsible for path segment computation within
	their own domains.		their own domain(s).
	If an inter-AS TE LSP is planned to be established from R1 to R12,		If an inter-AS TE LSP is planned to be established from R1 to R12,
	the traversed domains are assumed to be selected: AS1->AS2->AS3, and		the traversed domains are assumed to be selected: AS1->AS2->AS3, and
	the PCE chain is: PCE1->PCE2->PCE3. First, the path computation		the PCE chain is: PCE1->PCE2->PCE3. First, the path computation
	request originated from the PCC (R1) is relayed by PCE1 and PCE2		request originated from the PCC (R1) is relayed by PCE1 and PCE2
	along the PCE chain to PCE3, then PCE3 begins to compute the path		along the PCE chain to PCE3, then PCE3 begins to compute the path
	segments from the entry boundary nodes that provide connection from		segments from the entry boundary nodes that provide connection from
	AS2 to the destination (R12). But, to provide suitable path segments,		AS2 to the destination (R12). But, to provide suitable path segments,
	PCE3 must determine which entry boundary nodes provide connectivity		PCE3 must determine which entry boundary nodes provide connectivity
	to its upstream neighbor AS (identified by its AS number), and must		to its upstream neighbor AS (identified by its AS number), and must
	know the TE properties of the inter-AS TE links. In the same way,		know the TE properties of the inter-AS TE links. In the same way,
	PCE2 also needs to determine the entry boundary nodes according to		PCE2 also needs to determine the entry boundary nodes according to
	its upstream neighbor AS and the inter-AS TE link capabilities.		its upstream neighbor AS and the inter-AS TE link capabilities.
	Thus, to support Backward Recursive Path Computation the same		Thus, to support Backward Recursive Path Computation the same
	information as listed in Section 2.2 is required.		information listed in Section 2.2 is required. The AS number of the
			neighboring AS connected to by each inter-AS TE link is particular
			important.
	3. Extensions to OSPF-TE		3. Extensions to OSPF
	Note that this document does not define mechanisms for distribution		Note that this document does not define mechanisms for distribution
	of TE information from one AS to another, does not distribute any		of TE information from one AS to another, does not distribute any
	form of TE reachability information for destinations outside the AS,		form of TE reachability information for destinations outside the AS,
	does not change the PCE architecture or usage, does not suggest or		does not change the PCE architecture or usage, does not suggest or
	recommend any form of TE aggregation, and does not feed private		recommend any form of TE aggregation, and does not feed private
	information between ASes. See section 2.1.		information between ASes. See section 2.1.
	The extensions defined in this document allow an inter-AS TE link		The extensions defined in this document allow an inter-AS TE link
	advertisement to be easily identified as such by the use of a new		advertisement to be easily identified as such by the use of two new
	link type. A new sub-TLV to the Link TLV is defined to carry the		types of LSA, which are referred to as Inter-AS-TE-v2 LSA and Inter-
	information about the neighboring AS. The extensions are equally		AS-TE-v3 LSA. Three new sub-TLVs are added to the Link TLV to carry
	applicable to TE distribution using OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.		the information about the neighboring AS and the remote ASBR.
	3.1. Remote AS Number Sub-TLV		3.1. LSA Definitions
	As described in [OSPF-TE], the Link TLV describes a single link and		3.1.1. Inter-AS-TE-v2 LSA
	consists of a set of sub-TLVs. A new sub-TLV, the Remote AS Number
	sub-TLV is added to the Link TLV when advertising inter-AS links. The		For the advertisement of OSPFv2 inter-AS TE links, a new Opaque LSA,
	Remote AS Number sub-TLV specifies the AS number of the neighboring		the Inter-AS-TE-v2 LSA, is defined in this document. The Inter-AS-TE-
	AS to which the advertised link connects. The Remote AS number sub-		v2 LSA has the same format as "Traffic Engineering LSA" which is
	TLV is mandatory for an inter-AS TE link.		defined in [OSPF-TE].
			The inter-AS TE link advertisement SHOULD be carried in a Type 10
			Opaque LSA if the flooding scope is to be limited to within the
			single IGP area to which the ASBR belongs, or MAY be carried in a
			Type 11 Opaque LSA if the information is intended to reach all
			routers (including area border routers, ASBRs, and PCEs) in the AS.
			The choice between the use of a Type 10 or Type 11 Opaque LSA is a
			network-wide policy choice, and configuration control of it SHOULD be
			provided in ASBR implementations that support the advertisement of
			inter-AS TE links.
			The Link State ID of an Opaque LSA as defined in [RFC2370] is divided
			into two parts. One of them is the Opaque type (8-bit), the other is
			the Opaque ID (24-bit). The suggested value for the Opaque type of
			Inter-AS-TE-v2 LSA is TBD and will be assigned by IANA (see Section
			6.1). We suggest the value 6. The Opaque ID (in this document called
			the Instance) of the Inter-AS-TE-v2 LSA is an arbitrary value used to
			uniquely identify Traffic Engineering LSAs. The Link State ID has no
			topological significance.
			The TLVs within the body of an Inter-AS-TE-v2 LSA have the same
			format as used in OSPF-TE. The payload of the TLVs consists of one or
			more nested Type/Length/Value triplets. New sub-TLVs specifically for
			inter-AS TE Link advertisement are described in Section 3.2.
			3.1.2. Inter-AS-TE-v3 LSA
			In this document, a new LS type is defined for OSPFv3 inter-AS TE
			link advertisement. The new LS type function code is 11 (which needs
			to be confirmed by IANA see Section 6.1).
			The format of an Inter-AS-TE-v3 LSA follows the standard definition
			of an OSPFv3 LSA as defined in [OSPFV3].
			The high-order three bits of the LS type field of the OSPFv3 LSA
			header encode generic properties of the LSA and are termed the U-bit,
			S2-bit, and S1-bit [OSPFV3]. The remainder of the LS type carries the
			LSA function code.
			For the Inter-AS-TE-v3-LSA the bits are set as follows:
			The U-bit is always set to 1 to indicate that an OSPFv3 router MUST
			flood the LSA at its defined flooding scope even if it does not
			recognize the LS type.
			The S2 and S1 bits indicate the flooding scope of an LSA. For the
			Inter-AS-TE-v3-LSA the S2 and S1 bits SHOULD be set to 01 to indicate
			that the flooding scope is to be limited to within the single IGP
			area to which the ASBR belongs, but MAY be set to 10 if the
			information should reach all routers (including area border routers,
			ASBRs, and PCEs) in the AS. The choice between the use of 01 or 10 is
			a network-wide policy choice, and configuration control SHOULD be
			provided in ASBR implementations that support the advertisement of
			inter-AS TE links.
			The Link State ID of the Inter-AS-TE-v3 LSA is an arbitrary value
			used to uniquely identify Traffic Engineering LSAs. The LSA ID has no
			topological significance.
			The TLVs with the body of an Inter-AS-TE-v3 LSA have the same format
			and semantic as defined above in [OSPF-V3-TE]. New sub-TLVs
			specifically for inter-AS TE Link advertisement are described in
			Section 3.2.
			3.2. LSA Payload
			Both Inter-AS-TE-v2 LSA and Inter-AS-TE-v3 LSA contain one top level
			TLV:
			2 - Link TLV
			For the Inter-AS-TE-v2 LSA this TLV is defined in [OSPF-TE] and for
			the Inter-AS-TE-v3 LSA this TLV is defined in [OSPF-V3-TE]. The sub-
			TLVs carried in this TLV are described in the following sections.
			3.2.1. Link TLV
			The Link TLV describes a single link and consists a set of sub-TLVs.
			The sub-TLVs for inclusion in the Link TLV of the Inter-AS-TE-v2 LSA
			and Inter-AS-TE-v3 LSA are defined respectively in [OSPF-TE] and
			[OSPF-V3-TE] and the list of sub-TLVs may be extended by other
			documents. However, this document defines one exception as follows.
			The Link ID sub-TLV [OSPF-TE] MUST NOT be used in the Link TLV of an
			Inter-AS-TE-v2 LSA, and the Neighbor ID sub-TLV [OSPF-V3-TE] MUST NOT
			be used in the Link TLV of an Inter-AS-TE-v3 LSA. This is because the
			address of the link-end or neighbor is an address in another AS that
			may operate a different address space; such an address is of no value
			to routing within the AS where this Link TLV is used.
			Instead, the remote ASBR is identified by the inclusion of the
			following new sub-TLVs defined in this document and described in the
			subsequent sections.
			21 - Remote AS Number sub-TLV
			22 - IPv4 Remote ASBR ID sub-TLV
			23 - IPv6 Remote ASBR ID sub-TLV
			The Remote-AS-Number sub-TLV MUST be included in the Link TLV of both
			the Inter-AS-TE-v2 LSA and Inter-AS-TE-v3 LSA. At least one of the
			IPv4-Remote-ASBR-ID sub-TLV and the IPv6-Remote-ASBR-ID sub-TLV
			SHOULD be included in the Link TLV of the Inter-AS-TE-v2 LSA and
			Inter-AS-TE-v3 LSA. Note that it is possible to include the IPv6-
			Remote-ASBR-ID sub-TLV in the Link TLV of the Inter-AS-TE-v2 LSA, and
			to include the IPv4-Remote-ASBR-ID sub-TLV in the Link TLV of the
			Inter-AS-TE-v3 LSA because the sub-TLVs refer to ASBRs that are in a
			different addressing scope (that is, a different AS) from that where
			the OSPF LSA is used.
			3.3. Sub-TLV Detail
			3.3.1. Remote AS Number Sub-TLV
			A new sub-TLV, the Remote AS Number sub-TLV is defined for inclusion
			in the Link TLV when advertising inter-AS links. The Remote AS Number
			sub-TLV specifies the AS number of the neighboring AS to which the
			advertised link connects. The Remote AS number sub-TLV is REQUIRED in
			a Link TLV that advertises an inter-AS TE link.
	The Remote AS number sub-TLV is TLV type 21 (which needs to be		The Remote AS number sub-TLV is TLV type 21 (which needs to be
	confirmed by IANA), and is four octets in length. The format is as		confirmed by IANA), and is four octets in length. The format is as
	follows:		follows:
	0 1 2 3		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		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 |		| Type | Length |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Remote AS Number |		| Remote AS Number |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	The Remote AS number field has 4 octets. When only two octets are		The Remote AS number field has 4 octets. When only two octets are
	used for the AS number, as in current deployments, the left (high-		used for the AS number, as in current deployments, the left (high-
	order) two octets MUST be set to zero.		order) two octets MUST be set to zero.
	3.2. Inter-AS Link Type		3.3.2. IPv4 Remote ASBR ID Sub-TLV
	To identify a link as an inter-AS link and allow easy identification		A new sub-TLV, which is referred to as the IPv4 Remote ASBR ID sub-
	of these new advertisements, a new Link Type value is defined for use		TLV, can be included in the Link TLV when advertising inter-AS links.
	in the Link Type sub-TLV. The value of the Link Type for an inter-AS		The IPv4 Remote ASBR ID sub-TLV specifies the IPv4 identifier of the
	point-to-point link is 3 (which needs to be confirmed by IANA).		remote ASBR to which the advertised inter-AS link connects. This
			could be any stable and routable IPv4 address of the remote ASBR. Use
			of the TE Router ID is RECOMMENDED.
	The use of multi-access inter-AS TE links is for future study.		The IPv4 Remote ASBR ID sub-TLV is TLV type 22 (which needs to be
			confirmed by IANA), and is four octets in length. Its format is as
			follows:
	3.3. Link ID		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 |
			+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
			| Remote ASBR ID |
			+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	For an inter-AS link, the Link ID carried in the Link ID sub-TLV is		In OSPFv2 advertisements, the IPv4 Remote ASBR ID sub-TLV MUST be
	the remote ASBR identifier which could be any address of the remote		included if the neighboring ASBR has an IPv4 address. If the
	ASBR(e.g., the TE Router ID, Router ID or interface address of the		neighboring ASBR does not have an IPv4 address (not even an IPv4 TE
	remote ASBR reached through this inter-AS link). The TE Router ID is		Router ID), the IPv6 Remote ASBR ID sub-TLV MUST be included instead.
	RECOMMENDED.		An IPv4 Remote ASBR ID sub-TLV and IPv6 Remote ASBR ID sub-TLV MAY
			both be present in a Link TLV in OSPFv2 or OSPFv3.
			3.3.3. IPv6 Remote ASBR ID Sub-TLV
			A new sub-TLV, which is referred to as the IPv6 Remote ASBR ID sub-
			TLV, can be included in the Link TLV when advertising inter-AS links.
			The IPv6 Remote ASBR ID sub-TLV specifies the identifier of the
			remote ASBR to which the advertised inter-AS link connects. This
			could be any stable, routable and global IPv6 address of the remote
			ASBR. Use of the TE Router ID is RECOMMENDED.
			The IPv6 Remote ASBR ID sub-TLV is TLV type 23 (which needs to be
			confirmed by IANA), and is sixteen octets in length. Its format is as
			follows:
			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 |
			+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
			| Remote ASBR ID |
			+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
			| Remote ASBR ID (continued) |
			+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
			| Remote ASBR ID (continued) |
			+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
			| Remote ASBR ID (continued) |
			+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
			In OSPFv3 advertisements, the IPv6 Remote ASBR ID sub-TLV MUST be
			included if the neighboring ASBR has an IPv6 address. If the
			neighboring ASBR does not have an IPv6 address, the IPv4 Remote ASBR
			ID sub-TLV MUST be included instead. An IPv4 Remote ASBR ID sub-TLV
			and IPv6 Remote ASBR ID sub-TLV MAY both be present in a Link TLV in
			OSPFv2 or OSPFv3.
	4. Procedure for Inter-AS TE Links		4. Procedure for Inter-AS TE Links
	When TE is enabled on an inter-AS link and the link is up, the ASBR		When TE is enabled on an inter-AS link and the link is up, the ASBR
	SHOULD advertise this link using the normal procedures for OSPF-TE		SHOULD advertise this link using the normal procedures for OSPF-TE
	[OSPF-TE]. When either the link is down or TE is disabled on the		[OSPF-TE]. When either the link is down or TE is disabled on the
	link , the ASBR SHOULD withdraw the advertisement. When there are		link , the ASBR SHOULD withdraw the advertisement. When there are
	changes to the TE parameters for the link (for example, when the		changes to the TE parameters for the link (for example, when the
	available bandwidth changes) the ASBR SHOULD re-advertise the link,		available bandwidth changes) the ASBR SHOULD re-advertise the link,
	but the ASBR MUST take precautions against excessive re-		but the ASBR MUST take precautions against excessive re-
	advertisements as described in [OSPF-TE].		advertisements as described in [OSPF-TE].
	Hellos MUST NOT be exchanged (and consequently, an OSPF adjacency		Hellos MUST NOT be exchanged over the inter-AS link, and
	MUST NOT be formed) over the inter-AS link.		consequently , an OSPF adjacency MUST NOT be formed.
	The information advertised comes from the ASBR's knowledge of the TE		The information advertised comes from the ASBR's knowledge of the TE
	capabilities of the link, the ASBR's knowledge of the current status		capabilities of the link, the ASBR's knowledge of the current status
	and usage of the link, and configuration at the ASBR of the remote AS		and usage of the link, and configuration at the ASBR of the remote AS
	number and remote ASBR TE Router ID.		number and remote ASBR TE Router ID.
	The TE link advertisement SHOULD be carried in a Type 10 Opaque LSA
	if the flooding scope is to be limited to within the single IGP area
	to which the ASBR belongs, or MAY be carried in a Type 11 Opaque LSA
	if the information should reach all routers (including area border
	routers, ASBRs, and PCEs) in the AS. The choice between the use of a
	Type 10 or Type 11 Opaque LSA is a network-wide policy choice, and
	configuration control SHOULD be provided in ASBR implementations that
	support the advertisement of inter-AS TE links.
	Legacy routers receiving an advertisement for an inter-AS TE link are		Legacy routers receiving an advertisement for an inter-AS TE link are
	able to ignore it because the Link Type carries an unknown value.		able to ignore it because the Link Type carries an unknown value.
	They will continue to flood the LSA, but will not attempt to use the		They will continue to flood the LSA, but will not attempt to use the
	information received as if the link were an intra-AS TE link.		information received as if the link were an intra-AS TE link.
	Since there is no OSPF adjacency running on the inter-AS link, the		In the current operation of TE OSPF, the LSRs at each end of a TE
	local ASBR SHOULD do a "proxy" advertisement for the backward		link emit LSAs describing the link. The databases in the LSRs then
	direction of an inter-AS TE link, which facilitates a path		have two entries (one locally generated, the other from the peer)
	computation entity to do a 2-way check before including the link in a		that describe the different 'directions' of the link. This enables
	path computation. As the objective of such a "proxy" advertisement is		CSPF to do a two-way check on the link when performing path
	to avoid using an inter-AS TE link when the backward direction of the		computation and eliminate it from consideration unless both
	inter-AS TE link is unavailable or unsuitable, only some mandatory or		directions of the link satisfy the required constraints.
	essential TE information needs to be advertised, i.e. the Link ID,
	the Link Type, and the Remote AS number of an inter-AS TE link.
	Routers or PCEs that are capable of processing advertisements of		In the case we are considering here(i.e., of a TE link to another AS)
	inter-AS TE links SHOULD NOT use such links to compute paths that		there is, by definition, no IGP peering and hence no bi-directional
	exit an AS to a remote ASBR and then immediately re-enter the AS		TE link information. In order for the CSPF route computation entity
	through another TE link. Such paths would constitute extremely rare		to include the link as a candidate path, we have to find a way to get
	occurrences and SHOULD NOT be allowed except as the result of		LSAs describing its (bidirectional) TE properties into the TE
	specific policy configurations at the router or PCE computing the		database.
	path.
			This is achieved by the ASBR advertising, internally to its AS,
			information about both directions of the TE link to the next AS. The
			ASBR will normally generate an LSA describing its own side of a link;
			here we have it 'proxy' for the ASBR at the edge of the other AS and
			generate an additional LSA that describes that device's 'view' of the
			link.
			Only some essential TE information for the link needs to be
			advertised; i.e., the Link Type, the Remote AS number and the Remote
			ASBR ID. Routers or PCEs that are capable of processing
			advertisements of inter-AS TE links SHOULD NOT use such links to
			compute paths that exit an AS to a remote ASBR and then immediately
			re-enter the AS through another TE link. Such paths would constitute
			extremely rare occurrences and SHOULD NOT be allowed except as the
			result of specific policy configurations at the router or PCE
			computing the path.
			4.1. Origin of Proxied TE Information
			Section 4 describes how to an ASBR advertises TE link information as
			a proxy for its neighbor ASBR, but does not describe where this
			information comes from.
			Although the source of this information is outside the scope of this
			document, it is possible that it will be a configuration requirement
			at the ASBR, as are other, local, properties of the TE link. Further,
			where BGP is used to exchange IP routing information between the
			ASBRs, a certain amount of additional local configuration about the
			link and the remote ASBR is likely to be available.
			We note further that it is possible, and may be operationally
			advantageous, to obtain some of the required configuration
			information from BGP. Whether and how to utilize these possibilities
			is an implementation matter.
	5. Security Considerations		5. Security Considerations
	The protocol extensions defined in this document are relatively minor		The protocol extensions defined in this document are relatively minor
	and can be secured within the AS in which they are used by the		and can be secured within the AS in which they are used by the
	existing OSPF security mechanisms.		existing OSPF security mechanisms.
	There is no exchange of information between ASes, and no change to		There is no exchange of information between ASes, and no change to
	the OSPF security relationship between the ASes. In particular, since		the OSPF security relationship between the ASes. In particular, since
	no OSPF adjacency is formed on the inter-AS links, there is no		no OSPF adjacency is formed on the inter-AS links, there is no
	requirement for OSPF security between the ASes.		requirement for OSPF security between the ASes.
	It should be noted, however, that some of the information included in		Some of the information included in these new advertisements (e.g.,
	these new advertisements(the remote AS number and the remote ASBR ID)		the remote AS number and the remote ASBR ID) is obtained manually
	are obtained from a neighboring administration and cannot be verified		from a neighboring administration as part of commercial relationship.
	in anyway. Since the means of delivery of this information is likely		The source and content of this information should be carefully
	to be part of a commercial relationship, the source of the		checked before it is entered as configuration information at the ASBR
	information should be carefully checked before it is entered as		responsible for advertising the inter-AS TE links.
	configuration information at the ASBR responsible for advertising the
	inter-AS TE links.		It is worth noting that in the scenario we are considering a Border
			Gateway Protocol (BGP) peering may exist between the two ASBRs and
			this could be used to detect inconsistencies in configuration. For
			example, if a different remote AS number is received in a BGP OPEN
			[BGP] from that locally configured into OSPF-TE, as we describe here,
			then something is amiss. Note, further, that if BGP is used to
			exchange TE information as described in Section 4.1, the inter-AS BGP
			session will need to be fully secured.
	6. IANA Considerations		6. IANA Considerations
	IANA is requested to make the following allocations from registries		IANA is requested to make the following allocations from registries
	under its control.		under its control.
	6.1. OSPF LSA Sub-TLVs type		6.1. Inter-AS TE OSPF LSA
			IANA is requested to assign a new Opaque LSA type (TBD) to Inter-AS-
			TE-v2 LSA and a new OSPFv3 LSA type function code (TBD) to Inter-AS-
			TE-v3 LSA. We suggest that the value 6 be assigned for the new Opaque
			LSA type, and the value 11 be assigned for the new OSPV3 LSA type
			function code.
			6.2. OSPF LSA Sub-TLVs type
	IANA maintains the "Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) Traffic		IANA maintains the "Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) Traffic
	Engineering TLVs" registry with sub-registry "Types for sub-TLVs in a		Engineering TLVs" registry with sub-registry "Types for sub-TLVs in a
	TE Link TLV". IANA is requested to assign a new sub-TLV as follows.		TE Link TLV". IANA is requested to assign a new sub-TLV as follows.
	The number 21 is suggested as shown in Section 3.1.		The following number are suggested (see section 3.3):
	Value Meaning		Value Meaning
	21 Remote AS Number sub-TLV.		21 Remote AS Number sub-TLV
	6.2. OSPF TE Link Type
	IANA is requested to create a new sub-registry "TE Link Types" of the
	registry "Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) Traffic Engineering TLVs"
	to track TE Link Types.
	The sub-registry should read as follows:
	[OSPF-TE] defines the Link Type sub-TLV of the Link TLV. The
	following values are defined.
	Value Meaning Reference
	1 Point-to-point link [OSPF-TE]
	2 Multi-access link [OSPF-TE]
	3 Inter-AS link [this document]		22 IPv4 Remote ASBR ID sub-TLV
	New allocations from this registry are by IETF Standards Action.		23 IPv6 Remote ASBR ID sub-TLV
	7. Acknowledgments		7. Acknowledgments
	The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Acee Lindem, JP		The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Acee Lindem, JP
	Vasseur, Dean Cheng, and Jean-Louis Le Roux for their review and		Vasseur, Dean Cheng, and Jean-Louis Le Roux for their review and
	comments to this document.		comments to this document.
	8. References		8. References
	8.1. Normative References		8.1. Normative References
	skipping to change at page 11, line 25		skipping to change at page 15, line 46
	[RFC2370] R. Coltun, "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC2370, July		[RFC2370] R. Coltun, "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC2370, July
	1998.		1998.
	[OSPF] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.		[OSPF] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.
	[OSPF-TE] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and Yeung, D., "Traffic Engineering		[OSPF-TE] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and Yeung, D., "Traffic Engineering
	(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September		(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September
	2003.		2003.
			[OSPF-V3-TE] Ishiguro K., Manral V., Davey A., and Lindem A. "Traffic
			Engineering Extensions to OSPF version 3", draft-ietf-ospf-
			ospfv3-traffic, {work in progress}.
	[GMPLS-TE] Rekhter, Y., and Kompella, K., "OSPF Extensions in Support		[GMPLS-TE] Rekhter, Y., and Kompella, K., "OSPF Extensions in Support
	of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC		of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC
	4203, October 2005.		4203, October 2005.
			[OSPFV3] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., and J. Moy, "OSPF for IPv6",
			RFC 2740, April 1998.
	8.2. Informative References		8.2. Informative References
	[INTER-AS-TE-REQ] Zhang and Vasseur, "MPLS Inter-AS Traffic		[INTER-AS-TE-REQ] Zhang and Vasseur, "MPLS Inter-AS Traffic
	Engineering Requirements", RFC4216, November 2005.		Engineering Requirements", RFC4216, November 2005.
	[PD-PATH] Ayyangar, A., Vasseur, JP., and Zhang, R., "A Per-domain		[PD-PATH] Ayyangar, A., Vasseur, JP., and Zhang, R., "A Per-domain
	path computation method for establishing Inter-domain",		path computation method for establishing Inter-domain",
	draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-pd-path-comp, (work in		draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-pd-path-comp, (work in
	progress).		progress).
	[BRPC] JP. Vasseur, Ed., R. Zhang, N. Bitar, JL. Le Roux, "A Backward		[BRPC] JP. Vasseur, Ed., R. Zhang, N. Bitar, JL. Le Roux, "A Backward
	Recursive PCE-based Computation (BRPC) procedure to compute		Recursive PCE-based Computation (BRPC) procedure to compute
	shortest inter-domain Traffic Engineering Label Switched		shortest inter-domain Traffic Engineering Label Switched
	Paths ", draft-ietf-pce-brpc, (work in progress)		Paths ", draft-ietf-pce-brpc, (work in progress)
	[PCE] Farrel, A., Vasseur, JP., and Ash, J., "A Path Computation		[PCE] Farrel, A., Vasseur, JP., and Ash, J., "A Path Computation
	Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC4655, August 2006.		Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC4655, August 2006.
	[OSPF-TE-V3] Ishiguro K., Manral V., Davey A., and Lindem A. "Traffic
	Engineering Extensions to OSPF version 3", draft-ietf-ospf-
	ospfv3-traffic, {work in progress}.
	[OSPFV3] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., and J. Moy, "OSPF for IPv6", RFC		[OSPFV3] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., and J. Moy, "OSPF for IPv6", RFC
	2740, April 1998.		2740, April 1998.
	[L1VPN-OSPF-AD] Bryskin, I., and Berger, L., "OSPF Based L1VPN Auto-		[L1VPN-OSPF-AD] Bryskin, I., and Berger, L., "OSPF Based L1VPN Auto-
	Discovery", draft-ietf-l1vpn-ospf-auto-discovery, (work in		Discovery", draft-ietf-l1vpn-ospf-auto-discovery, (work in
	progress).		progress).
			[BGP] Rekhter, Li, Hares, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)",
			RFC4271, January 2006
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Mach Chen		Mach Chen
	Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd		Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd
	KuiKe Building, No.9 Xinxi Rd.,		KuiKe Building, No.9 Xinxi Rd.,
	Hai-Dian District		Hai-Dian District
	Beijing, 100085		Beijing, 100085
	P.R. China		P.R. China
	Email: mach@huawei.com		Email: mach@huawei.com
	Renhai Zhang		Renhai Zhang
	Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd		Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd
	KuiKe Building, No.9 Xinxi Rd.,		KuiKe Building, No.9 Xinxi Rd.,
	Hai-Dian District		Hai-Dian District
	Beijing, 100085		Beijing, 100085
	P.R. China		P.R. China
	Email: zhangrenhai@huawei.com		Email: zhangrenhai@huawei.com
			Xiaodong Duan
			China Mobile
			53A,Xibianmennei Ave,Xunwu District
			Beijing, China
			Email: duanxiaodong@chinamobile.com
	Intellectual Property Statement		Intellectual Property Statement
	The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any		The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
	Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to		Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
	pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in		pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
	this document or the extent to which any license under such rights		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		might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
	made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information		made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
	on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be		on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
	found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.		found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
End of changes. 42 change blocks.
	155 lines changed or deleted		375 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.34. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/