Network Working Group JP. Vasseur, Ed.
Request for Comments: 4972 Cisco Systems, Inc
Category: Standards Track JL. Leroux, Ed.
France Telecom
S. Yasukawa
NTT
S. Previdi
P. Psenak
Cisco Systems, Inc
P. Mabbey
Comcast
July 2007
Network Working Group JP. Vasseur, Ed.
Request for Comments: 4972 Cisco Systems, Inc
Category: Standards Track JL. Leroux, Ed.
France Telecom
S. Yasukawa
NTT
S. Previdi
P. Psenak
Cisco Systems, Inc
P. Mabbey
Comcast
July 2007
Routing Extensions for Discovery of Multiprotocol (MPLS) Label Switch Router (LSR) Traffic Engineering (TE) Mesh Membership
用于发现多协议（MPLS）标签交换路由器（LSR）流量工程（TE）网状成员身份的路由扩展
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
本文件规定了互联网社区的互联网标准跟踪协议，并要求进行讨论和提出改进建议。有关本协议的标准化状态和状态，请参考当前版本的“互联网官方协议标准”（STD 1）。本备忘录的分发不受限制。
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
版权所有（C）IETF信托基金（2007年）。
Abstract
摘要
The setup of a full mesh of Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched Paths (LSP) among a set of Label Switch Routers (LSR) is a common deployment scenario of MPLS Traffic Engineering either for bandwidth optimization, bandwidth guarantees or fast rerouting with MPLS Fast Reroute. Such deployment may require the configuration of a potentially large number of TE LSPs (on the order of the square of the number of LSRs). This document specifies Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) routing extensions for Intermediate System-to-Intermediate System (IS-IS) and Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) so as to provide an automatic discovery of the set of LSRs members of a mesh in order to automate the creation of such mesh of TE LSPs.
在一组标签交换路由器（LSR）之间建立多协议标签交换（MPLS）流量工程（TE）标签交换路径（LSP）的全网是MPLS流量工程的常见部署场景，用于带宽优化、带宽保证或使用MPLS快速重路由的快速重路由。这种部署可能需要配置大量潜在的TE LSP（按照LSR数量的平方顺序）。本文件规定了中间系统到中间系统（IS-IS）和开放最短路径优先（OSPF）的内部网关协议（IGP）路由扩展，以提供网格LSR成员集的自动发现，从而自动创建此类TE LSP网格。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Definitions .....................................................3
2.1. Conventions Used in This Document ..........................4
3. Description of a TE Mesh-Group ..................................4
4. TE-MESH-GROUP TLV Formats .......................................4
4.1. OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV Format ..............................4
4.2. IS-IS TE-MESH-GROUP Sub-TLV Format .........................7
5. Elements of Procedure ...........................................9
5.1. OSPF .......................................................9
5.2. IS-IS .....................................................10
6. Backward Compatibility .........................................11
7. IANA Considerations ............................................11
7.1. OSPF ......................................................11
7.2. IS-IS .....................................................11
8. Security Considerations ........................................12
9. Acknowledgements ...............................................12
10. References ....................................................12
10.1. Normative References .....................................12
10.2. Informative References ...................................13
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Definitions .....................................................3
2.1. Conventions Used in This Document ..........................4
3. Description of a TE Mesh-Group ..................................4
4. TE-MESH-GROUP TLV Formats .......................................4
4.1. OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV Format ..............................4
4.2. IS-IS TE-MESH-GROUP Sub-TLV Format .........................7
5. Elements of Procedure ...........................................9
5.1. OSPF .......................................................9
5.2. IS-IS .....................................................10
6. Backward Compatibility .........................................11
7. IANA Considerations ............................................11
7.1. OSPF ......................................................11
7.2. IS-IS .....................................................11
8. Security Considerations ........................................12
9. Acknowledgements ...............................................12
10. References ....................................................12
10.1. Normative References .....................................12
10.2. Informative References ...................................13
There are two well-known approaches in deploying MPLS Traffic Engineering:
部署MPLS流量工程有两种众所周知的方法：
(1) The so-called "strategic" approach that consists of setting up a full mesh of TE LSPs between a set of LSRs.
(1) 所谓的“战略”方法，包括在一组LSR之间建立完整的TE LSP网格。
(2) The so-called "tactical" approach, where a set of TE LSPs are provisioned on well-identified "hot spots" in order to alleviate a congestion resulting, for instance, from an unexpected traffic growth in some parts of the network.
(2) 所谓的“战术”方法，其中在明确识别的“热点”上提供一组TE lsp，以缓解例如由于网络某些部分中的意外流量增长而导致的拥塞。
The setup of a full mesh of TE LSPs among a set of LSRs is a common deployment scenario of MPLS Traffic Engineering either for bandwidth optimization, bandwidth guarantees, or fast rerouting with MPLS Fast Reroute. Setting up a full mesh of TE LSPs between N LSRs requires the configuration of a potentially large number of TE LSPs (O(N^2)). Furthermore, the addition of any new LSR in the mesh requires the configuration of N additional TE LSPs on the new LSR and one new TE LSP on every LSR of the existing mesh destined to this new LSR, which gives a total of 2*N TE LSPs to be configured. Such an operation is not only time consuming but also risky (prone to misconfiguration) for Service Providers. Hence, an automatic mechanism for setting up TE LSPs meshes is desirable and requires the ability to automatically discover the set of LSRs that belong to the mesh. This document
在一组LSR之间建立完整的TE LSP网格是MPLS流量工程的常见部署场景，用于带宽优化、带宽保证或使用MPLS快速重路由进行快速重路由。在N个LSR之间建立完整的TE LSP网格需要配置可能大量的TE LSP（O（N^2））。此外，在网格中添加任何新LSR需要在新LSR上配置N个额外的TE LSP，并且在目的地为该新LSR的现有网格的每个LSR上配置一个新的TE LSP，这使得总共需要配置2×N个TE LSP。这样的操作不仅耗时，而且对服务提供商来说也有风险（容易出现错误配置）。因此，需要用于设置TE LSP网格的自动机制，并且需要能够自动发现属于该网格的LSR集。本文件
specifies routing extensions so as to automatically discover the members of a mesh, also referred to as a "TE mesh-group". Note that the mechanism(s) needed for the dynamic creation of TE LSPs is implementation specific and outside the scope of this document.
指定路由扩展以自动发现网格（也称为“TE网格组”）的成员。请注意，动态创建TE LSP所需的机制是特定于实现的，不在本文档的范围内。
Routing extensions have been defined in [RFC4970] and [RFC4971] in order to advertise router capabilities. This document specifies IGP (OSPF and IS-IS) TE Mesh Group (Type Length Value) TLVs allowing for the automatic discovery of a TE mesh-group members, to be carried in the OSPF Router Information (Link State Advertisement) LSA [RFC4970] and IS-IS Router Capability TLV [RFC4971]. The routing extensions specified in this document provide the ability to signal multiple TE mesh groups. An LSR may belong to more than one TE mesh-group(s).
[RFC4970]和[RFC4971]中定义了路由扩展，以便公布路由器功能。本文件规定了允许自动发现TE网状组成员的IGP（OSPF和IS-IS）TE网状组（类型长度值）TLV，该TLV将在OSPF路由器信息（链路状态公告）LSA[RFC4970]和IS-IS路由器能力TLV[RFC4971]中携带。本文档中指定的路由扩展提供了向多个TE网格组发送信号的能力。LSR可能属于多个TE网格组。
There are relatively tight real-time constraints on the operation of IGPs (such as OSPF and IS-IS). For this reason, some care needs to be applied when proposing to carry additional information in an IGP. The information described in this document is both relatively small in total volume (compared with other information already carried in IGPs), and also relatively stable (i.e., changes are based on configuration changes, but not on dynamic events within the network, or on dynamic triggers, such as the leaking of information from other routing protocols or routing protocol instances).
对IGP（如OSPF和IS-IS）的操作有相对严格的实时限制。因此，在提议在IGP中携带额外信息时，需要谨慎。本文件中描述的信息总量相对较小（与IGPs中已有的其他信息相比），且相对稳定（即，更改基于配置更改，但不基于网络内的动态事件，或基于动态触发器，例如来自其他路由协议或路由协议实例的信息泄漏）。
Terminology used in this document
本文件中使用的术语
IGP: Interior Gateway Protocol
内部网关协议
IGP Area: OSPF area or IS-IS level
IGP区域：OSPF区域或IS-IS级别
IS-IS: Intermediate System-to-Intermediate System (IS-IS)
IS-IS：中间系统至中间系统（IS-IS）
LSR: Label Switch Router
标签交换路由器
OSPF: Open Shortest Path First
开放最短路径优先
OSPF LSA: OSPF Link State Advertisement
OSPF LSA:OSPF链路状态公告
TE LSP: Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path
TE LSP：流量工程标签交换路径
TE LSP head-end: head/source of the TE LSP
TE LSP头端：TE LSP的头/源
TE LSP tail-end: tail/destination of the TE LSP.
TE LSP尾部：TE LSP的尾部/目的地。
TLV: Type Length Value
TLV：类型长度值
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 [RFC2119].
本文件中的关键词“必须”、“不得”、“要求”、“应”、“不应”、“应”、“不应”、“建议”、“可”和“可选”应按照RFC 2119[RFC2119]中所述进行解释。
A TE mesh-group is defined as a group of LSRs that are connected by a full mesh of TE LSPs. Routing extensions are specified in this document, allowing for dynamic discovery of the TE mesh-group members. Procedures are also specified for a member to join and leave a TE mesh-group. For each TE mesh-group membership announced by an LSR, the following information is advertised:
TE网格组定义为一组由TE LSP的完整网格连接的LSR。本文档中指定了路由扩展，允许动态发现TE mesh组成员。还指定了成员加入和离开TE网格组的步骤。对于LSR宣布的每个TE mesh组成员资格，将公布以下信息：
- A mesh-group number identifying the TE mesh-group that the LSR belongs to,
- 标识LSR所属TE网格组的网格组编号，
- A tail-end address (used as the TE LSP Tail-end address by other LSRs belonging to the same mesh-group),
- 尾端地址（由属于同一网状组的其他LSR用作TE LSP尾端地址），
- A tail-end name: a display string that is allocated to the tail-end used to ease the TE-LSP naming.
- 尾端名称：分配给尾端的显示字符串，用于简化TE-LSP命名。
The TE-MESH-GROUP TLV is used to advertise the desire of an LSR to join/leave a given TE mesh-group. No sub-TLV is currently defined for the TE-MESH-GROUP TLV.
TE-MESH-GROUP TLV用于宣传LSR加入/离开给定TE-MESH组的愿望。当前未为TE-MESH-GROUP TLV定义子TLV。
The OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV (advertised in an OSPF router information LSA defined in [RFC4970]) has the following format:
OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV（在[RFC4970]中定义的OSPF路由器信息LSA中公布）具有以下格式：
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Value //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1 - OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV format
图1-OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV格式
Where Type: identifies the TLV type Length: the length of the value field in octets
其中类型：标识TLV类型长度：值字段的长度（以八位字节为单位）
The format of the OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV is the same as the TLV format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF (see[RFC3630]). The TLV is padded to a four-octet alignment; padding is not included in the length field (so a three-octet value would have a length of three, but the total size of the TLV would be eight octets). Nested TLVs are also 32-bit aligned. Unrecognized types are ignored. All types between 32768 and 65535 are reserved for vendor-specific extensions. All other undefined type codes are reserved for future assignment by IANA.
OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV的格式与OSPF的流量工程扩展使用的TLV格式相同（参见[RFC3630]）。TLV填充为四个八位组对齐；长度字段中不包括填充（因此三个八位字节的值的长度为三，但TLV的总大小为八个八位字节）。嵌套TLV也是32位对齐的。将忽略无法识别的类型。32768和65535之间的所有类型都保留给供应商特定的扩展。所有其他未定义的类型代码保留供IANA将来分配。
The OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV format for IPv4 (Figure 2) and IPv6 (Figure 3) is as follows:
IPv4（图2）和IPv6（图3）的OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV格式如下：
TYPE: 3 LENGTH: Variable
类型：3长度：可变
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| mesh-group-number 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tail-end IPv4 address 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Name length | Tail-end name 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| mesh-group-number n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tail-end IPv4 address n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Name length | Tail-end name n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| mesh-group-number 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tail-end IPv4 address 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Name length | Tail-end name 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| mesh-group-number n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tail-end IPv4 address n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Name length | Tail-end name n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2 - OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV format (IPv4 Address)
图2-OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV格式（IPv4地址）
TYPE: 4 LENGTH: Variable
类型：4长度：可变
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| mesh-group-number 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Tail-end IPv6 address 1 |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Name length | Tail-end name 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| mesh-group-number n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Tail-end IPv6 address n |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Name length | Tail-end name n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| mesh-group-number 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Tail-end IPv6 address 1 |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Name length | Tail-end name 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| mesh-group-number n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Tail-end IPv6 address n |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Name length | Tail-end name n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3 - OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV format (IPv6 Address)
图3-OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV格式（IPv6地址）
The OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV may contain one or more mesh-group entries, where each entry corresponds to a TE mesh-group and is made of the following fields:
OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV可包含一个或多个网格组条目，其中每个条目对应于一个TE网格组，并由以下字段组成：
- A mesh-group-number that identifies the mesh-group number.
- 标识网格组编号的网格组编号。
- A Tail-end address: an IPv4 or IPv6 IP address to be used as a tail-end TE LSP address by other LSRs belonging to the same mesh-group.
- 尾端地址：由属于同一网状网组的其他LSR用作尾端TE LSP地址的IPv4或IPv6 IP地址。
- Name length field: An integer, expressed in octets, that indicates the length of the Tail-end name before padding.
- 名称长度字段：一个整数，以八位字节表示，表示填充前尾端名称的长度。
- A Tail-end name: A display string that is allocated to the Tail-end. The field is of variable length field and is used to facilitate the TE LSP identification.
- 尾端名称：分配给尾端的显示字符串。该字段为可变长度字段，用于方便TE LSP识别。
The TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV is used to advertise the desire of an LSR to join/leave a given TE mesh-group. No sub-TLV is currently defined for the TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV.
TE-MESH-GROUP子TLV用于宣传LSR加入/离开给定TE-MESH组的愿望。当前未为TE-MESH-GROUP子TLV定义子TLV。
The IS-IS TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV (advertised in the IS-IS CAPABILITY TLV defined in [RFC4971]) is composed of 1 octet for the type, 1 octet specifying the TLV length and a value field. The format of the TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV is identical to the TLV format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions for IS-IS [RFC3784].
IS-IS TE-MESH-GROUP子TLV（在[RFC4971]中定义的IS-IS能力TLV中公布）由1个八位字节组成，其中1个八位字节指定TLV长度和一个值字段。TE-MESH-GROUP子TLV的格式与is-is[RFC3784]交通工程扩展使用的TLV格式相同。
The IS-IS TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV format for IPv4 (Figure 4) and IPv6 (Figure 5) is as follows:
IPv4（图4）和IPv6（图5）的IS-IS TE-MESH-GROUP子TLV格式如下：
TYPE: 3
LENGTH: Variable
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| mesh-group-number 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tail-end IPv4 address 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Name length | Tail-end name 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| mesh-group-number n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tail-end IPv4 address n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Name length | Tail-end name n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
TYPE: 3
LENGTH: Variable
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| mesh-group-number 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tail-end IPv4 address 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Name length | Tail-end name 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| mesh-group-number n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tail-end IPv4 address n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Name length | Tail-end name n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4 - IS-IS TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV format (IPv4 Address)
图4-IS-IS TE-MESH-GROUP子TLV格式（IPv4地址）
TYPE: 4 LENGTH: Variable
类型：4长度：可变
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| mesh-group-number 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Tail-end IPv6 address 1 |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Name length | Tail-end name 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| mesh-group-number n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Tail-end IPv6 address n |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Name length | Tail-end name n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| mesh-group-number 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Tail-end IPv6 address 1 |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Name length | Tail-end name 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| mesh-group-number n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Tail-end IPv6 address n |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Name length | Tail-end name n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5 - IS-IS TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV format (IPv6 Address)
图5-IS-IS TE-MESH-GROUP子TLV格式（IPv6地址）
The IS-IS TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV may contain one or more mesh-group entries where each entry correspond to a TE mesh-group and is made of the following fields:
IS-IS TE-MESH-GROUP子TLV可包含一个或多个网格组条目，其中每个条目对应于TE网格组，并由以下字段组成：
- A mesh-group-number that identifies the mesh-group number.
- 标识网格组编号的网格组编号。
- A Tail-end address: an IPv4 or IPv6 IP address to be used as a tail-end TE LSP address by other LSRs belonging to the same mesh-group.
- 尾端地址：由属于同一网状网组的其他LSR用作尾端TE LSP地址的IPv4或IPv6 IP地址。
- Name length field: An integer, expressed in octets, that indicates the length of the Tail-end name before padding.
- 名称长度字段：一个整数，以八位字节表示，表示填充前尾端名称的长度。
- A Tail-end name: A display string that is allocated to the Tail-end. The field is of variable length and is used to facilitate the TE LSP identification.
- 尾端名称：分配给尾端的显示字符串。该字段长度可变，用于帮助识别TE LSP。
The OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV is carried within the OSPF Routing Information LSA and the IS-IS TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV is carried within the IS-IS Router capability TLV. As such, elements of procedure are inherited from those defined in [RFC4970] and [RFC4971] for OSPF and IS-IS respectively. Specifically, a router MUST originate a new LSA/LSP whenever the content of this information changes, or whenever required by regular routing procedure (e.g., updates).
OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV在OSPF路由信息LSA中承载，is-is TE-MESH-GROUP子TLV在is-is路由器能力TLV中承载。因此，程序元素分别继承自OSPF和IS-IS的[RFC4970]和[RFC4971]中定义的元素。具体地说，每当此信息的内容发生变化，或当常规路由程序（例如更新）要求时，路由器必须发起新的LSA/LSP。
The TE-MESH-GROUP TLV is OPTIONAL and MUST NOT include more than one of each of the IPv4 instances or the IPv6 instance. If either the IPv4 or the IPv6 OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV occurs more than once within the OSPF Router Information LSA, only the first instance is processed, subsequent TLV(s) SHOULD be silently ignored. Similarly, if either the IPv4 or the IPv6 IS-IS TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV occurs more than once within the IS-IS Router capability TLV, only the first instance is processed, subsequent TLV(s) SHOULD be silently ignored.
TE-MESH-GROUP TLV是可选的，每个IPv4实例或IPv6实例不得包含一个以上。如果IPv4或IPv6 OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV在OSPF路由器信息LSA中出现不止一次，则仅处理第一个实例，随后的TLV应被静默忽略。类似地，如果IPv4或IPv6 IS-IS TE-MESH-GROUP子TLV在IS-IS路由器功能TLV中出现多次，则仅处理第一个实例，随后的TLV应被静默忽略。
The TE-MESH-GROUP TLV is advertised within an OSPF Router Information opaque LSA (opaque type of 4, opaque ID of 0) for OSPFv2 [RFC2328] and within a new LSA (Router Information LSA) for OSPFv3 [RFC2740]. The Router Information LSAs for OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 are defined in [RFC4970].
TE-MESH-GROUP TLV在OSPF路由器信息不透明LSA（不透明类型4，不透明ID 0）内为OSPFv2[RFC2328]播发，在新LSA（路由器信息LSA）内为OSPFv3[RFC2740]播发。OSPFv2和OSPFv3的路由器信息LSA在[RFC4970]中定义。
A router MUST originate a new OSPF router information LSA whenever the content of any of the advertised TLV changes or whenever required by the regular OSPF procedure (LSA update (every LSRefreshTime)). If an LSR desires to join or leave a particular TE mesh group, it MUST originate a new OSPF Router Information LSA comprising the updated TE-MESH-GROUP TLV. In the case of a join, a new entry will be added to the TE-MESH-GROUP TLV; conversely, if the LSR leaves, a mesh-group the corresponding entry will be removed from the TE-MESH-GROUP TLV. Note that both operations can be performed in the context of a single LSA update. An implementation SHOULD be able to detect any change to a previously received TE-MESH-GROUP TLV from a specific LSR.
每当任何播发的TLV的内容发生变化或常规OSPF程序（LSA更新（每次LSA刷新））要求时，路由器必须发起新的OSPF路由器信息LSA。如果LSR希望加入或离开特定TE-mesh组，则它必须发起包含更新的TE-mesh-group TLV的新OSPF路由器信息LSA。在连接的情况下，将向TE-MESH-GROUP TLV添加一个新条目；相反，如果LSR离开，将从TE-mesh-group TLV中删除网格组和相应条目。请注意，这两个操作都可以在单个LSA更新的上下文中执行。实现应该能够检测到以前从特定LSR接收到的TE-MESH-GROUP TLV的任何更改。
As defined in [RFC2370] for OSPVv2 and in [RFC2740] for OSPFv3, the flooding scope of the Router Information LSA is determined by the LSA Opaque type for OSPFv2 and the values of the S1/S2 bits for OSPFv3.
如OSPV2的[RFC2370]和OSPFv3的[RFC2740]中所定义，路由器信息LSA的泛洪范围由OSPFv2的LSA不透明类型和OSPFv3的S1/S2位的值确定。
For OSPFv2 Router Information opaque LSA:
对于OSPFv2路由器信息不透明LSA：
- Link-local scope: type 9;
- 链接本地范围：类型9；
- Area-local scope: type 10;
- 区域局部范围：10型；
- Routing-domain scope: type 11. In this case, the flooding scope is equivalent to the Type 5 LSA flooding scope.
- 路由域范围：类型11。在这种情况下，泛洪范围相当于5型LSA泛洪范围。
For OSPFv3 Router Information LSA:
对于OSPFv3路由器信息LSA：
- Link-local scope: OSPFv3 Router Information LSA with the S1 and S2 bits cleared;
- 链路本地范围：清除S1和S2位的OSPFv3路由器信息LSA；
- Area-local scope: OSPFv3 Router Information LSA with the S1 bit set and the S2 bit cleared;
- 区域本地范围：设置S1位并清除S2位的OSPFv3路由器信息LSA；
- Routing-domain scope: OSPFv3 Router Information LSA with S1 bit cleared and the S2 bit set.
- 路由域范围：清除S1位并设置S2位的OSPFv3路由器信息LSA。
A router may generate multiple OSPF Router Information LSAs with different flooding scopes.
路由器可以生成具有不同泛洪作用域的多个OSPF路由器信息LSA。
The TE-MESH-GROUP TLV may be advertised within an Area-local or Routing-domain scope Router Information LSA, depending on the MPLS TE mesh group profile:
TE-MESH-GROUP TLV可在区域本地或路由域范围路由器信息LSA内通告，具体取决于MPLS TE-MESH组简档：
- If the MPLS TE mesh-group is contained within a single area (all the LSRs of the mesh-group are contained within a single area), the TE-MESH-GROUP TLV MUST be generated within an Area-local Router Information LSA.
- 如果MPLS TE-mesh组包含在单个区域内（mesh组的所有lsr包含在单个区域内），则TE-mesh-group TLV必须在本地路由器信息LSA的区域内生成。
- If the MPLS TE mesh-group spans multiple OSPF areas, the TE mesh-group TLV MUST be generated within a Routing-domain scope router information LSA.
- 如果MPLS TE mesh组跨越多个OSPF区域，则TE mesh组TLV必须在路由域范围路由器信息LSA内生成。
The TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV is advertised within the IS-IS Router CAPABILITY TLV defined in [RFC4971]. An IS-IS router MUST originate a new IS-IS LSP whenever the content of any of the advertised sub-TLV changes or whenever required by regular IS-IS procedure (LSP updates). If an LSR desires to join or leave a particular TE mesh group, it MUST originate a new LSP comprising the refreshed IS-IS Router capability TLV comprising the updated TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV. In the case of a join, a new entry will be added to the TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV; conversely, if the LSR leaves a mesh-group, the corresponding entry will be deleted from the TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV. Note that both operations can be performed in the context of a single update. An implementation SHOULD be able to detect any change to a previously received TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV from a specific LSR.
TE-MESH-GROUP子TLV在[RFC4971]中定义的is-is路由器能力TLV内公布。IS-IS路由器必须在任何公布的子TLV的内容发生变化时或常规IS-IS程序（LSP更新）要求时发起新的IS-IS LSP。如果LSR希望加入或离开特定TE-mesh组，则它必须发起一个新的LSP，该LSP包含更新的IS-IS路由器能力TLV，该TLV包含更新的TE-mesh-group子TLV。在连接的情况下，将向TE-MESH-GROUP子TLV添加一个新条目；相反，如果LSR离开网格组，则相应条目将从TE-mesh-group子TLV中删除。请注意，这两个操作都可以在单个更新的上下文中执行。实现应该能够检测到之前从特定LSR接收到的TE-MESH-GROUP子TLV的任何更改。
If the flooding scope of a TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV is limited to an IS-IS level/area, the sub-TLV MUST not be leaked across level/area
如果TE-MESH-GROUP子TLV的泛洪范围仅限于is-is标高/区域，则子TLV不得跨标高/区域泄漏
and the S flag of the Router CAPABILITY TLV MUST be cleared. Conversely, if the flooding scope of a TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV is the entire routing domain, the TLV MUST be leaked across IS-IS levels/areas, and the S flag of the Router CAPABILITY TLV MUST be set. In both cases, the flooding rules specified in [RFC4971] apply.
并且必须清除路由器能力TLV的S标志。相反，如果TE-MESH-GROUP子TLV的泛洪范围是整个路由域，则TLV必须跨is-is级别/区域泄漏，并且必须设置路由器能力TLV的S标志。在这两种情况下，[RFC4971]中规定的泛洪规则均适用。
As specified in [RFC4971], a router may generate multiple IS-IS Router CAPABILITY TLVs within an IS-IS LSP with different flooding scopes.
如[RFC4971]中所述，路由器可在具有不同泛洪范围的IS-IS LSP内生成多个IS-IS路由器能力TLV。
The TE-MESH-GROUP TLVs defined in this document do not introduce any interoperability issue. For OSPF, a router not supporting the TE-MESH-GROUP TLV SHOULD just silently ignore the TLV as specified in [RFC2370]. For an IS-IS, a router not supporting the TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV SHOULD just silently ignore the sub-TLV.
本文档中定义的TE-MESH-GROUP TLV不会引入任何互操作性问题。对于OSPF，不支持TE-MESH-GROUP TLV的路由器应按照[RFC2370]中的规定，静默忽略TLV。对于IS-IS，不支持TE-MESH-GROUP子TLV的路由器只应静默地忽略子TLV。
The registry for the Router Information LSA is defined in [RFC4970]. IANA assigned a new OSPF TLV code-point for the TE-MESH-GROUP TLVs carried within the Router Information LSA.
路由器信息LSA的注册表在[RFC4970]中定义。IANA为路由器信息LSA中携带的TE-MESH-GROUP TLV分配了一个新的OSPF TLV码点。
Value Sub-TLV References
----- -------- ----------
3 TE-MESH-GROUP TLV (IPv4) RFC 4972 (this doc)
4 TE-MESH-GROUP TLV (IPv6) RFC 4972 (this doc)
Value Sub-TLV References
----- -------- ----------
3 TE-MESH-GROUP TLV (IPv4) RFC 4972 (this doc)
4 TE-MESH-GROUP TLV (IPv6) RFC 4972 (this doc)
The registry for the Router Capability TLV is defined in [RFC4971]. IANA assigned a new IS-IS sub-TLV code-point for the TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLVs carried within the IS-IS Router Capability TLV.
[RFC4971]中定义了路由器功能TLV的注册表。IANA为IS-IS路由器能力TLV中携带的TE-MESH-GROUP子TLV分配了一个新的IS-IS子TLV代码点。
Value Sub-TLV References
----- -------- ----------
3 TE-MESH-GROUP TLV (IPv4) RFC 4972 (this doc)
4 TE-MESH-GROUP TLV (IPv6) RFC 4972 (this doc)
Value Sub-TLV References
----- -------- ----------
3 TE-MESH-GROUP TLV (IPv4) RFC 4972 (this doc)
4 TE-MESH-GROUP TLV (IPv6) RFC 4972 (this doc)
The function described in this document does not create any new security issues for the OSPF and IS-IS protocols. Security considerations are covered in [RFC2328] and [RFC2740] for the base OSPF protocol and in [RFC1195] for IS-IS. It must be noted that the advertisement of "fake" TE Mesh Group membership(s) by a mis-configured or malicious LSR Y would not have any major impact on the network (other than overloading the IGP), such as triggering the set up of new MPLS TE LSP: indeed, for a new TE LSP originated by another LSR X destined to LSR Y to be set up, the same TE Mesh group membership must be configured on both LSRs. Thus such fake advertisement could not amplify any Denial of Service (DoS) attack.
本文档中描述的功能不会给OSPF和IS-IS协议带来任何新的安全问题。基本OSPF协议的[RFC2328]和[RFC2740]以及IS-IS的[RFC1195]中都包含了安全注意事项。必须注意的是，由错误配置或恶意LSR Y发布的“伪”TE Mesh组成员资格不会对网络产生任何重大影响（IGP过载除外），例如触发新MPLS TE LSP的设置：实际上，对于由另一个LSR X发起并以LSR Y为目的地的新TE LSP，将被设置，必须在两个LSR上配置相同的TE网格组成员资格。因此，此类虚假广告不会放大任何拒绝服务（DoS）攻击。
We would like to thank Dean Cheng, Adrian Farrel, Yannick Le Louedec, Dave Ward, Les Ginsberg, Stephen Nadas, Acee Lindem, Dimitri Papadimitriou, and Lakshminath Dondeti for their useful comments.
我们要感谢郑院长、阿德里安·法雷尔、扬尼克·勒卢埃代克、戴夫·沃德、莱斯·金斯伯格、斯蒂芬·纳达斯、艾西·林登、迪米特里·帕帕迪米特里奥和拉克希米娜·唐德蒂，感谢他们提出的有用意见。
[RFC4971] Vasseur, J-P., Ed., Shen, N., Ed., and R. Aggarwal, Ed., "Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions for Advertising Router Information", RFC 4971, July 2007.
[RFC4971]Vasseur，J-P.，Ed.，Shen，N.，Ed.，和R.Aggarwal，Ed.，“广告路由器信息的中间系统到中间系统（IS-IS）扩展”，RFC 49712007年7月。
[RFC4970] Lindem, A., Ed., Shen, N., Vasseur, JP., Aggarwal, R., and S. Shaffer, "Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional Router Capabilities", RFC 4970, July 2007.
[RFC4970]Lindem，A.，Ed.，Shen，N.，Vasseur，JP.，Aggarwal，R.，和S.Shaffer，“用于宣传可选路由器功能的OSPF扩展”，RFC 49702007年7月。
[RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990.
[RFC1195]Callon，R.，“OSI IS-IS在TCP/IP和双环境中的路由使用”，RFC 11951990年12月。
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2119]Bradner，S.，“RFC中用于表示需求水平的关键词”，BCP 14，RFC 2119，1997年3月。
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.
[RFC2328]Moy，J.，“OSPF版本2”，STD 54，RFC 2328，1998年4月。
[RFC2370] Coltun, R., "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 2370, July 1998.
[RFC2370]Coltun，R.，“OSPF不透明LSA选项”，RFC 23701998年7月。
[RFC2740] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., and J. Moy, "OSPF for IPv6", RFC 2740, December 1999.
[RFC2740]Coltun，R.，Ferguson，D.，和J.Moy，“IPv6的OSPF”，RFC 27401999年12月。
[RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September 2003.
[RFC3630]Katz，D.，Kompella，K.，和D.Yeung，“OSPF版本2的交通工程（TE）扩展”，RFC 3630，2003年9月。
[RFC3784] Smit, H. and T. Li, "Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions for Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 3784, June 2004.
[RFC3784]Smit，H.和T.Li，“交通工程（TE）的中间系统到中间系统（IS-IS）扩展”，RFC 37842004年6月。
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
JP Vasseur (editor) Cisco Systems, Inc 1414 Massachusetts Avenue Boxborough, MA 01719 USA
JP Vasseur（编辑）思科系统公司美国马萨诸塞州博克斯堡马萨诸塞大道1414号，邮编01719
EMail: jpv@cisco.com
EMail: jpv@cisco.com
JL Le Roux (editor) France Telecom 2, Avenue Pierre-Marzin Lanion, 22307 FRANCE
JL Le Roux（编辑）法国电信2号，Pierre Marzin Lanion大道，法国22307
EMail: jeanlouis.leroux@orange-ftgroup.com
EMail: jeanlouis.leroux@orange-ftgroup.com
Seisho Yasukawa NTT 3-1, Otemachi 2-Chome Chiyoda-ku Tokyo, 100-8116 JAPAN
日本东京千代田町大町2-Chome-Chiyoda区靖川清雄NTT 3-1，100-8116
EMail: s.yasukawa@hco.ntt.co.jp
EMail: s.yasukawa@hco.ntt.co.jp
Stefano Previdi Cisco Systems, Inc Via Del Serafico 200 Roma, 00142 Italy
Stefano Previdi Cisco Systems，Inc.途经意大利罗马塞拉菲科200号，邮编00142
EMail: sprevidi@cisco.com
EMail: sprevidi@cisco.com
Peter Psenak Cisco Systems Mlynske Nivy 43 821 09 Bratislava Slovakia
Peter Psenak Cisco Systems Mlynske Nivy 43 821 09斯洛伐克布拉迪斯拉发
EMail: ppsenak@cisco.com
EMail: ppsenak@cisco.com
Paul Mabbey Comcast Cable 4100 E. Dry Creek Rd Centennial, CO 80122 USA
Paul Mabbey Comcast电缆4100 E.Dry Creek路Centennial，美国科罗拉多州80122
EMail: Paul_Mabey@cable.comcast.com
EMail: Paul_Mabey@cable.comcast.com
Full Copyright Statement
完整版权声明
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
版权所有（C）IETF信托基金（2007年）。
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.
本文件受BCP 78中包含的权利、许可和限制的约束，除其中规定外，作者保留其所有权利。
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
本文件及其包含的信息以“原样”为基础提供，贡献者、他/她所代表或赞助的组织（如有）、互联网协会、IETF信托基金和互联网工程任务组不承担任何明示或暗示的担保，包括但不限于任何保证，即使用本文中的信息不会侵犯任何权利，或对适销性或特定用途适用性的任何默示保证。
Intellectual Property
知识产权
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.
IETF对可能声称与本文件所述技术的实施或使用有关的任何知识产权或其他权利的有效性或范围，或此类权利下的任何许可可能或可能不可用的程度，不采取任何立场；它也不表示它已作出任何独立努力来确定任何此类权利。有关RFC文件中权利的程序信息，请参见BCP 78和BCP 79。
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
向IETF秘书处披露的知识产权副本和任何许可证保证，或本规范实施者或用户试图获得使用此类专有权利的一般许可证或许可的结果，可从IETF在线知识产权存储库获取，网址为http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
IETF邀请任何相关方提请其注意任何版权、专利或专利申请，或其他可能涵盖实施本标准所需技术的专有权利。请将信息发送至IETF的IETF-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
确认
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.
RFC编辑功能的资金目前由互联网协会提供。