path: root/doc/rfc/rfc5818.txt

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                             D. Li
Request for Comments: 5818                                         H. Xu
Category: Standards Track                                         Huawei
ISSN: 2070-1721                                              S. Bardalai
                                                                 Fujitsu
                                                               J. Meuric
                                                          France Telecom
                                                             D. Caviglia
                                                                Ericsson
                                                              April 2010


              Data Channel Status Confirmation Extensions
                    for the Link Management Protocol

Abstract

   This document defines simple additions to the Link Management
   Protocol (LMP) to provide a control plane tool that can assist in the
   location of stranded resources by allowing adjacent Label-Switching
   Routers (LSRs) to confirm data channel statuses and provide triggers
   for notifying the management plane if any discrepancies are found.
   As LMP is already used to verify data plane connectivity, it is
   considered to be an appropriate candidate to support this feature.

Status of This Memo

   This is an Internet Standards Track document.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5818.













Li et al.                    Standards Track                    [Page 1]
^L
RFC 5818              Data Channel Statuses and LMP           April 2010


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................3
   2. Specification of Requirements ...................................4
   3. Problem Explanation .............................................4
      3.1. Mismatch Caused by Manual Configuration ....................4
      3.2. Mismatch Caused by LSP Deletion ............................5
      3.3. Failed Resources ...........................................6
   4. Motivation ......................................................6
   5. Extensions to LMP ...............................................7
      5.1. Confirm Data Channel Status Messages .......................7
           5.1.1. ConfirmDataChannelStatus Messages ...................8
           5.1.2. ConfirmDataChannelStatusAck Messages ................8
           5.1.3. ConfirmDataChannelStatusNack Messages ...............8
      5.2. Data Channel Status Subobject ..............................9
      5.3. Message Construction ......................................10
      5.4. Backward Compatibility ....................................10
   6. Procedures .....................................................11
   7. Security Considerations ........................................12
   8. IANA Considerations ............................................12
      8.1. LMP Message Types .........................................12
      8.2. LMP Data Link Object Subobject ............................13
      8.3. LMP Error_Code Class Type .................................13
   9. Acknowledgments ................................................13
   10. References ....................................................13
      10.1. Normative References .....................................13
      10.2. Informative References ...................................14
   Contributor's Address .............................................14








Li et al.                    Standards Track                    [Page 2]
^L
RFC 5818              Data Channel Statuses and LMP           April 2010


1.  Introduction

   Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) networks are
   constructed from Traffic Engineering (TE) links connecting Label
   Switching Routers (LSRs).  The TE links are constructed from a set of
   data channels.  In this context, a data channel corresponds to a
   resource label in a non-packet technology (such as a timeslot or a
   lambda).

   A data channel status mismatch exists if the LSR at one end of a TE
   link believes that the data channel is assigned to carry data, but
   the LSR at the other end does not.  The term "ready to carry data"
   means cross-connected or bound to an end-point for the receipt or
   delivery of data.

   Data channel mismatches cannot be detected from the TE information
   advertised by the routing protocols [RFC4203], [RFC5307].  The
   existence of some data channel mismatch problems may be detected by a
   mismatch in the advertised bandwidths where bidirectional TE links
   and bidirectional services are in use.  However, where unidirectional
   services exist, or where multiple data channel mismatches occur, it
   is not possible to detect such errors through the routing protocol-
   advertised TE information.  In any case, there is no mechanism to
   isolate the mismatches by determining which data channels are at
   fault.

   If a data channel mismatch exists, any attempt to use the data
   channel for a new Label Switched Path (LSP) will fail.  One end of
   the TE link may attempt to assign the TE link for use, but the other
   end will report the data channel as unavailable when the control
   plane or management plane attempts to assign it to an LSP.

   Although such a situation can be resolved through the use of the
   Acceptable Label Set object in GMPLS signaling [RFC3473], such a
   procedure is inefficient since it may require an additional signaling
   exchange for each LSP that is set up.  When many LSPs are to be set
   up, and when there are many data channel mismatches, such
   inefficiencies become significant.  It is desirable to avoid the
   additional signaling overhead, and to report the problems to the
   management plane so that they can be resolved to improve the
   efficiency of LSP setup.

   Correspondingly, such a mismatch situation may give rise to
   misconnections in the data plane, especially when LSPs are set up
   using management plane operations.






Li et al.                    Standards Track                    [Page 3]
^L
RFC 5818              Data Channel Statuses and LMP           April 2010


   Resources (data channels) that are in a mismatched state are often
   described as "stranded resources".  They are not in use for any LSP,
   but they cannot be assigned for use by a new LSP because they appear
   to be in use.  Although it is theoretically possible for management
   plane applications to audit all network resources to locate stranded
   resources and to release them, this process is rarely performed
   because of the difficulty of coordinating different Element
   Management Systems (EMSs) and the associated risks of accidentally
   releasing in-use resources.  It is desirable to have a control plane
   mechanism that detects and reports stranded resources.

   This document defines simple additions to the Link Management
   Protocol (LMP) [RFC4204] to provide a control plane tool that can
   assist in the location of stranded resources by allowing adjacent
   LSRs to confirm data channel statuses and provide triggers for
   notifying the management plane if any discrepancies are found.  As
   LMP is already used to verify data plane connectivity, it is
   considered to be an appropriate candidate to support this feature.

2.  Specification of Requirements

   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 [RFC2119].

3.  Problem Explanation

   Examples of data channel mismatches are described in the following
   three scenarios.

   In all of the scenarios, the specific channel resource of a data link
   will be unavailable because of the data channel status mismatch, and
   this channel resource will be wasted.  Furthermore, a data channel
   status mismatch may reduce the possibility of successful LSP
   establishment, because a data channel status mismatch may result in
   failure when establishing an LSP.

   So it is desirable to confirm the data channel statuses as early as
   possible.

3.1.  Mismatch Caused by Manual Configuration

   The operator may have configured a cross-connect at only one end of a
   TE link using an EMS.  The resource at one end of the data channel is
   allocated, but the corresponding resource is still available at the
   other end of the same data channel.  In this case, the data channel
   may appear to be available for use by the control plane when viewed
   from one end of the TE link but, will be considered to be unavailable



Li et al.                    Standards Track                    [Page 4]
^L
RFC 5818              Data Channel Statuses and LMP           April 2010


   by the other end of the TE link.  Alternatively, the available end of
   the data channel may be cross-connected by the management plane, and
   a misconnection may result from the fact that the other end of the
   data channel is already cross-connected.

   Figure 1 shows a data channel between nodes A and B.  The resource at
   A's end of the TE link is allocated through manual configuration,
   while the resource at B's end of the TE link is available, so the
   data channel status is mismatched.

                       allocated      available
                          +-+------------+-+
                       A  |x|            | |  B
                          +-+------------+-+
                             data channel

            Figure 1.  Mismatch Caused by Manual Configuration

3.2.  Mismatch Caused by LSP Deletion

   The channel status of a data link may become mismatched during the
   LSP deletion process.  If the LSP deletion process is aborted in the
   middle of the process (perhaps because of a temporary control plane
   failure), the cross-connect at the upstream node may be removed while
   the downstream node still keeps its cross-connect, if the LSP
   deletion was initiated by the source node.

   For example, in Figure 2, an LSP traverses nodes A, B, and C.  Node B
   resets abnormally when the LSP is being deleted.  This results in the
   cross-connects of nodes A and C being removed, but the cross-connect
   of node B still being in use.  So, the data channel statuses between
   nodes A and B, and between nodes B and C are both mismatched.

                          <---------LSP--------->
                          +-+-------+-+-------+-+
                          | |       |X|       | |
                          +-+-------+-+-------+-+
                           A         B         C

                Figure 2.  Mismatch Caused by LSP Deletion

   In [RFC2205] and [RFC3209], a "soft state" mechanism was defined to
   prevent state discrepancies between LSRs.  Resource ReSerVation
   Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) restart processes ([RFC3473],
   [RFC5063]) have been defined: adjacent LSRs may resynchronize their
   control plane state to reinstate information about LSPs that have
   persisted in the data plane.  Both mechanisms aim at keeping state
   consistency among nodes and allow LSRs to detect mismatched data



Li et al.                    Standards Track                    [Page 5]
^L
RFC 5818              Data Channel Statuses and LMP           April 2010


   plane states.  The data plane handling of such mismatched states can
   be treated as a local policy decision.  Some deployments may decide
   to automatically clean up the data plane state so it matches the
   control plane state, but others may choose to raise an alert to the
   management plane and leave the data plane untouched just in case it
   is in use.

   In such cases, data channel mismatches may arise after restart and
   might not be cleared up by the restart procedures.

3.3.  Failed Resources

   Even if the situation is not common, it might happen that a
   termination point of a TE link is seen as failed by one end, while on
   the other end it is seen as OK.  This problem may arise due to some
   failure either in the hardware or in the status detection of the
   termination point.

   This mismatch in the termination point status can lead to failure in
   the case of bidirectional LSP setup.

                         Good           Failed
                          +-+------------+-+
                       A  | |            |X|  B
                          +-+------------+-+
                             data channel
                  Path Message with Upstream Label---->

              Figure 3.  Mismatch Caused by Resource Failure

   In this case, the upstream node chooses to use termination point A in
   order to receive traffic from the downstream node.  From the upstream
   node's point of view, the resource is available and thus usable;
   however, in the downstream node, the corresponding termination point
   (resource B) is broken.  This leads to a setup failure.

4.  Motivation

   The requirement does not come from a lack in GMPLS specifications
   themselves but rather from operational concerns because, in most
   cases, GMPLS-controlled networks will co-exist with legacy networks
   and legacy procedures.

   The protocol extensions defined in this document are intended to
   detect data plane problems resulting from misuse or misconfigurations
   triggered by user error, or resulting from failure to clean up the
   data plane after control plane disconnection.  It is anticipated that
   human mistakes are probably the major source of errors to deal with.



Li et al.                    Standards Track                    [Page 6]
^L
RFC 5818              Data Channel Statuses and LMP           April 2010


   This document is not intened to provide a protocol mechanism to deal
   with broken implementations.

   The procedures defined in this document are designed to be performed
   on a periodic or on-demand basis.  It is NOT RECOMMENDED that the
   procedures be used to provide a continuous and on-line monitoring
   process.

   As LMP is already used to verify data plane connectivity, it is
   considered to be an appropriate candidate to support this feature.

5.  Extensions to LMP

   A control plane tool to detect and isolate data channel mismatches is
   provided in this document by simple additions to the Link Management
   Protocol (LMP) [RFC4204].  It can assist in the location of stranded
   resources by allowing adjacent LSRs to confirm data channel statuses.

   Outline procedures are described in this section.  More detailed
   procedures are found in Section 6.

   The message formats in the subsections that follow use Backus-Naur
   Form (BNF) encoding as defined in [RFC5511].

5.1.  Confirm Data Channel Status Messages

   Extensions to LMP to confirm a data channel status are described
   below.  In order to confirm a data channel status, the new LMP
   messages are sent between adjacent nodes periodically or driven by
   some event (such as an operator command, a configurable timer, or the
   rejection of an LSP setup message because of an unavailable
   resource).  The new LMP messages run over the control channel,
   encapsulated in UDP with an LMP port number and IP addressing as
   defined in "Link Management Protocol (LMP)" [RFC4204].

   Three new messages are defined to check data channel status:
   ConfirmDataChannelStatus, ConfirmDataChannelStatusAck, and
   ConfirmDataChannelStatusNack.  These messages are described in detail
   in the following subsections.  Message Type numbers are found in
   Section 8.1.

5.1.1.  ConfirmDataChannelStatus Messages

   The ConfirmDataChannelStatus message is used to provide the remote
   end of the data channel with the status of the local end of the data
   channel and to ask the remote end to report its data channel.  The
   message may report on (and request information about) more than one
   data channel.



Li et al.                    Standards Track                    [Page 7]
^L
RFC 5818              Data Channel Statuses and LMP           April 2010


    <ConfirmDataChannelStatus Message> ::= <Common Header>
                                           <LOCAL_LINK_ID>
                                           <MESSAGE_ID>
                                           <DATA_LINK>[<DATA_LINK>...]

   When a node receives the ConfirmDataChannelStatus message, and the
   data channel status confirmation procedure is supported at the node,
   the node compares its own data channel statuses with all of the data
   channel statuses sent by the remote end in the
   ConfirmDataChannelStatus message.  If a data channel status mismatch
   is found, this mismatch result is expected to be reported to the
   management plane for further action.  Management plane reporting
   procedures and actions are outside the scope of this document.

   If the message is a Confirm Data Channel Status message, and the
   MESSAGE_ID value is less than the largest MESSAGE_ID value previously
   received from the sender for the specified TE link, then the message
   SHOULD be treated as being out-of-order.

5.1.2.  ConfirmDataChannelStatusAck Messages

   The ConfirmDataChannelStatusAck message is sent back to the node that
   originated the ConfirmDataChannelStatus message to return the
   requested data channel statuses.

   When the ConfirmDataChannelStatusAck message is received, the node
   compares the received data channel statuses at the remote end with
   those at the local end (the same operation as performed by the
   receiver of the ConfirmDataChannelStatus message).  If a data channel
   status mismatch is found, the mismatch result is expected to be
   reported to the management plane for further action.

   <ConfirmDataChannelStatusAck Message> ::= <Common Header>
                                             <MESSAGE_ID_ACK>
                                             <DATA_LINK>[<DATA_LINK>...]

   The contents of the MESSAGE_ID_ACK objects MUST be obtained from the
   ConfirmDataChannelStatus message being acknowledged.

   Note that the ConfirmDataChannelStatusAck message is used both when
   the data channel statuses match and when they do not match.

5.1.3.  ConfirmDataChannelStatusNack Messages

   When a node receives the ConfirmDataChannelStatus message, if the
   data channel status confirmation procedure is not supported but the
   message is recognized, a ConfirmDataChannelStatusNack message




Li et al.                    Standards Track                    [Page 8]
^L
RFC 5818              Data Channel Statuses and LMP           April 2010


   containing an ERROR_CODE indicating "Channel Status Confirmation
   Procedure not supported" MUST be sent.

   If the data channel status confirmation procedure is supported, but
   the node is unable to begin the procedure, a
   ConfirmDataChannelStatusNack message containing an ERROR_CODE
   indicating "Unwilling to Confirm" MUST be sent.  If a
   ConfirmDataChannelStatusNack message is received with such an
   ERROR_CODE, the node that originated the ConfirmDataChannelStatus
   message MAY schedule the ConfirmDataChannelStatus message
   retransmission after a configured time.  A default value of
   10 minutes is suggested for this timer.

     <ConfirmDataChannelStatusNack Message> ::= <Common Header>
                                                [<LOCAL_LINK_ID>]
                                                <MESSAGE_ID_ACK>
                                                <ERROR_CODE>

   The contents of the MESSAGE_ID_ACK objects MUST be obtained from the
   ConfirmDataChannelStatus message being rejected.

   The ERROR_CODE object in this message has a new Class Type (see
   Section 8.3), but is formed as the ERROR_CODE object defined in
   [RFC4204].  The following Error Codes are defined:

     0x01 = Channel Status Confirmation Procedure not supported
     0x02 = Unwilling to Confirm

5.2.  Data Channel Status Subobject

   A new Data Channel Status subobject type is introduced to the DATA
   LINK object to hold the Data Channel Status and Data Channel ID.

   See Section 8.2 for the Subobject Type value.

      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |    Type       |    Length     |     Data Channel Status       |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                                               |
     //                      Data Channel ID                        //
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+







Li et al.                    Standards Track                    [Page 9]
^L
RFC 5818              Data Channel Statuses and LMP           April 2010


   Data Channel Status:

   This is a series of bit flags to indicate the status of the data
   channel.  The following values are defined.

      0x0000 : The channel is available/free.
      0x0001 : The channel is unavailable/in-use.

   Data Channel ID

   This identifies the data channel.  The length of this field can be
   deduced from the Length field in the subobject.  Note that all
   subobjects must be padded to a four-byte boundary with trailing
   zeros.

   If such padding is required, the Length field MUST indicate the
   length of the subobject up to, but not including, the first byte of
   padding.  Thus, the amount of padding is deduced and not represented
   in the Length field.

   Note that the Data Channel ID is given in the context of the sender
   of the ConfirmChannelStatus message.

   The Data Channel ID must be encoded as a label value.  Based on the
   type of signal (e.g., Synchronous Optical Network/Synchronous Digital
      Hierarchy (SONET/SDH), Lambda, etc.), the encoding methodology
   used will be different.  For SONET/SDH, the label value is encoded as
   per [RFC4606].

5.3.  Message Construction

   Data_Link Class (as defined in Section 13.12 of [RFC4204]) is
   included in ConfirmDataChannelStatus and ConfirmDataChannelStatusAck
   messages.

   The status of the TE link end MUST be carried by the Data Channel
   Status subobject, which is defined in Section 5.2 of this document.
   The new subobject MUST be part of Data_Link Class.

   In the case of SONET/SDH, the Data Channel ID in the new subobject
   SHOULD be used to identify each timeslot of the data link.

5.4.  Backward Compatibility

   Some nodes running in the network might only support the LMP Message
   Types, which are already defined in [RFC4204].  The three new types
   of LMP messages defined in this document cannot be recognized by
   these nodes.  The behavior of an LMP node that receives an unknown



Li et al.                    Standards Track                   [Page 10]
^L
RFC 5818              Data Channel Statuses and LMP           April 2010


   message is not specified in [RFC4204] and will be clarified in a
   separate document.

   Since the behavior of legacy nodes must be assumed to be unknown,
   this document assumes that a deployment intended to support the
   function described in this document will consist completely of nodes
   that support the protocol extensions also described in this document.

   In the future, it may be the case that LMP will be extended to allow
   function support to be detected.  In that case, it may become
   possible to deploy this function in a mixed environment.

6.  Procedures

   Adjacent nodes MAY send data channel status confirmation-related LMP
   messages.  Periodical timers or some other events requesting the
   confirmation of channel status for the data link may trigger these
   messages.  It's a local policy decision to start the data channel
   status confirmation process.  The procedure is described below:

   .  Initially, the SENDER constructs a ConfirmDataChannelStatus
      message that MUST contain one or more DATA_LINK objects.  The
      DATA_LINK object is defined in [RFC4204].  Each DATA_LINK object
      MUST contain one or more Data Channel Status subobjects.  The Data
      Channel ID field in the Data Channel Status subobject MUST
      indicate which data channel needs to be confirmed, and MUST report
      the data channel status at the SENDER.  The
      ConfirmDataChannelStatus message is sent to the RECEIVER.

   .  Upon receipt of a ConfirmDataChannelStatus message, the RECEIVER
      MUST extract the data channel statuses from the
      ConfirmDataChannelStatus message and SHOULD compare these with its
      data channel statuses for the reported data channels.  If a data
      channel status mismatch is found, the mismatch result SHOULD be
      reported to the management plane for further action.  The RECEIVER
      also SHOULD send the ConfirmDataChannelStatusAck message, which
      MUST carry all the local end statuses of the requested data
      channels to the SENDER.

   .  If the RECEIVER is not able to support or to begin the
      confirmation procedure, the RECEIVER MUST send a
      ConfirmDataChannelStatusNack message containing the ERROR_CODE
      that indicates the reason for rejection.

   .  Upon receipt of a ConfirmDataChannelStatusAck message, the SENDER
      MUST compare the received data channel statuses at the remote end
      with the data channel statuses at the local end.  If a data




Li et al.                    Standards Track                   [Page 11]
^L
RFC 5818              Data Channel Statuses and LMP           April 2010


      channel status mismatch is found, the mismatch result SHOULD be
      reported to the management plane for further action.

   The data channel status mismatch issue identified by LMP may be
   automatically resolved by RSVP restart.  For example, the restarting
   node may also have damaged its data plane.  This leaves the data
   channels mismatched.  However, RSVP restart will re-install the data
   plane state in the restarting node.  The issue may also be resolved
   via RSVP soft state timeout.

   If the ConfirmDataChannelStatus message is not recognized by the
   RECEIVER, the RECEIVER ignores this message and will not send out an
   acknowledgment message to the SENDER.

   Due to the message loss problem, the SENDER may not be able to
   receive the acknowledgment message.

   ConfirmDataChannelStatus SHOULD be sent using LMP [RFC4204] reliable
   transmission mechanisms.  If, after the retry limit is reached, a
   ConfirmDataChannelStatusAck message or a ConfirmDataChannelStatusNack
   message is not received by the SENDER, the SENDER SHOULD terminate
   the data channel confirmation procedure and SHOULD raise an alert to
   the management plane.

7.  Security Considerations

   [RFC4204] describes how LMP messages between peers can be secured,
   and these measures are equally applicable to the new messages defined
   in this document.

   The operation of the procedures described in this document does not
   of itself constitute a security risk because it does not cause any
   change in network state.  It would be possible, if the messages were
   intercepted or spoofed, to cause bogus alerts in the management
   plane, and so the use of LMP security measures described in [RFC4204]
   is RECOMMENDED.

   Note that performing the procedures described in this document may
   provide a useful additional security measure to verify that data
   channels have not been illicitly modified.

8.  IANA Considerations

8.1.  LMP Message Types

   IANA maintains the "Link Management Protocol (LMP)" registry, which
   has a subregistry called "LMP Message Type".  IANA has made the
   following three new allocations from this registry.



Li et al.                    Standards Track                   [Page 12]
^L
RFC 5818              Data Channel Statuses and LMP           April 2010


      Value    Description
      ------   ---------------------------------
        32     ConfirmDataChannelStatus
        33     ConfirmDataChannelStatusAck
        34     ConfirmDataChannelStatusNack

8.2.  LMP Data Link Object Subobject

   IANA maintains the "Link Management Protocol (LMP)" registry, which
   has a subregistry called "LMP Object Class name space and Class type
   (C-Type)".  This subregistry has an entry for the DATA_LINK object,
   and there is a further embedded registry called "DATA_LINK Sub-object
   Class name space".  IANA has made the following allocation from this
   embedded registry.

      Value    Description
      ------   ---------------------------------
        9      Data Channel Status

8.3.  LMP Error_Code Class Type

   IANA maintains the "Link Management Protocol (LMP)" registry, which
   has a subregistry called "LMP Object Class name space and Class type
   (C-Type)".  This subregistry has an entry for the ERROR_CODE object.
   IANA has allocated the following new value for an ERROR_CODE class
   type.

           C-Type   Description                    Reference
           ------   ----------------------------   ---------
              4     ConfirmDataChannelStatusNack   [This RFC]

9.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Dimitri Papadimitriou,
   and Lou Berger for their useful comments.

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

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

   [RFC4204]   Lang, J., Ed., "Link Management Protocol (LMP)",
               RFC 4204, October 2005.






Li et al.                    Standards Track                   [Page 13]
^L
RFC 5818              Data Channel Statuses and LMP           April 2010


   [RFC5511]   Farrel, A., Ed., "Routing Backus-Naur Form (RBNF):
               A Syntax Used to Form Encoding Rules in Various Routing
               Protocol Specifications", RFC 5511, April 2009.

10.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2205]   Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and
               S. Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) --
               Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205,
               September 1997.

   [RFC3209]   Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
               and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
               Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.

   [RFC3473]   Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
               Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation
               Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions",
               RFC 3473, January 2003.

   [RFC4203]   Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions
               in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
               (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005.

   [RFC4606]   Mannie, E. and D. Papadimitriou, "Generalized Multi-
               Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for
               Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous
               Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control", RFC 4606, August 2006.

   [RFC5063]   Satyanarayana, A., Ed., and R. Rahman, Ed., "Extensions
               to GMPLS Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Graceful
               Restart", RFC 5063, October 2007.

   [RFC5307]   Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "IS-IS Extensions
               in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
               (GMPLS)", RFC 5307, October 2008.

Contributor's Address

   Fatai Zhang
   Huawei Technologies
   F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base
   Shenzhen 518129 China

   Phone: +86 755-289-72912
   EMail: zhangfatai@huawei.com





Li et al.                    Standards Track                   [Page 14]
^L
RFC 5818              Data Channel Statuses and LMP           April 2010


Authors' Addresses

   Dan Li
   Huawei Technologies
   F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base
   Shenzhen 518129 China

   Phone: +86 755-289-70230
   EMail: danli@huawei.com


   Huiying Xu
   Huawei Technologies
   F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base
   Shenzhen 518129 China

   Phone: +86 755-289-72910
   EMail: xuhuiying@huawei.com


   Snigdho C. Bardalai
   Fujitsu Network Communications
   2801 Telecom Parkway
   Richardson, Texas 75082, USA

   Phone: +1 972 479 2951
   EMail: snigdho.bardalai@us.fujitsu.com


   Julien Meuric
   France Telecom Orange Labs
   2, avenue Pierre Marzin
   22307 Lannion Cedex, France

   Phone: +33 2 96 05 28 28
   EMail: julien.meuric@orange-ftgroup.com

   Diego Caviglia
   Ericsson
   Via A. Negrone 1/A 16153
   Genoa Italy

   Phone: +39 010 600 3736
   EMail: diego.caviglia@ericsson.com







Li et al.                    Standards Track                   [Page 15]
^L