Internet Draft Jun Kyun Choi Document: draft-choi-gmpls-resource-mapping-02.txt Min Ho Kang Expiration Date: August 2004 Gyu Myoung Lee ICU Tae-Gon Noh J. Kevin Rhee Samsung AIT Hyeong Ho Lee Sun Hee Yang Jea Hoon Yu ETRI February 2004 Resource Mapping for GMPLS with Heterogeneous Interfaces draft-choi-gmpls-resource-mapping-02.txt Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC-2026. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsolete by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Abstract The new forms of label used in GMPLS to deal with the widening scope of MPLS into the optical and time domain are collectively referred to as a "Generalized Label" related to resource. In this draft, we describe the relationship of labels and resources. We also describe the resource mapping methods for GMPLS with heterogeneous interfaces. Particularly we present the methods for resource mapping at incoming and outgoing switching interface where data flows with label of a different granularity are aggregated into the data flow of large bandwidth. Choi et al Expires - August 2004 [Page 1] Resource Mapping for GMPLS with Heterogeneous Interfaces February 2004 Conventions The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119. Table of Contents 1. Introduction.....................................................3 2. Label Relationship and Mapping in Heterogeneous Switching Interfaces..........................................................4 2.1. The relationship of labels and switching interfaces..........4 2.2. Generalized label and switching interface....................5 3. Resource Hierarchy with Multiple Granularities...................6 3.1. Resource hierarchy in GMPLS..................................6 3.2. The relationship of labels and resources.....................7 4. Resource Mapping Scenario for GMPLS..............................8 4.1. Aggregation in optical switching interface...................8 4.2. Logical resource aggregation using label association.........9 4.3. Traffic parameter mapping....................................10 5. Additional Considerations for Resource Mapping...................10 5.1. Unnumbered link and link bundling............................11 5.2. Label stacking...............................................11 5.3. Protection and restoration...................................11 6. Security Considerations..........................................12 References..........................................................12 Acknowledgments.....................................................13 Author's Addresses..................................................13 CCAMP ID Summary (This section to be removed before publication.) SUMMARY This document specifies concepts and mechanisms to control the resources with different granularity (e.g., label hierarchy) for GMPLS. WHERE DOES IT FIT IN THE PICTURE OF THE CCAMP-WG WORK? This work fits in MPLS box. WHY IS IT TARGETED AT THIS WG? This draft is targeted at this WG, because it specifies the mechanisms applied to GMPLS. Choi et al Expires - August 2004 [Page 2] Resource Mapping for GMPLS with Heterogeneous Interfaces February 2004 RELATED REFERENCES Please refer to the reference section. 1. Introduction Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) extends MPLS from supporting Packet Switching Capable (PSC) interfaces and switching to include support of four new classes of interfaces and switching: Layer 2 Switch Capable (L2SC), Time Division Multiplex Capable (TDM), Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) and Fiber Switch Capable (FSC) [1]. GMPLS signaling specification [1] presents a functional description of the extensions to MPLS signaling needed to support these new classes of interfaces and switching. GMPLS Signaling such as RSVP-TE extensions [2] and CR-LDP extensions [3] includes the specific formats and mechanisms to support four classes of interfaces. In MPLS, a label is a short, fixed length, locally significant identifier which is used to identify a Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC). The label which is put on a particular packet represents the FEC to which that packet is assigned [4]. This label value does not necessarily imply a relationship to bandwidth or characteristics (e.g., frequency band, time slot information, etc) data flows. On the other hand, in GMPLS, to deal with the widening scope of MPLS into the optical and time domain, several new forms of "label" are required. These new forms of label are collectively referred to as a "Generalized Label". In GMPLS, the meanings of label are different from each other and MUST be identify data flows with several switching type. Therefore, the specific label encoding rule for each interface MUST be specified. At present, the encoding rules for MPLS label and TDM label are defined in related specifications [5],[6],[7]. In GMPLS-based optical network, we SHOULD consider the multiple granularities that label represents. So in GMPLS with heterogeneous interfaces, data flows with small bandwidth needs to be aggregated in fiber and/or wavelength with large bandwidth. In this case, a Label Switched Path (LSP) such as lambda LSP and fiber LSP includes several kinds of labels. At present, label format for optical interface such as wavelength and fiber is defined but the specific mapping rule doesn't be defined. Therefore, it is very important to specify the label mapping rule that is taken optical characteristic into consideration and manage the label with a different granularity. To support GMPLS, in this draft, we describe the relationship of labels and resources. We also discuss the resource mapping methods for GMPLS with heterogeneous interfaces. Particularly we present the methods for resource mapping at incoming and outgoing switching interface where data flows with label of a different granularity are aggregated into the data flow of large bandwidth. Using this rule, we Choi et al Expires - August 2004 [Page 3] Resource Mapping for GMPLS with Heterogeneous Interfaces February 2004 can control and manage data flows with several labels (e.g., different resources) inside GMPLS control domain. 2. Label Relationship and Mapping in Heterogeneous Switching Interfaces 2.1. The relationship of labels and switching interfaces Carrying label information on a given link depends on the switching capability of interface between the ends of the link [11]. The relationship of labels and switching interfaces is shown in Figure 1. +-----+ "Shim" header +-----+ | PSC |----------------| PSC | +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ TDM time slot +-----+ | TDM |----------------| TDM | +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ Lambda +-----+ | LSC |----------------| LSC | +-----+ (waveband) +-----+ +-----+ Port +-----+ | FSC |----------------| FSC | +-----+ +-----+ (a) homogeneous interfaces +-----+ TDM time slot +-----+ | PSC |----------------| TDM | +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ Lambda +-----+ | PSC |----------------| LSC | +-----+ (waveband) +-----+ +-----+ port +-----+ | PSC |----------------| FSC | +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ Lambda +-----+ | TDM |----------------| LSC | +-----+ (waveband) +-----+ +-----+ Port +-----+ | TDM |----------------| FSC | +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ Port +-----+ | LSC |----------------| FSC | +-----+ +-----+ (b) heterogeneous interfaces Figure 1. The relationship of labels and switching interfaces For homogeneous interface, each interface uses the same label at the ends of links. However, for heterogeneous interface, data flows with labels of switching interfaces at ingress point of link are Choi et al Expires - August 2004 [Page 4] Resource Mapping for GMPLS with Heterogeneous Interfaces February 2004 aggregated into data flow with a label of switching interface with large bandwidth at egress point of link. 2.2. Generalized label and switching interface o Label for packet switch capable (PSC) Packet Switch Capable (PSC) interface can switch the received data on a packet-by-packet basis. This interface recognizes packet/cell boundaries and can forward data based on the content of the packet/cell header. The label carried in the "shim" header [5] is used in this interface. We define all kinds of label used in PSC interface as "MPLS label". - MPLS label represents a generic MPLS label, a Frame Relay label, or an ATM label. Generic MPLS labels and Frame Relay labels are encoded right justified aligned in 32 bits (4 octets)[1]. o Label for Time Division Multiplex Capable (TDM) Time Division Multiplex Capable (TDM) interface forwards data based on the data's time slot in a repeating cycle. TDM interface can multiplex or demultiplex channels within a frame such as SDH payload. The followings are the descriptions of label for TDM. - SONET/SDH label identifies the exact position (i.e. first time- slot) of a particular VTx SPE, STS-x SPE or VC-x signal in a multiplexing structure [6]. Multiplexing structure for SONET/SDH is based on ANSI [8]/ITU-T G.707 recommendations [9]. - In G.709 optical transport network, G.709 label identifies the exact position of a particular ODUj signal in an ODUk multiplexing structure. Multiplexing structures are based on ITU-T G.709 recommendation [7], [10],[15]. o Label for Lambda Switch Capable(LSC) and Fiber Switch Capable(FSC) Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) interface forwards data based on the wavelength on which the data is received. Therefore, this interface can recognize and switch individual lambdas within the interface. An example of such an interface is an Optical Cross-Connect (OXC) switch that can operate at the level of an individual wavelength. The followings are the descriptions of label for Lambda Switch Capable (LSC). - lambda label represents a single wavelength within a waveband (or fiber). - waveband label represents a set of contiguous wavelengths which can be switched together to a new waveband. So, this label represents a single wavelength within a waveband (or fiber). Choi et al Expires - August 2004 [Page 5] Resource Mapping for GMPLS with Heterogeneous Interfaces February 2004 Note: in waveband switching, the switching interface can recognize and switch individual waveband within the link (without distinguishing lambda, channels or packets). Fiber Switch Capable (FSC) interface forward data based on a position of the data in the real world physical spaces. Therefore, this interface can switch the entire contents to another interface (without distinguishing lambdas, channels or packets). Fiber switching system switches at the granularity of an entire interface, and can not exact individual lambdas within the interface. This interface uses port label. - port label represents a single fiber in a bundle 3. Resource Hierarchy with Multiple Granularities 3.1. Resource hierarchy in GMPLS In GMPLS-based optical network, the functionality to simultaneously switch different levels of granularity inside a given network can be supported. Therefore, GMPLS resource has a hierarchical architecture. The resource hierarchy of GMPLS is shown in Figure 2. At the top of the hierarchy are nodes that do fiber switching using port label of Fiber Switch Capable (FSC) interfaces. Underneath are nodes that do OXC switching using lambda (waveband) label of Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) interfaces, followed by TDM time slot switching such as SONET, SDH and ADM using SONET/SDH label of Time Division Multiplex Capable (TDM) interfaces, and finally, nodes that do packet switching using MPLS label of Packet Switch Capable (PSC) interfaces. See [12] for more information on the concept of GMPLS resource hierarchy. The data flows that have MPLS shim header are transferred through a packet LSP that originates between two packet switches. The data flows are aggregated in TDM switch such as SONET and SDH. The aggregated data flows with new SONET/SDH label are multiplexed inside a TDM time slot LSP between two TDM switches. Similarly, the multiplexed data flows with new lambda (waveband) label can be transferred inside a lambda LSP that originates between two lambda switches. Finally the data flows with new port label can be transferred inside a fiber LSP that originates between two fiber switches. Reversely, these data flows MUST be recovered in lower switching interface using label information. Therefore, using GMPLS signaling each switching interface determines the label value to use and keeps the mapping information between label and data flow. In particular, when each data flow with small bandwidth is aggregated into a data flow with large bandwidth, ingress and egress switching interface SHOULD know the information that data flows are aggregated and de-aggregated in a synchronous and/or asynchronous manner for sharing resource (i.e., wavelength etc), see Section 4. Choi et al Expires - August 2004 [Page 6] Resource Mapping for GMPLS with Heterogeneous Interfaces February 2004 "shim" header +-----++ +------+ +-----++ ----->|SONET | +-----++-----++ | SDH |\ +-----++-----++ +-----++ ----->| ADM | \ TDM Multiplexing +-----++ +------+ \ | SONET/SDH \ MPLS Label | Label \ +---------+ | \ | OXC | LSC | -->|Switching|\ | +---------+ \ | | Lambda \ | | (waveband) \ +---------+ | | Label \ | Fiber | | | ---->|Switching| | | +---------+ | | | |FSC | | | +--------> | | | Port Label --------------------------------------------------------------------- MPLS Label | MPLS Label | MPLS Label | MPLS Label | SONET/SDH Label | SONET/SDH Label | SONET/SDH Label | | Lambda Label | Lambda Label | | | Port Label --------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | Fiber LSP | | |<------------------ | | Lambda LSP | |<------------------------------------- | TDM time slot (TDM) LSP |<-------------------------------------------------------- Packet LSP <-------------------------------------------------------------------- Figure 2. resource hierarchy of GMPLS 3.2. The relationship of labels and resources Labels are defined in GMPLS to provide information on the resources used on link local basis for a particular connection. The labels may range from specifying a particular timeslot, a particular wavelength to a particular port/fiber. The idea of a label can be generalized to be anything that is sufficient to identify a traffic flow. Therefore, labels have different granularity. As shown in Figure 3, in optical fiber whose bandwidth is divided into wavebands and wavelengths, the whole of one wavelength could be allocated to a requested flow. The switching nodes at either end of the fiber simply have to agree on which frequency to use. Choi et al Expires - August 2004 [Page 7] Resource Mapping for GMPLS with Heterogeneous Interfaces February 2004 +--------------+ | |---------------+ | | | | optical | +---------------+ | switch | | | | | | waveband | | -- -- | | | wavelengths | \ / | fiber +---------------+ (TDM container | \ / | +---------------+ or data bursts) | \ / | | |-----------------+ | \/ | | |-----------------+ | /\ | | waveband |-----------------+ | / \ | | |-----------------+ | / \ | +---------------+ (lambda label) | / \ | |(waveband label) | -- -- |---------------+ | | (port label) +--------------+ port label - the local port ID of the fiber (resource of a fiber) waveband label - the ID of waveband in a local port (resource of a set of consecutive wavelengths) lambda label - the wavelength number of the lightpath (resource of a wavelength) Figure 3. Illustration of traffic flow with resource hierarchy in optical switch 4. Resource Mapping Scenario for GMPLS 4.1. Aggregation in optical switching interface Let consider the case that data flows with label of a different granularity are aggregated into the data flow of large bandwidth in optical switching interface such as LSC and FSC. Figure 4 represents a simple example of aggregation in OXC with LSC. Each switch performs aggregation and de-aggregation for the purpose of sharing optical resources. These flows may be aggregated in a synchronous or/and synchronous manner of time domain according to switching schemes. Similar to label stacking concept, several flows with label are stacked. For TDM, label can represent the allocated time slot of the TDM hierarchy in use. Otherwise, each switching interface SHOULD have mapping information that each flow is located at a certain point of optical resource (e.g., wavelength etc). Therefore, mapping and aggregation rule for implementation SHOULD be defined (see section 4.2). Choi et al Expires - August 2004 [Page 8] Resource Mapping for GMPLS with Heterogeneous Interfaces February 2004 +-----+--+ +-----+--+-----+--+--+ +-----+--+ |flow1|M1|\ +-----+ |flow2|M2|flow1|M1|L1| +-----+ /|flow1|M1| +-----+--+ \| OXC | +-----+--+-----+--+--+ | OXC |/ +-----+--+ +-----+--+ /|(LSC)|--------------------------|(LSC)|\ +-----+--+ |flow2|M2|/ +-----+ +-----+ \|flow2|M2| +-----+--+ Aggregation De-aggregation +-----+--+ M1,M2: MPLS label L1: lambda label Figure 4. Illustration of multiplexing in optical switching interface 4.2. Logical resource aggregation using label association In GMPLS, the label value directly implies the bandwidth that is available for the corresponding data flow. For example, if a label denotes a single SONET VC-4 timeslot, the available bandwidth is the bandwidth of a VC-4 timeslot; similarly for other TDM labels and lambda, waveband or fiber labels. The scope of the label value is considered local to each corresponding node. To reserve bandwidth with different granularity, each node performs logical resource aggregation using label association to map the incoming label into outgoing label. This function includes the followings - mapping the ID (e.g., incoming label) used at incoming switching interface to the ID (e.g., outgoing label) used at its outgoing switching interface - aggregating sets of IDs (e.g., incoming labels) at incoming switching interface into the corresponding link ID (e.g., outgoing label) Logical resource aggregation may be considered in the following cases. - MPLS flows to TDM time slot - MPLS flows to wavelength - Wavelengths to waveband - Wavebands to fiber Note) logical resource de-aggregation will be applied to the reverse cases. Figure 5 shows the illustration of logical resource aggregation using label association information. For instance, node 1's incoming data flows of each wavelength may be mapped onto node 1's outgoing waveband. Thus a waveband includes three wavelengths. Similarly, node 2's incoming data flows of each waveband may be mapped onto node 2's outgoing fiber. This function is similar to wavelength concatenation and label merging mechanism. Choi et al Expires - August 2004 [Page 9] Resource Mapping for GMPLS with Heterogeneous Interfaces February 2004 +---------+ +---------+ lambda 1 | node 1 | | node 2 | -----------> |-- -- | waveband 1 |-- -- | lambda 2 | \ / |--------------> | \ / | fiber -----------> | \/ | ... ... ... | \/ |-----------> ... ... ... | /\ | waveband 2 | /\ | lambda 6 | / \ |--------------> | / \ | -----------> |-- -- | |-- -- | +---------+ +---------+ wavelength -- mapping -- waveband IDs -- mapping -- port ID numbers lambda 1 --+ (aggregation) lambda 2 --|-------------- waveband 1 --+ lambda 3 --+ |(aggregation) |------------- port 1 lambda 4 --+ (aggregation) | lambda 5 --|-------------- waveband 2 --+ lambda 6 --+ Figure 5. Illustration of logical resource aggregation 4.3. Traffic parameter mapping In GMPLS, traffic flows from different edge node are to be mapped into different bandwidth trunks established with specific traffic parameters. Each node performs traffic parameter mapping between incoming and outgoing links through GMPLS signaling such as RSVP-TE [2], CR-LDP [3]. For MPLS flows, the data rate of flows can be corresponded to the following traffic parameters of peak rate (e.g., peak data rate(PDR), peak burst size (PBR)) to represent the bursty characteristic of data flow. For TDM time slot such as SONET/SDH, the dedicated bandwidth according to container size is determined. In this case, traffic parameter which represents constant data rate can be mapped. For optical interface, in case of waveband and fiber, we can know the precise capacity of them according to the capacity of a lambda. Traffic parameter of constant data rate can be applied to these resources. However, when a lambda shares the resource with several data flows, the precise capacity of lambda resource may not be specified. 5. Additional Considerations for Resource Mapping Choi et al Expires - August 2004 [Page 10] Resource Mapping for GMPLS with Heterogeneous Interfaces February 2004 5.1. Unnumbered link and link bundling Support of unnumbered link [13] has been introduced to address the scalability issues of assigning IP address to earn link of an optical switch. This is because the link of an optical switch may correspond to a fiber, lambda, or even TDM channel, depending on the switching granularity of the link. This reduces the management effort in configuring IP addresses and tracking allocated IP addresses, especially with optical network having large numbers of links. Link bundling [14] can be used to aggregate multiple parallel links into a single "bundled link" for IGP scaling purposes. This is important for optical networks, as hundreds of parallel fibers will be developed between switches and each fiber may obtain hundreds of wavelengths. bundled link component link 1 +------------+(component interfaces) -------------------|------------|---------------------- component link 2 | | -------------------|------------|---------------------- ... ... ... ... | ... ... | ... ... ... ... component link n | | -------------------|------------|---------------------- +------------+ Figure 6. bundled link and component link In GMPLS, we MAY consider to represent unnumbered link and link bundling as "label". To control these resources, each node SHOULD have all mapping information related to bundled links and component links shown in Figure 6. 5.2. Label stacking The traditional MPLS supports label stacking that is a more general model in which a labeled packet carries a number of labels, organized as a last-in, first-out stack [4]. This concept can be applied to the GMPLS resource hierarchy, but GMPLS cannot support label stacking operation. Thus in GMPLS network with multiple resource granularities, similar mechanism corresponding to label stacking SHOULD be provided. 5.3. Protection and restoration Survivability (e.g., protection and restoration), the ability of a network to withstand and recover from failures, is one of the most important requirements of networks. In GMPLS with concatenation LSP segments, resource information of LSP and/or link for recovery including SRLG (Shared Risk Link Groups) is needed. Thus, it is Choi et al Expires - August 2004 [Page 11] Resource Mapping for GMPLS with Heterogeneous Interfaces February 2004 necessary to define the resource mapping procedure for applying to various protection and restoration mechanisms. 6. Security Considerations This document does not have any security concerns. The security requirements using this document are described in the referenced documents. References [1] Lou Berger, et al. "Generalized MPLS - Signaling Functional Description", RFC3471, January 2003. [2] Lou Berger, et al. "Generalized MPLS Signaling - RSVP-TE Extensions", RFC3473, January 2003. [3] Peter Ashwood-Smith, et al. "Generalized MPLS Signaling - CR-LDP Extensions", RFC3472, January 2003. [4] E. Rosen, "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture", RFC3031, January 2001. [5] E. Rosen., et al. "MPLS Label Stack Encoding", RFC3032, January 2001. [6] Eric Mannie., et al. "Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching Extensions for SONET and SDH Control", Internet-Draft draft- ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-08.txt, work in progress, February 2003. [7] D. Papadimitriou., et al. "Generalized MPLS Signalling Extensions for G.709 Optical Transport Networks Control", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-06.txt, work in progress, January 2004. [8] ANSI T1.105, "Synchronous Optical Network (SONET): Basic Description Including Multiplex Structure, Rates, and Formats", October 2000. [9] ITU-T Recommendation G.707, "Network Node Interface for the Synchronous Digital Hierarchy", October 2000. [10] ITU-T Recommendation G.709, version 1.0 (and Amendment 1), "Interface for the Optical Transport Network(OTN)", February 2001 (and October 2001). [11] K. Kompella, et al. "Routing Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls- routing-09.txt, work in progress, October 2003. Choi et al Expires - August 2004 [Page 12] Resource Mapping for GMPLS with Heterogeneous Interfaces February 2004 [12] Kireeti Kompella, et al. "LSP Hierarchy with Generalized MPLS TE", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-08.txt, work in progress, September 2002. [13] Eric Mannie, et al. "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls- architecture-07.txt, work in progress, May 2003. [14] Kireeti Kompella, et al. "Link Bundling in MPLS Traffic Engineering", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-bundle-04.txt, work in progress, July 2002. [15] ITU-T Recommendation G.707, "Network Node Interface for the Synchronous Digital Hierarchy", October 2000. Acknowledgments This work was supported in part by the Korean Science and Engineering Foundation (KOSEF) through OIRC project. Author's Addresses Jun Kyun Choi Information and Communications University (ICU) 103-6 Munji-dong, Yuseong, Daejeon Korea 305-732 Phone: +82-42-866-6122 Email: jkchoi@icu.ac.kr Min Ho Kang Information and Communications University (ICU) 103-6 Munji-dong, Yuseong, Daejeon Korea 305-732 Phone: +82-42-866-6136 Email: mhkang@icu.ac.kr Gyu Myoung Lee Information and Communications University (ICU) 103-6 Munji-dong, Yuseong, Daejeon Korea 305-732 Phone: +82-42-866-6231 Email: gmlee@icu.ac.kr Tae-Gon Noh Samsung Advanced Institute of Technology (Samsung AIT) P.O. Box 111, Suwon, Kyoungki Choi et al Expires - August 2004 [Page 13] Resource Mapping for GMPLS with Heterogeneous Interfaces February 2004 Korea 440-600 Phone: +82-31-280-9621 Email: tgnoh@samsung.com J. Kevin Rhee Samsung Advanced Institute of Technology (Samsung AIT) P.O. Box 111, Suwon, Kyoungki Korea 440-600 Phone: +82-31-280-8193 Email: jk.rhee@samsung.com Hyeong Ho Lee ETRI (Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute) 161 KaJong-Dong, Yusong-Gu, Daejeon Korea 305-309 Phone: +82-42-860-6130 Email: holee@etri.re.kr Sun Hee Yang ETRI (Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute) 161 KaJong-Dong, Yusong-Gu, Daejeon Korea 305-309 Phone: +82-42-860-5231 Email: shyang@etri.re.kr Jea Hoon Yu ETRI (Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute) 161 KaJong-Dong, Yusong-Gu, Daejeon Korea 305-309 Phone: +82-42-860-1602 Email: jh-yoo@etri.re.kr Choi et al Expires - August 2004 [Page 14] Resource Mapping for GMPLS with Heterogeneous Interfaces February 2004 Full Copyright Statement "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE." Document: draft-choi-gmpls-resource-mapping-02.txt Expiration Date: August 2004 Choi et al Expires - August 2004 [Page 15]