MPLS Working Group
Internet Draft
Updates: 3032, 4385
Intended status: Standard Track
Expires: January 2018
M. Vigoureux
M. Bocci
Alcatel-Lucent
G. Swallow
D. Ward
Cisco Systems, Inc.
R. Aggarwal
Juniper Networks
July 31, 2017
MPLS Generic Associated Channel
draft-author-mpls-tp-gach-gal-00
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that 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 becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress".
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 31, 2018.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2017).
Abstract
author et al.
Expires January 31, 2018
[Page 1]
Internet-Draft
G-ACH and GAL
July 2017
This document generalises the applicability of the pseudowire
Associated Channel Header (ACH), enabling the realization of a
control channel associated to MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSP), MPLS
pseudowires (PW) and MPLS Sections. In order to identify the presence
of this G-ACH, this document also assigns of one of the reserved MPLS
label values to the ’Generic-ACH Label (GAL)', to be used as a label
based exception mechanism.
Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [1].
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................3
1.1. Contributing Authors......................................4
1.2. Objectives................................................4
1.3. Scope.....................................................4
1.4. Terminology...............................................4
2. Generic Associated Channel.....................................4
2.1. Allocation of Channel Types...............................5
3. Generalised Exception Mechanism................................6
3.1. Relationship with RFC 3429................................6
3.2. Relationship with Existing MPLS OAM Alert Mechanisms......7
3.3. GAL Applicability and Usage...............................7
3.3.1. GAL Processing.......................................7
MPLS....................................................8
3.3.1.1. Section.........................................8
3.3.1.2. Label Switched Paths............................9
3.3.1.3. Tandem Connection Monitoring Entity............10
3.4. Considerations on Penultimate Hop Popping................10
4. Compatibility.................................................10
5. Congestion Considerations.....................................10
6. Security Considerations.......................................10
7. IANA Considerations...........................................11
8. Acknowledgments...............................................11
9. References....................................................12
9.1. Normative References.....................................12
9.2. Informative References...................................13
Authors' Addresses...............................................13
Contributing Authors' Addresses..................................14
Intellectual Property Statement..................................14
Disclaimer of Validity...........................................15
author et al.
Expires January 31, 2018
[Page 2]
Internet-Draft
G-ACH and GAL
July 2017
1. Introduction
There is a need for Operations and Maintenance (OAM) mechanisms that
can be used for edge-to-edge (i.e. between originating and
terminating LSRs or T-PEs) and segment fault detection (e.g. between
any two LSRs or S-PEs along the path of an LSP or PW), diagnostics,
maintenance and other functions for a Pseudowire and an LSP. Some of
these functions can be supported using tools such as VCCV [8], BFD
[18], or LSP-Ping [17]. However, a requirement has been indicated to
extend these toolsets, in particular where MPLS networks are used for
packet transport services and network operations [15]. These include
performance monitoring, automatic protection switching, and support
for management and signaling communication channels. These tools must
be applicable to, and function in essentially the same manner (from
an operational point of view) on both MPLS PWs and MPLS LSPs. They
must also operate in-band on the PW or LSP such that they do not
depend on PSN routing, user data traffic or ultimately on control
plane functions.
Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) can use an
associated channel to provide a control channel between a PW’s
ingress and egress points over which OAM and other control messages
can be exchanged. In this document, we propose a generic associated
channel header (G-ACH) to enable the same control channel mechanism
be used for MPLS Sections, LSPs and PWs. The associated channel
header (ACH) specified in RFC 4385 [11] is used with additional code
points to support additional MPLS OAM functions.
Generalizing the ACH mechanism to MPLS LSPs and MPLS Sections also
requires a method to identify that a packet contains a G-ACH followed
by a non-service payload. This document therefore also defines a
label based exception mechanism (the Generic Alert Label, or GAL)
that serves to inform an LSR that a packet that it receives on an LSP
or section belongs to an associated channel.
The G-ACH and GAL mechanisms are defined to work together.
In transport applications a static or traffic engineered LSP is
normally used, thus the data and the OAM will follow the same path.
This does not preclude the use of the G-ACH/GAL mechanism described
in this document for other applications of MPLS.
Note that, in this document, OAM functions and packets should be
understood in the broad sense, that is, as a set of FCAPS mechanisms
that also include Automatic Protection Switching (APS), Signalling
Control Channel (SCC) and Management Control Channel (MCC).
author et al.
Expires January 31, 2018
[Page 3]
Internet-Draft
G-ACH and GAL
July 2017
1.1. Contributing Authors
The editors gratefully acknowledge the following additional
contributors: Stewart Bryant, Italo Busi, Marc Lasserre, Lieven
Levrau, and Lou Berger.
1.2. Objectives
This document proposes a mechanism to provide for the OAM needs of
transport applications. It creates a generic OAM identification
mechanism that may be applied to all MPLS LSPs, while maintaining
compatibility with the PW associated channel header (ACH) [11]. It
also normalizes the use of the ACH for PWs in a transport context.
1.3. Scope
This document defines the encapsulation header for LSP, MPLS Section
and PW associated channel messages.
It does not define how associated channel capabilities are signaled
or negotiated between LSRs or PEs, the operation of various OAM
functions, or the messages transmitted on the associated channel.
This document does not deprecate existing MPLS and PW OAM mechanisms.
1.4. Terminology
ACH:
Associated Channel Header
GAL:
Generic Alert Label
MPLS Section: A Section is a network segment between two LSRs that
are immediately adjacent.
2. Generic Associated Channel
VCCV [8] defines three Control Channel Types that may be used to
multiplex OAM messages onto a PW: CC Type 1 uses an associated
channel header and is referred to as "In-band VCCV"; CC Type 2 uses
the router alert label to indicate VCCV packets and is referred to as
"Out of Band VCCV"; CC Type 3 uses the TTL to force the packet to be
processed by the targeted routers control plane and is referred to as
"MPLS PW Label with TTL == 1".
author et al.
Expires January 31, 2018
[Page 4]
Internet-Draft
G-ACH and GAL
July 2017
This document proposes that, in the context of MPLS-TP, only the CC
Type 1 be used. Furthermore, this document proposes that the use of
the CC Type 1, currently limited to MPLS PWs, be extended and thus
additionally apply to MPLS LSPs as well as to MPLS Sections. Finally,
this document proposes that the associated channel header be called
the Generic Associated Channel Header (G-ACH).
The CC Type 1 is depicted in figure below:
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 0 0 1|Version|
Reserved
|
Channel Type
|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1 : PW Associated Channel Header
In the above figure, the first nibble is set to 0001b to indicate a
channel associated with a PW, a LSP or a Section. The Version and
Reserved fields are set to 0, as specified in RFC 4385 [x].
Note that this document does not preclude other applications of MPLS
to benefit from this generalization.
Note that VCCV also includes mechanisms for negotiating the control
channel and connectivity verification (i.e. OAM functions) types
between PEs. These mechanisms need to be extended when a Generalised
associated channel is used for e.g. MPLS LSP OAM. This will most
likely require extensions to label distribution protocols and is
outside the scope of this document.
2.1. Allocation of Channel Types
Values for the Channel Type field, currently used for VCCV, are
specified in RFC 4446 [12].
The functionality of any additional channel types will be defined in
another document. Each associated channel protocol solution document
must specify the value to use for any additional channel types
required.
author et al.
Expires January 31, 2018
[Page 5]
Internet-Draft
G-ACH and GAL
July 2017
3. Generalised Exception Mechanism
The above described mechanism enables the multiplexing of various OAM
packets onto a PW, LSP or section and provides information on the
type of OAM function being performed. In the case of a PW, the use of
a control word is negotiated at the time of the PW establishment.
However, in the case of an MPLS LSP or section, there is a need to
notify an LSR of the presence of an associated channel packet i.e.
LSPs and sections require a mechanism to differentiate specific
packets (e.g. OAM) from others, such as normal user-plane ones. This
document proposes that a label be used and calls this special label
the ’Generic-ACH Label (GAL)'. One of the reserved label values
defined in RFC 3032 [3] is assigned to the. The value of the label is
to be allocated by IANA; this document suggests the value 13.
The GAL provides a Generalised exception mechanism to:
o
Differentiate specific packets (e.g. OAM) from others, such as
normal user-plane ones,
o
Indicate that the Generic Associated Channel Header (G-ACH)
appears immediately after the bottom of the label stack.
The ’Generic-ACH Label (GAL)' MUST only be used if those two purposes
are fulfilled simultaneously.
3.1. Relationship with RFC 3429
RFC 3429 [15] describes the assignment of one of the reserved label
values, defined in RFC 3032 [3], to the 'OAM Alert Label' that is
used by user-plane MPLS OAM functions for the identification of MPLS
OAM packets. The value of 14 is used for that purpose.
This document and RFC 3429 [15], thus describe the assignment of
reserved label values for similar purposes. The rationales for the
assignment of a new reserved label can be summarized as follows:
o
Unlike the mechanisms described and referenced in RFC 3429 [15],
MPLS-TP OAM packet payloads will not reside immediately after the
GAL but instead behind the G-ACH, which itself resides immediately
after the bottom of the label stack when the GAL is present. This
ensures that OAM using the generic associated channel complies
with RFC 4928 [7].
o
The set of OAM functions potentially operated in the context of
the generic associated channel is wider than the set of OAM
functions referenced in RFC 3429 [15].
author et al.
Expires January 31, 2018
[Page 6]
Internet-Draft
o
G-ACH and GAL
July 2017
It has been reported that there are existing implementations and
running deployments using the 'OAM Alert Label' as described in
RFC 3429 [15]. It is therefore not possible to modify the 'OAM
Alert Label' allocation, purpose or usage. Nevertheless, it is
RECOMMENDED by this document that no further OAM extensions based
on 'OAM Alert Label' (Label 14) usage be specified or developed.
3.2. Relationship with Existing MPLS OAM Alert Mechanisms
RFC 4379 [6] and BFD for MPLS LSPs [9]
that enable a MPLS LSR to identify and
the OAM packets are encapsulated in an
mechanisms are based on TTL expiration
address in the range 127/8.
have defined alert mechanisms
process MPLS OAM packets when
IP header. These alert
and/or use an IP destination
These alert mechanisms SHOULD preferably be used in non MPLS-TP
environments. The mechanism defined in this document MAY also be
used.
3.3. GAL Applicability and Usage
The ’Generic-ACH Label (GAL)' MUST only be used with Label Switched
Paths (LSPs), with their associated Tandem Connection Monitoring
Entities (see [16] for definitions of TCMEs) and with MPLS Sections.
An MPLS Section is a network segment between two LSRs that are
immediately adjacent at the MPLS layer.
The GAL applies to both P2P and P2MP LSPs, unless otherwise stated.
In MPLS-TP, the GAL MUST always be at the bottom of the label stack
(i.e. S bit set to 1). However, in other MPLS environments, this
document places no restrictions on where the GAL may appear within
the label stack.
The GAL MUST NOT be used with Pseudowires (PWs), or with their
associated Tandem Connection Monitoring Entities.
The GAL MUST NOT appear in the label stack when transporting normal
user-plane packets. Furthermore, the GAL MUST only appear once in
the label stack.
3.3.1. GAL Processing
The Traffic Class (TC) field (formerly known as the EXP field) of the
GAL follows the definition and processing rules specified and
referenced in [10].
author et al.
Expires January 31, 2018
[Page 7]
Internet-Draft
G-ACH and GAL
July 2017
The Time-To-Live (TTL) field of the GAL follows the definition and
processing rules specified in [4].
3.3.1.1. MPLS Section
The following figure (Figure 2) depicts two MPLS LSRs immediately
adjacent at the MPLS layer.
+---+
+---+
| A |-------------| Z |
+---+
+---+
Figure 2 : MPLS-TP OAM over a MPLS Section
With regards to the MPLS Section, both LERs are Maintenance End
Points (see [16] for definitions of MEPs).
The following figure (Figure 3) depicts the format of a labelled OAM
packet on an associated channel when used for MPLS Section OAM.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|
GAL
| TC |S|
TTL
|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|
Generic-ACH
|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|
.
.
MPLS-TP OAM packet
.
.
|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3 : Labelled MPLS-TP OAM packet for MPLS Section OAM
To send an MPLS-TP OAM packet on an associated channel of the MPLS
Section, the head-end LSR (A) of the MPLS Section generates a OAM
packet with a G-ACH to which it pushes a GAL.
o
The TTL field of the GAL SHOULD be set to 1.
o
The S bit of the GAL MUST be set to 1.
The OAM packet, the G-ACH and the GAL SHOULD NOT be modified towards
the tail-end LSR (Z). Upon reception of the labelled packet, the
tail-end LSR (Z), after having checked the GAL fields, SHOULD pass
the whole packet to the appropriate processing entity.
author et al.
Expires January 31, 2018
[Page 8]
Internet-Draft
G-ACH and GAL
July 2017
3.3.1.2. Label Switched Paths
The following figure (Figure 4) depicts four LSRs. A LSP is
established from A to D and switched in B and C.
+---+
+---+
+---+
+---+
| A |-------------| B |-------------| C |-------------| D |
+---+
+---+
+---+
+---+
Figure 4 : MPLS-TP OAM over a LSP
LERs A and D are Maintenance End Points (MEPs) with respect to this
LSP. Furthermore, LSRs B and C could be Maintenance Intermediate
Points (MIPs) (see [16] for definitions of MEPs and MIPs).
The following figure (Figure 5) depicts the format of a labelled
MPLS-TP OAM packet when used for LSP OAM.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|
LSP Label
| TC |S|
TTL
|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|
GAL
| TC |S|
TTL
|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|
Generic-ACH
|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|
.
.
MPLS-TP OAM packet
.
.
|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5 : Labelled MPLS-TP OAM packet for LSP OAM
Note that it is possible that the LSP MAY also be tunnelled in
another LSP (e.g. if an MPLS Tunnel exists between B and C), and as
such other labels MAY be present above it in the label stack.
To send an MPLS-TP OAM packet on the LSP, the head-end LSR (A)
generates a MPLS-TP OAM packet with a G-ACH on which it first pushes
a GAL followed by the LSP label.
o
The TTL field of the GAL SHOULD be set to 1.
o
The S bit of the GAL SHOULD be set to 1, in MPLS-TP.
author et al.
Expires January 31, 2018
[Page 9]
Internet-Draft
G-ACH and GAL
The MPLS-TP OAM packet, the G-ACH
towards the targeted destination.
packet, the targeted destination,
label and GAL fields, SHOULD pass
processing entity.
July 2017
or the GAL SHOULD NOT be modified
Upon reception of the labelled
after having checked both the LSP
the whole packet to the appropriate
3.3.1.3. Tandem Connection Monitoring Entity
To be covered in a next version of this document.
3.4. Considerations on Penultimate Hop Popping
OAM operations require context awareness. The label, immediately
above the 'Generalised-ACH Label (GAL)' in the label stack, provides
this context. Additionally, a requirement of MPLS-TP OAM is that
user-plane and OAM packets share the same fate [16]. As such, when
operating MPLS-TP OAM, Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP) SHOULD be
disabled by default for the label immediately above the 'GeneralisedACH Label (GAL)' in the label stack, otherwise neither all MPLS-TP
OAM requirements [16] nor all MPLS-TP OAM functions can be satisfied.
In case PHP is enabled, the context, normally provided by the label
immediately above the 'Generalised-ACH Label (GAL)' in the label
stack, SHALL be provided by other means.
Moreover, PHP MUST NOT be applied to the 'Generalised-ACH Label
(GAL)' itself.
4. Compatibility
LERs and LSRs not supporting either the GAL or the associated channel
(indicated by the G-ACH channel type field) SHOULD silently discard
the packet.
5. Congestion Considerations
The congestion considerations detailed in RFC 5085 [8] apply. Further
generic associated channel-specific congestion considerations will be
detailed in a future revision of this document.
6. Security Considerations
This document does not raise any security issue that is not already
present in either the MPLS architecture [2], the PWE3 architecture
[5] or the MPLS-TP framework [ref].
author et al.
Expires January 31, 2018
[Page 10]
Internet-Draft
G-ACH and GAL
July 2017
The security considerations detailed in RFC 5085 [1] apply. Further
Generalised associated channel-specific security considerations will
be detailed in a future revision of this document.
7. IANA Considerations
Editor’s note: Need to update this section with the outcome of the
discussion on the list.
This document requests that IANA allocates a Label value, to the
'Generalised-ACH Label (GAL)', from the pool of reserved labels, and
suggests this value to be 13.
Channel Types for the Generic Associated Channel are allocated from
the IANA PW Associated Channel Type registry [12]. The PW Associated
Channel Type registry is currently allocated based on the IETF
consensus process, described in [13]. This allocation process was
chosen based on the consensus reached in the PWE3 working group that
pseudowire associated channel mechanisms should be reviewed by the
IETF and only those that are consistent with the PWE3 architecture
and requirements should be allocated a code point.
However, a requirement has emerged to allow for optimizations or
extensions to OAM and other control protocols running in an
associated channel to be experimented with without resorting to the
IETF standards process, by supporting experimental code points [14].
This would prevent code points used for such functions from being
used from the range allocated through the IETF standards and thus
protects an installed base of equipment from potential inadvertent
overloading of code points. In order to support this requirement,
this document requests that the code-point allocation scheme for the
PW Associated Channel Type be changed as follows:
32752 – 32767 : Experimental
0 – 32751 : IETF Consensus
8. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank all members of the teams (the Joint
Working Team, the MPLS Interoperability Design Team in IETF and the
T-MPLS Ad Hoc Group in ITU-T) involved in the definition and
specification of MPLS Transport Profile.
author et al.
Expires January 31, 2018
[Page 11]
Internet-Draft
G-ACH and GAL
July 2017
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[1]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997
[2]
Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., Callon, R., "Multiprotocol Label
Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001
[3]
Rosen, E., et al., "MPLS Label Stack Encoding", RFC 3032,
January 2001
[4]
Agarwal, P., Akyol, B., "Time To Live (TTL) Processing in
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Networks", RFC 3443,
January 2003
[5]
Bryant, S., Pate, P., "Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-Edge
(PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985, March 2005
[6]
Kompella, K., Swallow, G., "Detecting Multi-Protocol Label
Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379, February 2006
[7]
Swallow, G., Bryant, S., Andersson, L., "Avoiding Equal Cost
Multipath Treatment in MPLS Networks", BCP 128, RFC 4928, June
2007
[8]
Nadeau, T., Pignataro, S., "Pseudowire Virtual Circuit
Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control Channel for
Pseudowires", RFC 5085, December 2007
[9]
Aggarwal, R., Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Nadeau, T., "BFD For
MPLS LSPs", draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-07, June 2008
[10]
Andersson, L., ""EXP field" renamed to "CoS Field"", draftietf-mpls-cosfield-def-02, June 2008
[11]
S. Bryant et al., "Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3)
Control Word for Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, February 2006
[12]
Martini, L., “IANA Allocations for Pseudowire Edge to Edge
Emulation (PWE3)”, RFC 4446, April 2006
[13]
Narten, T., Alvestrand, H., “ Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs”, RFC 2434, October 1998
author et al.
Expires January 31, 2018
[Page 12]
Internet-Draft
[14]
G-ACH and GAL
July 2017
Narten, T., “Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers
Considered Useful”, RFC 3962, January 2004
9.2. Informative References
[15]
Ohta, H., "Assignment of the 'OAM Alert Label' for
Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS) Operation and
Maintenance (OAM) Functions", RFC 3429, November 2002
[16]
Vigoureux, M., Betts, M., Ward, D., "Requirements for OAM in
MPLS Transport Networks", draft-vigoureux-mpls-tp-oamrequirements-00, July 2008
[17]
K. Kompella, G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol Label
Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379, February 2006
[18]
R. Aggarwal et al, “BFD for MPLS LSPs”, draft-ietf-bfd-mpls07.txt, June 2008
Authors' Addresses
Martin Vigoureux (Editor)
Alcatel-Lucent
Email: [email protected]
Matthew Bocci (Editor)
Alcatel-Lucent
Email: [email protected]
David Ward (Editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: [email protected]
author et al.
Expires January 31, 2018
[Page 13]
Internet-Draft
G-ACH and GAL
July 2017
George Swallow (Editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: [email protected]
Rahul Aggarwal (Editor)
Juniper Networks
Email: [email protected]
Contributing Authors' Addresses
Stewart Bryant
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: [email protected]
Italo Busi
Alcatel-Lucent
Email: [email protected]
Marc Lasserre
Alcatel-Lucent
Email: [email protected]
Lieven Levrau
Alcatel-Lucent
Email: [email protected]
Intellectual Property Statement
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
author et al.
Expires January 31, 2018
[Page 14]
Internet-Draft
G-ACH and GAL
July 2017
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
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 [email protected].
Disclaimer of Validity
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.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2017).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
author et al.
Expires January 31, 2018
[Page 15]