[RFC Home] [TEXT|PDF|HTML] [Tracker] [IPR] [Info page]

Network Working Group                                        K. Shiomoto
Request for Comments: 5212                                           NTT
Category: Informational                                 D. Papadimitriou
                                                             JL. Le Roux
                                                          France Telecom
                                                            M. Vigoureux
                                                             D. Brungard
                                                               July 2008

                     Requirements for GMPLS-Based
            Multi-Region and Multi-Layer Networks (MRN/MLN)

Status of This Memo

   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
   memo is unlimited.


   Most of the initial efforts to utilize Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) have
   been related to environments hosting devices with a single switching
   capability.  The complexity raised by the control of such data planes
   is similar to that seen in classical IP/MPLS networks.  By extending
   MPLS to support multiple switching technologies, GMPLS provides a
   comprehensive framework for the control of a multi-layered network of
   either a single switching technology or multiple switching

   In GMPLS, a switching technology domain defines a region, and a
   network of multiple switching types is referred to in this document
   as a multi-region network (MRN).  When referring in general to a
   layered network, which may consist of either single or multiple
   regions, this document uses the term multi-layer network (MLN).  This
   document defines a framework for GMPLS based multi-region / multi-
   layer networks and lists a set of functional requirements.

Shiomoto, et al.             Informational                      [Page 1]

RFC 5212                  MRN/MLN Requirements                 July 2008

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................3
      1.1. Scope ......................................................4
   2. Conventions Used in This Document ...............................5
      2.1. List of Acronyms ...........................................6
   3. Positioning .....................................................6
      3.1. Data Plane Layers and Control Plane Regions ................6
      3.2. Service Layer Networks .....................................7
      3.3. Vertical and Horizontal Interaction and Integration ........8
      3.4. Motivation .................................................9
   4. Key Concepts of GMPLS-Based MLNs and MRNs ......................10
      4.1. Interface Switching Capability ............................10
      4.2. Multiple Interface Switching Capabilities .................11
           4.2.1. Networks with Multi-Switching-Type-Capable
                  Hybrid Nodes .......................................12
      4.3. Integrated Traffic Engineering (TE) and Resource Control ..12
           4.3.1. Triggered Signaling ................................13
           4.3.2. FA-LSPs ............................................13
           4.3.3. Virtual Network Topology (VNT) .....................14
   5. Requirements ...................................................15
      5.1. Handling Single-Switching and
           Multi-Switching-Type-Capable Nodes ........................15
      5.2. Advertisement of the Available Adjustment Resources .......15
      5.3. Scalability ...............................................16
      5.4. Stability .................................................17
      5.5. Disruption Minimization ...................................17
      5.6. LSP Attribute Inheritance .................................17
      5.7. Computing Paths with and without Nested Signaling .........18
      5.8. LSP Resource Utilization ..................................19
           5.8.1. FA-LSP Release and Setup ...........................19
           5.8.2. Virtual TE Links ...................................20
      5.9. Verification of the LSPs ..................................21
      5.10. Management ...............................................22
   6. Security Considerations ........................................24
   7. Acknowledgements ...............................................24
   8. References .....................................................25
      8.1. Normative References ......................................25
      8.2. Informative References ....................................25
   9. Contributors' Addresses ........................................26

Shiomoto, et al.             Informational                      [Page 2]

RFC 5212                  MRN/MLN Requirements                 July 2008

1.  Introduction

   Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) extends MPLS to handle multiple switching
   technologies: packet switching, Layer-2 switching, TDM (Time-Division
   Multiplexing) switching, wavelength switching, and fiber switching
   (see [RFC3945]).  The Interface Switching Capability (ISC) concept is
   introduced for these switching technologies and is designated as
   follows: PSC (packet switch capable), L2SC (Layer-2 switch capable),
   TDM capable, LSC (lambda switch capable), and FSC (fiber switch

   The representation, in a GMPLS control plane, of a switching
   technology domain is referred to as a region [RFC4206].  A switching
   type describes the ability of a node to forward data of a particular
   data plane technology, and uniquely identifies a network region.  A
   layer describes a data plane switching granularity level (e.g., VC4,
   VC-12).  A data plane layer is associated with a region in the
   control plane (e.g., VC4 is associated with TDM, MPLS is associated
   with PSC).  However, more than one data plane layer can be associated
   with the same region (e.g., both VC4 and VC12 are associated with
   TDM).  Thus, a control plane region, identified by its switching type
   value (e.g., TDM), can be sub-divided into smaller-granularity
   component networks based on "data plane switching layers".  The
   Interface Switching Capability Descriptor (ISCD) [RFC4202],
   identifying the interface switching capability (ISC), the encoding
   type, and the switching bandwidth granularity, enables the
   characterization of the associated layers.

   In this document, we define a multi-layer network (MLN) to be a
   Traffic Engineering (TE) domain comprising multiple data plane
   switching layers either of the same ISC (e.g., TDM) or different ISC
   (e.g., TDM and PSC) and controlled by a single GMPLS control plane
   instance.  We further define a particular case of MLNs.  A multi-
   region network (MRN) is defined as a TE domain supporting at least
   two different switching types (e.g., PSC and TDM), either hosted on
   the same device or on different ones, and under the control of a
   single GMPLS control plane instance.

   MLNs can be further categorized according to the distribution of the
   ISCs among the Label Switching Routers (LSRs):

   - Each LSR may support just one ISC.
     Such LSRs are known as single-switching-type-capable LSRs.  The MLN
     may comprise a set of single-switching-type-capable LSRs some of
     which support different ISCs.

Shiomoto, et al.             Informational                      [Page 3]

RFC 5212                  MRN/MLN Requirements                 July 2008

   - Each LSR may support more than one ISC at the same time.
     Such LSRs are known as multi-switching-type-capable LSRs, and can
     be further classified as either "simplex" or "hybrid" nodes as
     defined in Section 4.2.

   - The MLN may be constructed from any combination of single-
     switching-type-capable LSRs and multi-switching-type-capable LSRs.

   Since GMPLS provides a comprehensive framework for the control of
   different switching capabilities, a single GMPLS instance may be used
   to control the MLN/MRN.  This enables rapid service provisioning and
   efficient traffic engineering across all switching capabilities.  In
   such networks, TE links are consolidated into a single Traffic
   Engineering Database (TED).  Since this TED contains the information
   relative to all the different regions and layers existing in the
   network, a path across multiple regions or layers can be computed
   using this TED.  Thus, optimization of network resources can be
   achieved across the whole MLN/MRN.

   Consider, for example, a MRN consisting of packet-switch-capable
   routers and TDM cross-connects.  Assume that a packet Label Switched
   Path (LSP) is routed between source and destination packet-switch-
   capable routers, and that the LSP can be routed across the PSC region
   (i.e., utilizing only resources of the packet region topology).  If
   the performance objective for the packet LSP is not satisfied, new TE
   links may be created between the packet-switch-capable routers across
   the TDM-region (for example, VC-12 links) and the LSP can be routed
   over those TE links.  Furthermore, even if the LSP can be
   successfully established across the PSC-region, TDM hierarchical LSPs
   (across the TDM region between the packet-switch capable routers) may
   be established and used if doing so is necessary to meet the
   operator's objectives for network resource availability (e.g., link
   bandwidth).  The same considerations hold when VC4 LSPs are
   provisioned to provide extra flexibility for the VC12 and/or VC11
   layers in an MLN.

   Sections 3 and 4 of this document provide further background
   information of the concepts and motivation behind multi-region and
   multi-layer networks.  Section 5 presents detailed requirements for
   protocols used to implement such networks.

1.1.  Scope

   Early sections of this document describe the motivations and
   reasoning that require the development and deployment of MRN/MLN.
   Later sections of this document set out the required features that
   the GMPLS control plane must offer to support MRN/MLN.  There is no
   intention to specify solution-specific and/or protocol elements in

Shiomoto, et al.             Informational                      [Page 4]

RFC 5212                  MRN/MLN Requirements                 July 2008

   this document.  The applicability of existing GMPLS protocols and any
   protocol extensions to the MRN/MLN is addressed in separate documents

   This document covers the elements of a single GMPLS control plane
   instance controlling multiple layers within a given TE domain.  A
   control plane instance can serve one, two, or more layers.  Other
   possible approaches such as having multiple control plane instances
   serving disjoint sets of layers are outside the scope of this
   document.  It is most probable that such a MLN or MRN would be
   operated by a single service provider, but this document does not
   exclude the possibility of two layers (or regions) being under
   different administrative control (for example, by different Service
   Providers that share a single control plane instance) where the
   administrative domains are prepared to share a limited amount of

   For such a TE domain to interoperate with edge nodes/domains
   supporting non-GMPLS interfaces (such as those defined by other
   standards development organizations (SDOs)), an interworking function
   may be needed.  Location and specification of this function are
   outside the scope of this document (because interworking aspects are
   strictly under the responsibility of the interworking function).

   This document assumes that the interconnection of adjacent MRN/MLN TE
   domains makes use of [RFC4726] when their edges also support inter-
   domain GMPLS RSVP-TE extensions.

2.  Conventions Used in This Document

   Although this is not a protocol specification, the key words "MUST",
   "RECOMMENDED",  "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are used in this document to
   highlight requirements, and are to be interpreted as described in RFC
   2119 [RFC2119].

   In the context of this document, an end-to-end LSP is defined as an
   LSP that starts in some client layer, ends in the same layer, and may
   cross one or more lower layers.  In terms of switching capabilities,
   this means that if the outgoing interface on the head-end LSR has
   interface switching capability X, then the incoming interface on the
   tail-end LSR also has switching capability X.  Further, for any
   interface traversed by the LSP at any intermediate LSR, the switching
   capability of that interface, Y, is such that Y >= X.

Shiomoto, et al.             Informational                      [Page 5]

RFC 5212                  MRN/MLN Requirements                 July 2008

2.1.  List of Acronyms

   ERO: Explicit Route Object
   FA: Forwarding Adjacency
   FA-LSP: Forwarding Adjacency Label Switched Path
   FSC: Fiber Switching Capable
   ISC: Interface Switching Capability
   ISCD: Interface Switching Capability Descriptor
   L2SC: Layer-2 Switching Capable
   LSC: Lambda Switching Capable
   LSP: Label Switched Path
   LSR: Label Switching Router
   MLN: Multi-Layer Network
   MRN: Multi-Region Network
   PSC: Packet Switching Capable
   SRLG: Shared Risk Link Group
   TDM: Time-Division Multiplexing
   TE: Traffic Engineering
   TED: Traffic Engineering Database
   VNT: Virtual Network Topology

3.  Positioning

   A multi-region network (MRN) is always a multi-layer network (MLN)
   since the network devices on region boundaries bring together
   different ISCs.  A MLN, however, is not necessarily a MRN since
   multiple layers could be fully contained within a single region.  For
   example, VC12, VC4, and VC4-4c are different layers of the TDM

3.1.  Data Plane Layers and Control Plane Regions

   A data plane layer is a collection of network resources capable of
   terminating and/or switching data traffic of a particular format
   [RFC4397].  These resources can be used for establishing LSPs for
   traffic delivery.  For example, VC-11 and VC4-64c represent two
   different layers.

   From the control plane viewpoint, an LSP region is defined as a set
   of one or more data plane layers that share the same type of
   switching technology, that is, the same switching type.  For example,
   VC-11, VC-4, and VC-4-7v layers are part of the same TDM region.  The
   regions that are currently defined are: PSC, L2SC, TDM, LSC, and FSC.
   Hence, an LSP region is a technology domain (identified by the ISC
   type) for which data plane resources (i.e., data links) are
   represented into the control plane as an aggregate of TE information

Shiomoto, et al.             Informational                      [Page 6]

RFC 5212                  MRN/MLN Requirements                 July 2008

   associated with a set of links (i.e., TE links).  For example, VC-11
   and VC4-64c capable TE links are part of the same TDM region.
   Multiple layers can thus exist in a single region network.

   Note also that the region may produce a distinction within the
   control plane.  Layers of the same region share the same switching
   technology and, therefore, use the same set of technology-specific
   signaling objects and technology-specific value setting of TE link
   attributes within the control plane, but layers from different
   regions may use different technology-specific objects and TE
   attribute values.  This means that it may not be possible to simply
   forward the signaling message between LSRs that host different
   switching technologies.  This is due to changes in some of the
   signaling objects (for example, the traffic parameters) when crossing
   a region boundary even if a single control plane instance is used to
   manage the whole MRN.  We may solve this issue by using triggered
   signaling (see Section 4.3.1).

3.2.  Service Layer Networks

   A service provider's network may be divided into different service
   layers.  The customer's network is considered from the provider's
   perspective as the highest service layer.  It interfaces to the
   highest service layer of the service provider's network.
   Connectivity across the highest service layer of the service
   provider's network may be provided with support from successively
   lower service layers.  Service layers are realized via a hierarchy of
   network layers located generally in several regions and commonly
   arranged according to the switching capabilities of network devices.

   For instance, some customers purchase Layer-1 (i.e., transport)
   services from the service provider, some Layer 2 (e.g., ATM), while
   others purchase Layer-3 (IP/MPLS) services.  The service provider
   realizes the services by a stack of network layers located within one
   or more network regions.  The network layers are commonly arranged
   according to the switching capabilities of the devices in the
   networks.  Thus, a customer network may be provided on top of the
   GMPLS-based multi-region/multi-layer network.  For example, a Layer-1
   service (realized via the network layers of TDM, and/or LSC, and/or
   FSC regions) may support a Layer-2 network (realized via ATM Virtual
   Path / Virtual Circuit (VP/VC)), which may itself support a Layer-3
   network (IP/MPLS region).  The supported data plane relationship is a
   data plane client-server relationship where the lower layer provides
   a service for the higher layer using the data links realized in the
   lower layer.

Shiomoto, et al.             Informational                      [Page 7]

RFC 5212                  MRN/MLN Requirements                 July 2008

   Services provided by a GMPLS-based multi-region/multi-layer network
   are referred to as "multi-region/multi-layer network services".  For
   example, legacy IP and IP/MPLS networks can be supported on top of
   multi-region/multi-layer networks.  It has to be emphasized that
   delivery of such diverse services is a strong motivator for the
   deployment of multi-region/multi-layer networks.

   A customer network may be provided on top of a server GMPLS-based
   MRN/MLN which is operated by a service provider.  For example, a pure
   IP and/or an IP/MPLS network can be provided on top of GMPLS-based
   packet-over-optical networks [RFC5146].  The relationship between the
   networks is a client/server relationship and, such services are
   referred to as "MRN/MLN services".  In this case, the customer
   network may form part of the MRN/MLN or may be partially separated,
   for example, to maintain separate routing information but retain
   common signaling.

3.3.  Vertical and Horizontal Interaction and Integration

   Vertical interaction is defined as the collaborative mechanisms
   within a network element that is capable of supporting more than one
   layer or region and of realizing the client/server relationships
   between the layers or regions.  Protocol exchanges between two
   network controllers managing different regions or layers are also a
   vertical interaction.  Integration of these interactions as part of
   the control plane is referred to as vertical integration.  Thus, this
   refers to the collaborative mechanisms within a single control plane
   instance driving multiple network layers that are part of the same
   region or not.  Such a concept is useful in order to construct a
   framework that facilitates efficient network resource usage and rapid
   service provisioning in carrier networks that are based on multiple
   layers, switching technologies, or ISCs.

   Horizontal interaction is defined as the protocol exchange between
   network controllers that manage transport nodes within a given layer
   or region.  For instance, the control plane interaction between two
   TDM network elements switching at OC-48 is an example of horizontal
   interaction.  GMPLS protocol operations handle horizontal
   interactions within the same routing area.  The case where the
   interaction takes place across a domain boundary, such as between two
   routing areas within the same network layer, is evaluated as part of
   the inter-domain work [RFC4726], and is referred to as horizontal
   integration.  Thus, horizontal integration refers to the
   collaborative mechanisms between network partitions and/or
   administrative divisions such as routing areas or autonomous systems.

Shiomoto, et al.             Informational                      [Page 8]

RFC 5212                  MRN/MLN Requirements                 July 2008

   This distinction needs further clarification when administrative
   domains match layer/region boundaries.  Horizontal interaction is
   extended to cover such cases.  For example, the collaborative
   mechanisms in place between two LSC areas relate to horizontal
   integration.  On the other hand, the collaborative mechanisms in
   place between a PSC (e.g., IP/MPLS) domain and a separate TDM capable
   (e.g., VC4 Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH)) domain over which it
   operates are part of the horizontal integration, while it can also be
   seen as a first step towards vertical integration.

3.4.  Motivation

   The applicability of GMPLS to multiple switching technologies
   provides a unified control and management approach for both LSP
   provisioning and recovery.  Indeed, one of the main motivations for
   unifying the capabilities and operations of the GMPLS control plane
   is the desire to support multi-LSP-region [RFC4206] routing and TE
   capabilities.  For instance, this enables effective network resource
   utilization of both the Packet/Layer2 LSP regions and the TDM or
   Lambda LSP regions in high-capacity networks.

   The rationales for GMPLS-controlled multi-layer/multi-region networks
   are summarized below:

   - The maintenance of multiple instances of the control plane on
     devices hosting more than one switching capability not only
     increases the complexity of the interactions between control plane
     instances, but also increases the total amount of processing each
     individual control plane instance must handle.

   - The unification of the addressing spaces helps in avoiding multiple
     identifiers for the same object (a link, for instance, or more
     generally, any network resource).  On the other hand such
     aggregation does not impact the separation between the control
     plane and the data plane.

   - By maintaining a single routing protocol instance and a single TE
     database per LSR, a unified control plane model removes the
     requirement to maintain a dedicated routing topology per layer and
     therefore does not mandate a full mesh of routing adjacencies as is
     the case with overlaid control planes.

   - The collaboration between technology layers where the control
     channel is associated with the data channel (e.g., packet/framed
     data planes) and technology layers where the control channel is not
     directly associated with the data channel (SONET/SDH, G.709, etc.)

Shiomoto, et al.             Informational                      [Page 9]

RFC 5212                  MRN/MLN Requirements                 July 2008

     is facilitated by the capability within GMPLS to associate in-band
     control plane signaling to the IP terminating interfaces of the
     control plane.

   - Resource management and policies to be applied at the edges of such
     an MRN/MLN are made more simple (fewer control-to-management
     interactions) and more scalable (through the use of aggregated

   - Multi-region/multi-layer traffic engineering is facilitated as TE
     links from distinct regions/layers are stored within the same TE

4.  Key Concepts of GMPLS-Based MLNs and MRNs

   A network comprising transport nodes with multiple data plane layers
   of either the same ISC or different ISCs, controlled by a single
   GMPLS control plane instance, is called a multi-layer network (MLN).
   A subset of MLNs consists of networks supporting LSPs of different
   switching technologies (ISCs).  A network supporting more than one
   switching technology is called a multi-region network (MRN).

4.1.  Interface Switching Capability

   The Interface Switching Capability (ISC) is introduced in GMPLS to
   support various kinds of switching technology in a unified way
   [RFC4202].  An ISC is identified via a switching type.

   A switching type (also referred to as the switching capability type)
   describes the ability of a node to forward data of a particular data
   plane technology, and uniquely identifies a network region.  The
   following ISC types (and, hence, regions) are defined:  PSC, L2SC,
   TDM capable, LSC, and FSC.  Each end of a data link (more precisely,
   each interface connecting a data link to a node) in a GMPLS network
   is associated with an ISC.

   The ISC value is advertised as a part of the Interface Switching
   Capability Descriptor (ISCD) attribute (sub-TLV) of a TE link end
   associated with a particular link interface [RFC4202].  Apart from
   the ISC, the ISCD contains information including the encoding type,
   the bandwidth granularity, and the unreserved bandwidth on each of
   eight priorities at which LSPs can be established.  The ISCD does not
   "identify" network layers, it uniquely characterizes information
   associated to one or more network layers.

Shiomoto, et al.             Informational                     [Page 10]

RFC 5212                  MRN/MLN Requirements                 July 2008

   TE link end advertisements may contain multiple ISCDs.  This can be
   interpreted as advertising a multi-layer (or multi-switching-
   capable) TE link end.  That is, the TE link end (and therefore the TE
   link) is present in multiple layers.

4.2.  Multiple Interface Switching Capabilities

   In an MLN, network elements may be single-switching-type-capable or
   multi-switching-type-capable nodes.  Single-switching-type-capable
   nodes advertise the same ISC value as part of their ISCD sub-TLV(s)
   to describe the termination capabilities of each of their TE link(s).
   This case is described in [RFC4202].

   Multi-switching-type-capable LSRs are classified as "simplex" or
   "hybrid" nodes.  Simplex and hybrid nodes are categorized according
   to the way they advertise these multiple ISCs:

   - A simplex node can terminate data links with different switching
     capabilities where each data link is connected to the node by a
     separate link interface.  So, it advertises several TE links each
     with a single ISC value carried in its ISCD sub-TLV (following the
     rules defined in [RFC4206]).  An example is an LSR with PSC and TDM
     links each of which is connected to the LSR via a separate

   - A hybrid node can terminate data links with different switching
     capabilities where the data links are connected to the node by the
     same interface.  So, it advertises a single TE link containing more
     than one ISCD each with a different ISC value.  For example, a node
     may terminate PSC and TDM data links and interconnect those
     external data links via internal links.  The external interfaces
     connected to the node have both PSC and TDM capabilities.

   Additionally, TE link advertisements issued by a simplex or a hybrid
   node may need to provide information about the node's internal
   adjustment capabilities between the switching technologies supported.
   The term "adjustment" refers to the property of a hybrid node to
   interconnect the different switching capabilities that it provides
   through its external interfaces.  The information about the
   adjustment capabilities of the nodes in the network allows the path
   computation process to select an end-to-end multi-layer or multi-
   region path that includes links with different switching capabilities
   joined by LSRs that can adapt (i.e., adjust) the signal between the

Shiomoto, et al.             Informational                     [Page 11]

RFC 5212                  MRN/MLN Requirements                 July 2008

4.2.1.  Networks with Multi-Switching-Type-Capable Hybrid Nodes

   This type of network contains at least one hybrid node, zero or more
   simplex nodes, and a set of single-switching-type-capable nodes.

   Figure 1 shows an example hybrid node.  The hybrid node has two
   switching elements (matrices), which support, for instance, TDM and
   PSC switching, respectively.  The node terminates a PSC and a TDM
   link (Link1 and Link2, respectively).  It also has an internal link
   connecting the two switching elements.

   The two switching elements are internally interconnected in such a
   way that it is possible to terminate some of the resources of, say,
   Link2 and provide adjustment for PSC traffic received/sent over the
   PSC interface (#b).  This situation is modeled in GMPLS by connecting
   the local end of Link2 to the TDM switching element via an additional
   interface realizing the termination/adjustment function.  There are
   two possible ways to set up PSC LSPs through the hybrid node.
   Available resource advertisement (i.e., Unreserved and Min/Max LSP
   Bandwidth) should cover both of these methods.

                         : Network element           :
                         :            --------       :
                         :           |  PSC   |      :
             Link1 -------------<->--|#a      |      :
                         :           |        |      :
                         :  +--<->---|#b      |      :
                         :  |         --------       :
                         :  |        ----------      :
             TDM         :  +--<->--|#c  TDM   |     :
              +PSC       :          |          |     :
             Link2 ------------<->--|#d        |     :
                         :           ----------      :

                               Figure 1.  Hybrid node.

4.3.  Integrated Traffic Engineering (TE) and Resource Control

   In GMPLS-based multi-region/multi-layer networks, TE links may be
   consolidated into a single Traffic Engineering Database (TED) for use
   by the single control plane instance.  Since this TED contains the
   information relative to all the layers of all regions in the network,
   a path across multiple layers (possibly crossing multiple regions)
   can be computed using the information in this TED.  Thus,
   optimization of network resources across the multiple layers of the
   same region and across multiple regions can be achieved.

Shiomoto, et al.             Informational                     [Page 12]

RFC 5212                  MRN/MLN Requirements                 July 2008

   These concepts allow for the operation of one network layer over the
   topology (that is, TE links) provided by other network layers (for
   example, the use of a lower-layer LSC LSP carrying PSC LSPs).  In
   turn, a greater degree of control and interworking can be achieved,
   including (but not limited to):

   - Dynamic establishment of Forwarding Adjacency (FA) LSPs [RFC4206]
     (see Sections 4.3.2 and 4.3.3).

   - Provisioning of end-to-end LSPs with dynamic triggering of FA LSPs.

   Note that in a multi-layer/multi-region network that includes multi-
   switching-type-capable nodes, an explicit route used to establish an
   end-to-end LSP can specify nodes that belong to different layers or
   regions.  In this case, a mechanism to control the dynamic creation
   of FA-LSPs may be required (see Sections 4.3.2 and 4.3.3).

   There is a full spectrum of options to control how FA-LSPs are
   dynamically established.  The process can be subject to the control
   of a policy, which may be set by a management component and which may
   require that the management plane is consulted at the time that the
   FA-LSP is established.  Alternatively, the FA-LSP can be established
   at the request of the control plane without any management control.

4.3.1.  Triggered Signaling

   When an LSP crosses the boundary from an upper to a lower layer, it
   may be nested into a lower-layer FA-LSP that crosses the lower layer.
   From a signaling perspective, there are two alternatives to establish
   the lower-layer FA-LSP: static (pre-provisioned) and dynamic
   (triggered).  A pre-provisioned FA-LSP may be initiated either by the
   operator or automatically using features like TE auto-mesh [RFC4972].
   If such a lower-layer LSP does not already exist, the LSP may be
   established dynamically.  Such a mechanism is referred to as
   "triggered signaling".

4.3.2.  FA-LSPs

   Once an LSP is created across a layer from one layer border node to
   another, it can be used as a data link in an upper layer.

   Furthermore, it can be advertised as a TE link, allowing other nodes
   to consider the LSP as a TE link for their path computation
   [RFC4206].  An LSP created either statically or dynamically by one
   instance of the control plane and advertised as a TE link into the
   same instance of the control plane is called a Forwarding Adjacency
   LSP (FA-LSP).  The FA-LSP is advertised as a TE link, and that TE
   link is called a Forwarding Adjacency (FA).  An FA has the special

Shiomoto, et al.             Informational                     [Page 13]

RFC 5212                  MRN/MLN Requirements                 July 2008

   characteristic of not requiring a routing adjacency (peering) between
   its end points yet still guaranteeing control plane connectivity
   between the FA-LSP end points based on a signaling adjacency.  An FA
   is a useful and powerful tool for improving the scalability of
   GMPLS-TE capable networks since multiple higher-layer LSPs may be
   nested (aggregated) over a single FA-LSP.

   The aggregation of LSPs enables the creation of a vertical (nested)
   LSP hierarchy.  A set of FA-LSPs across or within a lower layer can
   be used during path selection by a higher-layer LSP.  Likewise, the
   higher-layer LSPs may be carried over dynamic data links realized via
   LSPs (just as they are carried over any "regular" static data links).
   This process requires the nesting of LSPs through a hierarchical
   process [RFC4206].  The TED contains a set of LSP advertisements from
   different layers that are identified by the ISCD contained within the
   TE link advertisement associated with the LSP [RFC4202].

   If a lower-layer LSP is not advertised as an FA, it can still be used
   to carry higher-layer LSPs across the lower layer.  For example, if
   the LSP is set up using triggered signaling, it will be used to carry
   the higher-layer LSP that caused the trigger.  Further, the lower
   layer remains available for use by other higher-layer LSPs arriving
   at the boundary.

   Under some circumstances, it may be useful to control the
   advertisement of LSPs as FAs during the signaling establishment of
   the LSPs [DYN-HIER].

4.3.3.  Virtual Network Topology (VNT)

   A set of one or more lower-layer LSPs provides information for
   efficient path handling in upper layer(s) of the MLN, or, in other
   words, provides a virtual network topology (VNT) to the upper layers.
   For instance, a set of LSPs, each of which is supported by an LSC
   LSP, provides a VNT to the layers of a PSC region, assuming that the
   PSC region is connected to the LSC region.  Note that a single
   lower-layer LSP is a special case of the VNT.  The VNT is configured
   by setting up or tearing down the lower-layer LSPs.  By using GMPLS
   signaling and routing protocols, the VNT can be adapted to traffic

   A lower-layer LSP appears as a TE link in the VNT.  Whether the
   diversely-routed lower-layer LSPs are used or not, the routes of
   lower-layer LSPs are hidden from the upper layer in the VNT.  Thus,
   the VNT simplifies the upper-layer routing and traffic engineering
   decisions by hiding the routes taken by the lower-layer LSPs.
   However, hiding the routes of the lower-layer LSPs may lose important
   information that is needed to make the higher-layer LSPs reliable.

Shiomoto, et al.             Informational                     [Page 14]

RFC 5212                  MRN/MLN Requirements                 July 2008

   For instance, the routing and traffic engineering in the IP/MPLS
   layer does not usually consider how the IP/MPLS TE links are formed
   from optical paths that are routed in the fiber layer.  Two optical
   paths may share the same fiber link in the lower-layer and therefore
   they may both fail if the fiber link is cut.  Thus the shared risk
   properties of the TE links in the VNT must be made available to the
   higher layer during path computation.  Further, the topology of the
   VNT should be designed so that any single fiber cut does not bisect
   the VNT.  These issues are addressed later in this document.

   Reconfiguration of the VNT may be triggered by traffic demand
   changes, topology configuration changes, signaling requests from the
   upper layer, and network failures.  For instance, by reconfiguring
   the VNT according to the traffic demand between source and
   destination node pairs, network performance factors, such as maximum
   link utilization and residual capacity of the network, can be
   optimized.  Reconfiguration is performed by computing the new VNT
   from the traffic demand matrix and optionally from the current VNT.
   Exact details are outside the scope of this document.  However, this
   method may be tailored according to the service provider's policy
   regarding network performance and quality of service (delay,
   loss/disruption, utilization, residual capacity, reliability).

5.  Requirements

5.1.  Handling Single-Switching and Multi-Switching-Type-Capable Nodes

   The MRN/MLN can consist of single-switching-type-capable and multi-
   switching-type-capable nodes.  The path computation mechanism in the
   MLN should be able to compute paths consisting of any combination of
   such nodes.

   Both single-switching-type-capable and multi-switching-type-capable
   (simplex or hybrid) nodes could play the role of layer boundary.
   MRN/MLN path computation should handle TE topologies built of any
   combination of nodes.

5.2.  Advertisement of the Available Adjustment Resources

   A hybrid node should maintain resources on its internal links (the
   links required for vertical integration between layers).  Likewise,
   path computation elements should be prepared to use information about
   the availability of termination and adjustment resources as a
   constraint in MRN/MLN path computations.  This would reduce the
   probability that the setup of the higher-layer LSP will be blocked by
   the lack of necessary termination/adjustment resources in the lower

Shiomoto, et al.             Informational                     [Page 15]

RFC 5212                  MRN/MLN Requirements                 July 2008

   The advertisement of a node's MRN adjustment capabilities (the
   ability to terminate LSPs of lower regions and forward the traffic in
   upper regions) is REQUIRED, as it provides critical information when
   performing multi-region path computation.

   The path computation mechanism should cover the case where the
   upper-layer links that are directly connected to upper-layer
   switching elements and the ones that are connected through internal
   links between upper-layer element and lower-layer element coexist
   (see Section 4.2.1).

5.3.  Scalability

   The MRN/MLN relies on unified routing and traffic engineering models.

   - Unified routing model: By maintaining a single routing protocol
     instance and a single TE database per LSR, a unified control plane
     model removes the requirement to maintain a dedicated routing
     topology per layer, and therefore does not mandate a full mesh of
     routing adjacencies per layer.

   - Unified TE model: The TED in each LSR is populated with TE links
     from all layers of all regions (TE link interfaces on multiple-
     switching-type-capable LSRs can be advertised with multiple ISCDs).
     This may lead to an increase in the amount of information that has
     to be flooded and stored within the network.

   Furthermore, path computation times, which may be of great importance
   during restoration, will depend on the size of the TED.

   Thus, MRN/MLN routing mechanisms MUST be designed to scale well with
   an increase of any of the following:

      - Number of nodes
      - Number of TE links (including FA-LSPs)
      - Number of LSPs
      - Number of regions and layers
      - Number of ISCDs per TE link.

   Further, design of the routing protocols MUST NOT prevent TE
   information filtering based on ISCDs.  The path computation mechanism
   and the signaling protocol SHOULD be able to operate on partial TE

   Since TE links can advertise multiple Interface Switching
   Capabilities (ISCs), the number of links can be limited (by
   combination) by using specific topological maps referred to as VNTs

Shiomoto, et al.             Informational                     [Page 16]

RFC 5212                  MRN/MLN Requirements                 July 2008

   (Virtual Network Topologies).  The introduction of virtual
   topological maps leads us to consider the concept of emulation of
   data plane overlays.

5.4.  Stability

   Path computation is dependent on the network topology and associated
   link state.  The path computation stability of an upper layer may be
   impaired if the VNT changes frequently and/or if the status and TE
   parameters (the TE metric, for instance) of links in the VNT changes
   frequently.  In this context, robustness of the VNT is defined as the
   capability to smooth changes that may occur and avoid their
   propagation into higher layers.  Changes to the VNT may be caused by
   the creation, deletion, or modification of LSPs.

   Protocol mechanisms MUST be provided to enable creation, deletion,
   and modification of LSPs triggered through operational actions.
   Protocol mechanisms SHOULD be provided to enable similar functions
   triggered by adjacent layers.  Protocol mechanisms MAY be provided to
   enable similar functions to adapt to the environment changes such as
   traffic demand changes, topology changes, and network failures.
   Routing robustness should be traded with adaptability of those

5.5.  Disruption Minimization

   When reconfiguring the VNT according to a change in traffic demand,
   the upper-layer LSP might be disrupted.  Such disruption to the upper
   layers must be minimized.

   When residual resource decreases to a certain level, some lower-layer
   LSPs may be released according to local or network policies.  There
   is a trade-off between minimizing the amount of resource reserved in
   the lower layer and disrupting higher-layer traffic (i.e., moving the
   traffic to other TE-LSPs so that some LSPs can be released).  Such
   traffic disruption may be allowed, but MUST be under the control of
   policy that can be configured by the operator.  Any repositioning of
   traffic MUST be as non-disruptive as possible (for example, using

5.6.  LSP Attribute Inheritance

   TE link parameters should be inherited from the parameters of the LSP
   that provides the TE link, and so from the TE links in the lower
   layer that are traversed by the LSP.

Shiomoto, et al.             Informational                     [Page 17]

RFC 5212                  MRN/MLN Requirements                 July 2008

   These include:

      - Interface Switching Capability
      - TE metric
      - Maximum LSP bandwidth per priority level
      - Unreserved bandwidth for all priority levels
      - Maximum reservable bandwidth
      - Protection attribute
      - Minimum LSP bandwidth (depending on the switching capability)
      - SRLG

   Inheritance rules must be applied based on specific policies.
   Particular attention should be given to the inheritance of the TE
   metric (which may be other than a strict sum of the metrics of the
   component TE links at the lower layer), protection attributes, and

   As described earlier, hiding the routes of the lower-layer LSPs may
   lose important information necessary to make LSPs in the higher-layer
   network reliable.  SRLGs may be used to identify which lower-layer
   LSPs share the same failure risk so that the potential risk of the
   VNT becoming disjoint can be minimized, and so that resource-disjoint
   protection paths can be set up in the higher layer.  How to inherit
   the SRLG information from the lower layer to the upper layer needs
   more discussion and is out of scope of this document.

5.7.  Computing Paths with and without Nested Signaling

   Path computation can take into account LSP region and layer
   boundaries when computing a path for an LSP.  Path computation may
   restrict the path taken by an LSP to only the links whose interface
   switching capability is PSC.  For example, suppose that a TDM-LSP is
   routed over the topology composed of TE links of the same TDM layer.
   In calculating the path for the LSP, the TED may be filtered to
   include only links where both end include requested LSP switching
   type.  In this way hierarchical routing is done by using a TED
   filtered with respect to switching capability (that is, with respect
   to particular layer).

   If triggered signaling is allowed, the path computation mechanism may
   produce a route containing multiple layers/regions.  The path is
   computed over the multiple layers/regions even if the path is not
   "connected" in the same layer as where the endpoints of the path
   exist.  Note that here we assume that triggered signaling will be
   invoked to make the path "connected", when the upper-layer signaling
   request arrives at the boundary node.

Shiomoto, et al.             Informational                     [Page 18]

RFC 5212                  MRN/MLN Requirements                 July 2008

   The upper-layer signaling request MAY contain an ERO (Explicit Route
   Object) that includes only hops in the upper layer; in which case,
   the boundary node is responsible for triggered creation of the
   lower-layer FA-LSP using a path of its choice, or for the selection
   of any available lower-layer LSP as a data link for the higher layer.
   This mechanism is appropriate for environments where the TED is
   filtered in the higher layer, where separate routing instances are
   used per layer, or where administrative policies prevent the higher
   layer from specifying paths through the lower layer.

   Obviously, if the lower-layer LSP has been advertised as a TE link
   (virtual or real) into the higher layer, then the higher-layer
   signaling request MAY contain the TE link identifier and so indicate
   the lower-layer resources to be used.  But in this case, the path of
   the lower-layer LSP can be dynamically changed by the lower layer at
   any time.

   Alternatively, the upper-layer signaling request MAY contain an ERO
   specifying the lower-layer FA-LSP route.  In this case, the boundary
   node MAY decide whether it should use the path contained in the
   strict ERO or re-compute the path within the lower layer.

   Even in the case that the lower-layer FA-LSPs are already
   established, a signaling request may also be encoded as a loose ERO.
   In this situation, it is up to the boundary node to decide whether it
   should create a new lower-layer FA-LSP or it should use an existing
   lower-layer FA-LSP.

   The lower-layer FA-LSP can be advertised just as an FA-LSP in the
   upper layer or an IGP adjacency can be brought up on the lower-layer

5.8.  LSP Resource Utilization

   Resource usage in all layers should be optimized as a whole (i.e.,
   across all layers), in a coordinated manner (i.e., taking all layers
   into account).  The number of lower-layer LSPs carrying upper-layer
   LSPs should be minimized (note that multiple LSPs may be used for
   load balancing).  Lower-layer LSPs that could have their traffic
   re-routed onto other LSPs are unnecessary and should be avoided.

5.8.1.  FA-LSP Release and Setup

   If there is low traffic demand, some FA-LSPs that do not carry any
   higher-layer LSP may be released so that lower-layer resources are
   released and can be assigned to other uses.  Note that if a small
   fraction of the available bandwidth of an FA-LSP is still in use, the
   nested LSPs can also be re-routed to other FA-LSPs (optionally using

Shiomoto, et al.             Informational                     [Page 19]

RFC 5212                  MRN/MLN Requirements                 July 2008

   the make-before-break technique) to completely free up the FA-LSP.
   Alternatively, unused FA-LSPs may be retained for future use.
   Release or retention of underutilized FA-LSPs is a policy decision.

   As part of the re-optimization process, the solution MUST allow
   rerouting of an FA-LSP while keeping interface identifiers of
   corresponding TE links unchanged.  Further, this process MUST be
   possible while the FA-LSP is carrying traffic (higher-layer LSPs)
   with minimal disruption to the traffic.

   Additional FA-LSPs may also be created based on policy, which might
   consider residual resources and the change of traffic demand across
   the region.  By creating the new FA-LSPs, the network performance
   such as maximum residual capacity may increase.

   As the number of FA-LSPs grows, the residual resources may decrease.
   In this case, re-optimization of FA-LSPs may be invoked according to

   Any solution MUST include measures to protect against network
   destabilization caused by the rapid setup and teardown of LSPs as
   traffic demand varies near a threshold.

   Signaling of lower-layer LSPs SHOULD include a mechanism to rapidly
   advertise the LSP as a TE link and to coordinate into which routing
   instances the TE link should be advertised.

5.8.2.  Virtual TE Links

   It may be considered disadvantageous to fully instantiate (i.e.,
   pre-provision) the set of lower-layer LSPs that provide the VNT since
   this might reserve bandwidth that could be used for other LSPs in the
   absence of upper-layer traffic.

   However, in order to allow path computation of upper-layer LSPs
   across the lower layer, the lower-layer LSPs may be advertised into
   the upper layer as though they had been fully established, but
   without actually establishing them.  Such TE links that represent the
   possibility of an underlying LSP are termed "virtual TE links".  It
   is an implementation choice at a layer boundary node whether to
   create real or virtual TE links, and the choice (if available in an
   implementation) MUST be under the control of operator policy.  Note
   that there is no requirement to support the creation of virtual TE
   links, since real TE links (with established LSPs) may be used.  Even
   if there are no TE links (virtual or real) advertised to the higher
   layer, it is possible to route a higher-layer LSP into a lower layer
   on the assumption that proper hierarchical LSPs in the lower layer
   will be dynamically created (triggered) as needed.

Shiomoto, et al.             Informational                     [Page 20]

RFC 5212                  MRN/MLN Requirements                 July 2008

   If an upper-layer LSP that makes use of a virtual TE link is set up,
   the underlying LSP MUST be immediately signaled in the lower layer.

   If virtual TE links are used in place of pre-established LSPs, the TE
   links across the upper layer can remain stable using pre-computed
   paths while wastage of bandwidth within the lower layer and
   unnecessary reservation of adaptation resources at the border nodes
   can be avoided.

   The solution SHOULD provide operations to facilitate the build-up of
   such virtual TE links, taking into account the (forecast) traffic
   demand and available resources in the lower layer.

   Virtual TE links can be added, removed, or modified dynamically (by
   changing their capacity) according to the change of the (forecast)
   traffic demand and the available resources in the lower layer.  It
   MUST be possible to add, remove, and modify virtual TE links in a
   dynamic way.

   Any solution MUST include measures to protect against network
   destabilization caused by the rapid changes in the VNT as traffic
   demand varies near a threshold.

   The concept of the VNT can be extended to allow the virtual TE links
   to form part of the VNT.  The combination of the fully provisioned TE
   links and the virtual TE links defines the VNT provided by the lower
   layer.  The VNT can be changed by setting up and/or tearing down
   virtual TE links as well as by modifying real links (i.e., the fully
   provisioned LSPs).  How to design the VNT and how to manage it are
   out of scope of this document.

   In some situations, selective advertisement of the preferred
   connectivity among a set of border nodes between layers may be
   appropriate.  Further decreasing the number of advertisements of the
   virtual connectivity can be achieved by abstracting the topology
   (between border nodes) using models similar to those detailed in

5.9.  Verification of the LSPs

   When a lower-layer LSP is established for use as a data link by a
   higher layer, the LSP may be verified for correct connectivity and
   data integrity before it is made available for use.  Such mechanisms
   are data-technology-specific and are beyond the scope of this
   document, but the GMPLS protocols SHOULD provide mechanisms for the
   coordination of data link verification.

Shiomoto, et al.             Informational                     [Page 21]

RFC 5212                  MRN/MLN Requirements                 July 2008

5.10.  Management

   An MRN/MLN requires management capabilities.  Operators need to have
   the same level of control and management for switches and links in
   the network that they would have in a single-layer or single-region

   We can consider two different operational models: (1) per-layer
   management entities and (2) cross-layer management entities.

   Regarding per-layer management entities, it is possible for the MLN
   to be managed entirely as separate layers, although that somewhat
   defeats the objective of defining a single multi-layer network.  In
   this case, separate management systems would be operated for each
   layer, and those systems would be unaware of the fact that the layers
   were closely coupled in the control plane.  In such a deployment, as
   LSPs were automatically set up as the result of control plane
   requests from other layers (for example, triggered signaling), the
   management applications would need to register the creation of the
   new LSPs and the depletion of network resources.  Emphasis would be
   placed on the layer boundary nodes to report the activity to the
   management applications.

   A more likely scenario is to apply a closer coupling of layer
   management systems with cross-layer management entities.  This might
   be achieved through a unified management system capable of operating
   multiple layers, or by a meta-management system that coordinates the
   operation of separate management systems each responsible for
   individual layers.  The former case might only be possible with the
   development of new management systems, while the latter is feasible
   through the coordination of existing network management tools.

   Note that when a layer boundary also forms an administrative
   boundary, it is highly unlikely that there will be unified multi-
   layer management.  In this case, the layers will be separately
   managed by the separate administrative entities, but there may be
   some "leakage" of information between the administrations in order to
   facilitate the operation of the MLN.  For example, the management
   system in the lower-layer network might automatically issue reports
   on resource availability (coincident with TE routing information) and
   alarm events.

   This discussion comes close to an examination of how a VNT might be
   managed and operated.  As noted in Section 5.8, issues of how to
   design and manage a VNT are out of scope for this document, but it
   should be understood that the VNT is a client-layer construct built
   from server-layer resources.  This means that the operation of a VNT

Shiomoto, et al.             Informational                     [Page 22]

RFC 5212                  MRN/MLN Requirements                 July 2008

   is a collaborative activity between layers.  This activity is
   possible even if the layers are from separate administrations, but in
   this case the activity may also have commercial implications.

   MIB modules exist for the modeling and management of GMPLS networks
   [RFC4802] [RFC4803].  Some deployments of GMPLS networks may choose
   to use MIB modules to operate individual network layers.  In these
   cases, operators may desire to coordinate layers through a further
   MIB module that could be developed.  Multi-layer protocol solutions
   (that is, solutions where a single control plane instance operates in
   more than one layer) SHOULD be manageable through MIB modules.  A
   further MIB module to coordinate multiple network layers with this
   control plane MIB module may be produced.

   Operations and Management (OAM) tools are important to the successful
   deployment of all networks.

   OAM requirements for GMPLS networks are described in [GMPLS-OAM].
   That document points out that protocol solutions for individual
   network layers should include mechanisms for OAM or make use of OAM
   features inherent in the physical media of the layers.  Further
   discussion of individual-layer OAM is out of scope of this document.

   When operating OAM in a MLN, consideration must be given to how to
   provide OAM for end-to-end LSPs that cross layer boundaries (that may
   also be administrative boundaries) and how to coordinate errors and
   alarms detected in a server layer that need to be reported to the
   client layer.  These operational choices MUST be left open to the
   service provider and so MLN protocol solutions MUST include the
   following features:

   - Within the context and technology capabilities of the highest
     technology layer of an LSP (i.e., the technology layer of the first
     hop), it MUST be possible to enable end-to-end OAM on a MLN LSP.
     This function appears to the ingress LSP as normal LSP-based OAM
     [GMPLS-OAM], but at layer boundaries, depending on the technique
     used to span the lower layers, client-layer OAM operations may need
     to mapped to server-layer OAM operations.  Most such requirements
     are highly dependent on the OAM facilities of the data plane
     technologies of client and server layers.  However, control plane
     mechanisms used in the client layer per [GMPLS-OAM] MUST map and
     enable OAM in the server layer.

   - OAM operation enabled per [GMPLS-OAM] in a client layer for an LSP
     MUST operate for that LSP along its entire length.  This means that
     if an LSP crosses a domain of a lower-layer technology, the
     client-layer OAM operation must operate seamlessly within the
     client layer at both ends of the client-layer LSP.

Shiomoto, et al.             Informational                     [Page 23]

RFC 5212                  MRN/MLN Requirements                 July 2008

   - OAM functions operating within a server layer MUST be controllable
     from the client layer such that the server-layer LSP(s) that
     support a client-layer LSP have OAM enabled at the request of the
     client layer.  Such control SHOULD be subject to policy at the
     layer boundary, just as automatic provisioning and LSP requests to
     the server layer are subject to policy.

   - The status including errors and alarms applicable to a server-layer
     LSP MUST be available to the client layer.  This information SHOULD
     be configurable to be automatically notified to the client layer at
     the layer boundary and SHOULD be subject to policy so that the
     server layer may filter or hide information supplied to the client
     layer.  Furthermore, the client layer SHOULD be able to select to
     not receive any or all such information.

   Note that the interface between layers lies within network nodes and
   is, therefore, not necessarily the subject of a protocol
   specification.  Implementations MAY use standardized techniques (such
   as MIB modules) to convey status information (such as errors and
   alarms) between layers, but that is out of scope for this document.

6.  Security Considerations

   The MLN/MRN architecture does not introduce any new security
   requirements over the general GMPLS architecture described in
   [RFC3945].  Additional security considerations form MPLS and GMPLS
   networks are described in [MPLS-SEC].

   However, where the separate layers of an MLN/MRN network are operated
   as different administrative domains, additional security
   considerations may be given to the mechanisms for allowing LSP setup
   crossing one or more layer boundaries, for triggering lower-layer
   LSPs, or for VNT management.  Similarly, consideration may be given
   to the amount of information shared between administrative domains,
   and the trade-off between multi-layer TE and confidentiality of
   information belonging to each administrative domain.

   It is expected that solution documents will include a full analysis
   of the security issues that any protocol extensions introduce.

7.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel and the participants of
   ITU-T Study Group 15, Question 14 for their careful review.  The
   authors would like to thank the IESG review team for rigorous review:
   special thanks to Tim Polk, Miguel Garcia, Jari Arkko, Dan Romascanu,
   and Dave Ward.

Shiomoto, et al.             Informational                     [Page 24]

RFC 5212                  MRN/MLN Requirements                 July 2008

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
               Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3945]   Mannie, E., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
               Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004.

   [RFC4202]   Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing
               Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
               Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005.

   [RFC4206]   Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths (LSP)
               Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
               (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206, October

   [RFC4397]   Bryskin, I. and A. Farrel, "A Lexicography for the
               Interpretation of Generalized Multiprotocol Label
               Switching (GMPLS) Terminology within the Context of the
               ITU-T's Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)
               Architecture", RFC 4397, February 2006.

   [RFC4726]   Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and A. Ayyangar, "A Framework
               for Inter-Domain Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic
               Engineering", RFC 4726, November 2006.

8.2.  Informative References

   [DYN-HIER]  Shiomoto, K., Rabbat, R., Ayyangar, A., Farrel, A.  and
               Z. Ali, "Procedures for Dynamically Signaled Hierarchical
               Label Switched Paths", Work in Progress, February 2008.

   [MRN-EVAL]  Le Roux, J.L., Ed., and D. Papadimitriou, Ed.,
               "Evaluation of existing GMPLS Protocols against Multi
               Layer and Multi Region Networks (MLN/MRN)", Work in
               Progress, December 2007.

   [RFC5146]   Kumaki, K., Ed., "Interworking Requirements to Support
               Operation of MPLS-TE over GMPLS Networks", RFC 5146,
               March 2008.

   [MPLS-SEC]  Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
               Networks", Work in Progress, February 2008.

Shiomoto, et al.             Informational                     [Page 25]

RFC 5212                  MRN/MLN Requirements                 July 2008

   [RFC4802]   Nadeau, T., Ed., and A. Farrel, Ed., "Generalized
               Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering
               Management Information Base", RFC 4802, February 2007.

   [RFC4803]   Nadeau, T., Ed., and A. Farrel, Ed., "Generalized
               Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Label Switching
               Router (LSR) Management Information Base", RFC 4803,
               February 2007.

   [RFC4847]   Takeda, T., Ed., "Framework and Requirements for Layer 1
               Virtual Private Networks", RFC 4847, April 2007.

   [RFC4972]   Vasseur, JP., Ed., Leroux, JL., Ed., Yasukawa, S.,
               Previdi, S., Psenak, P., and P. Mabbey, "Routing
               Extensions for Discovery of Multiprotocol (MPLS) Label
               Switch Router (LSR) Traffic Engineering (TE) Mesh
               Membership", RFC 4972, July 2007.

   [GMPLS-OAM] Nadeau, T., Otani, T. Brungard, D., and A. Farrel, "OAM
               Requirements for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
               Switching (GMPLS) Networks", Work in Progress, October

9.  Contributors' Addresses

   Eiji Oki
   NTT Network Service Systems Laboratories
   3-9-11 Midori-cho, Musashino-shi
   Tokyo 180-8585
   Phone: +81 422 59 3441
   EMail: oki.eiji@lab.ntt.co.jp

   Ichiro Inoue
   NTT Network Service Systems Laboratories
   3-9-11 Midori-cho, Musashino-shi
   Tokyo 180-8585
   Phone: +81 422 59 3441
   EMail: ichiro.inoue@lab.ntt.co.jp

   Emmanuel Dotaro
   Route de Villejust
   91620 Nozay
   Phone: +33 1 3077 2670
   EMail: emmanuel.dotaro@alcatel-lucent.fr

Shiomoto, et al.             Informational                     [Page 26]

RFC 5212                  MRN/MLN Requirements                 July 2008

Authors' Addresses

   Kohei Shiomoto
   NTT Network Service Systems Laboratories
   3-9-11 Midori-cho, Musashino-shi
   Tokyo 180-8585
   EMail: shiomoto.kohei@lab.ntt.co.jp

   Dimitri Papadimitriou
   Copernicuslaan 50
   B-2018 Antwerpen
   Phone : +32 3 240 8491
   EMail: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel-lucent.be

   Jean-Louis Le Roux
   France Telecom R&D
   Av Pierre Marzin
   22300 Lannion
   EMail: jeanlouis.leroux@orange-ftgroup.com

   Martin Vigoureux
   Route de Villejust
   91620 Nozay
   Phone: +33 1 3077 2669
   EMail: martin.vigoureux@alcatel-lucent.fr

   Deborah Brungard
   Rm. D1-3C22 - 200
   S. Laurel Ave.
   Middletown, NJ 07748
   Phone: +1 732 420 1573
   EMail: dbrungard@att.com

Shiomoto, et al.             Informational                     [Page 27]

RFC 5212                  MRN/MLN Requirements                 July 2008

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   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.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an

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 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

   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

Shiomoto, et al.             Informational                     [Page 28]