Network Working Group J.P. Vasseur, Ed.
Request for Comments: 5073 Cisco Systems, Inc.
Category: Standards Track J.L. Le Roux, Ed.
France Telecom
December 2007
Network Working Group J.P. Vasseur, Ed.
Request for Comments: 5073 Cisco Systems, Inc.
Category: Standards Track J.L. Le Roux, Ed.
France Telecom
December 2007
IGP Routing Protocol Extensions for Discovery of Traffic Engineering Node Capabilities
用于发现流量工程节点能力的IGP路由协议扩展
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。
Abstract
摘要
It is highly desired, in several cases, to take into account Traffic Engineering (TE) node capabilities during Multi Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineered Label Switched Path (TE-LSP) selection, such as, for instance, the capability to act as a branch Label Switching Router (LSR) of a Point-To-MultiPoint (P2MP) LSP. This requires advertising these capabilities within the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP). For that purpose, this document specifies Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) and Intermediate System-Intermediate System (IS-IS) traffic engineering extensions for the advertisement of control plane and data plane traffic engineering node capabilities.
在一些情况下，非常希望在多协议标签交换（MPLS）和广义MPLS（GMPLS）流量工程标签交换路径（TE-LSP）选择期间考虑流量工程（TE）节点能力，例如，充当点对多点的分支标签交换路由器（LSR）的能力（P2MP）LSP。这要求在内部网关协议（IGP）中公布这些功能。为此，本文件规定了开放最短路径优先（OSPF）和中间系统（IS-IS）流量工程扩展，用于公布控制平面和数据平面流量工程节点功能。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction.....................................................2
2. Terminology......................................................3
3. TE Node Capability Descriptor ...................................3
3.1. Description ................................................3
3.2. Required Information .......................................3
4. TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV Formats .......................4
4.1. OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV Format ..............4
4.2. IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV format .........5
5. Elements of Procedure ...........................................6
5.1. OSPF .......................................................6
5.2. IS-IS ......................................................7
6. Backward Compatibility ..........................................8
7. Security Considerations .........................................8
8. IANA Considerations .............................................8
8.1. OSPF TLV ...................................................8
8.2. ISIS sub-TLV ...............................................8
8.3. Capability Registry ........................................9
9. Acknowledgments .................................................9
10. References ....................................................10
10.1. Normative References .....................................10
10.2. Informative References ...................................11
1. Introduction.....................................................2
2. Terminology......................................................3
3. TE Node Capability Descriptor ...................................3
3.1. Description ................................................3
3.2. Required Information .......................................3
4. TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV Formats .......................4
4.1. OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV Format ..............4
4.2. IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV format .........5
5. Elements of Procedure ...........................................6
5.1. OSPF .......................................................6
5.2. IS-IS ......................................................7
6. Backward Compatibility ..........................................8
7. Security Considerations .........................................8
8. IANA Considerations .............................................8
8.1. OSPF TLV ...................................................8
8.2. ISIS sub-TLV ...............................................8
8.3. Capability Registry ........................................9
9. Acknowledgments .................................................9
10. References ....................................................10
10.1. Normative References .....................................10
10.2. Informative References ...................................11
Multi Protocol Label Switching-Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) routing ([RFC3784], [RFC3630], [OSPFv3-TE]) relies on extensions to link state Interior Gateway Protocols (IGP) ([IS-IS], [RFC1195], [RFC2328], [RFC2740]) in order to advertise Traffic Engineering (TE) link information used for constraint-based routing. Further Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) related routing extensions are defined in [RFC4205] and [RFC4203].
多协议标签交换流量工程（MPLS-TE）路由（[RFC3784]、[RFC3630]、[OSPFv3 TE]）依赖于对链路状态内部网关协议（IGP）的扩展（[IS-IS]、[RFC1195]、[RFC2328]、[RFC2740]），以便公布用于基于约束的路由的流量工程（TE）链路信息。[RFC4205]和[RFC4203]中定义了更多与通用MPLS（GMPLS）相关的路由扩展。
It is desired to complement these routing extensions in order to advertise TE node capabilities, in addition to TE link information. These TE node capabilities will be taken into account as constraints during path selection.
除了TE链路信息外，还需要补充这些路由扩展，以便公布TE节点功能。在路径选择过程中，这些TE节点功能将被视为约束条件。
Indeed, it is useful to advertise data plane TE node capabilities, such as the capability for a Label Switching Router (LSR) to be a branch LSR or a bud-LSR of a Point-To-MultiPoint (P2MP) Label Switched Path (LSP). These capabilities can then be taken into account as constraints when computing the route of TE LSPs.
实际上，宣传数据平面TE节点能力是有用的，例如标签交换路由器（LSR）成为点对多点（P2MP）标签交换路径（LSP）的分支LSR或分支LSR的能力。然后，在计算TE LSP的路由时，可以将这些能力视为约束条件。
It is also useful to advertise control plane TE node capabilities such as the capability to support GMPLS signaling for a packet LSR, or the capability to support P2MP (Point to Multipoint) TE LSP
还可以宣传控制平面TE节点能力，例如支持分组LSR的GMPLS信令的能力，或者支持P2MP（点对多点）TE LSP的能力
signaling. This allows selecting a path that avoids nodes that do not support a given control plane feature, or triggering a mechanism to support such nodes on a path. Hence, this facilitates backward compatibility.
信号。这允许选择避免节点不支持给定控制平面特征的路径，或触发机制以支持路径上的此类节点。因此，这有助于向后兼容。
For that purpose, this document specifies IGP (OSPF and IS-IS) extensions in order to advertise data plane and control plane capabilities of a node.
为此，本文档指定了IGP（OSPF和IS-IS）扩展，以便公布节点的数据平面和控制平面功能。
A new TLV is defined for OSPF, the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV, to be carried within the Router Information LSA ([RFC4970]). A new sub-TLV is defined for IS-IS, the TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV, to be carried within the IS-IS Capability TLV ([RFC4971]).
为OSPF定义了一个新的TLV，即TE节点能力描述符TLV，该TLV将在路由器信息LSA（[RFC4970]）中携带。为is-is定义了一个新的子TLV，即TE节点能力描述符子TLV，该子TLV将在is-is能力TLV（[RFC4971]）中携带。
This document uses terminologies defined in [RFC3031], [RFC3209], and [RFC4461].
本文件使用[RFC3031]、[RFC3209]和[RFC4461]中定义的术语。
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。
LSRs in a network may have distinct control plane and data plane Traffic Engineering capabilities. The TE Node Capability Descriptor information defined in this document describes data and control plane capabilities of an LSR. Such information can be used during path computation so as to avoid nodes that do not support a given TE feature either in the control or data plane, or to trigger procedures to handle these nodes along the path (e.g., trigger LSP hierarchy to support a legacy transit LSR on a P2MP LSP (see [RFC4875])).
网络中的LSR可能具有不同的控制平面和数据平面流量工程能力。本文档中定义的TE节点能力描述符信息描述了LSR的数据和控制平面能力。此类信息可在路径计算期间使用，以避免在控制或数据平面中不支持给定TE特性的节点，或触发沿路径处理这些节点的程序（例如，触发LSP层次结构以支持P2MP LSP上的传统运输LSR（参见[RFC4875]）。
The TE Node Capability Descriptor contains a variable-length set of bit flags, where each bit corresponds to a given TE node capability.
TE节点能力描述符包含一组可变长度的位标志，其中每个位对应于给定的TE节点能力。
Five TE Node Capabilities are defined in this document:
本文件定义了五种TE节点功能：
- B bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR can act as a branch node on a P2MP LSP (see [RFC4461]); - E bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR can act as a bud LSR on a P2MP LSP, i.e., an LSR that is both transit and egress (see [RFC4461]); - M bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR supports MPLS-TE signaling ([RFC3209]); - G bit: when set this flag indicates that the LSR supports GMPLS signaling ([RFC3473]); - P bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR supports P2MP MPLS-TE signaling ([RFC4875]).
- B位：设置时，此标志表示LSR可以作为P2MP LSP上的分支节点（请参见[RFC4461]）；-E位：设置时，该标志表示LSR可作为P2MP LSP上的bud LSR，即同时作为传输和出口的LSR（参见[RFC4461]）；-M位：设置时，此标志表示LSR支持MPLS-TE信令（[RFC3209]）；-G位：设置此标志时，表示LSR支持GMPLS信令（[RFC3473]）；-P位：设置时，此标志表示LSR支持P2MP MPLS-TE信令（[RFC4875]）。
Note that new capability bits may be added in the future if required.
请注意，如果需要，将来可能会添加新的功能位。
The OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is a variable length TLV that contains a series of bit flags, where each bit correspond to a TE node capability. The bit-field MAY be extended with additional 32-bit words if more bit flags need to be assigned. Any unknown bit flags SHALL be treated as Reserved bits.
OSPF TE节点能力描述符TLV是一个可变长度TLV，包含一系列位标志，其中每个位对应于TE节点能力。如果需要分配更多的位标志，则可以使用额外的32位字扩展位字段。任何未知位标志应视为保留位。
The OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is carried within an OSPF Router Information LSA, which is defined in [RFC4970].
OSPF TE节点能力描述符TLV携带在OSPF路由器信息LSA中，该信息在[RFC4970]中定义。
The format of the OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is the same as the TLV format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF [RFC3630]. That is, the TLV is composed of 2 octets for the type, 2 octets specifying the length of the value field, and a value field.
OSPF TE节点能力描述符TLV的格式与OSPF的流量工程扩展使用的TLV格式相同[RFC3630]。也就是说，TLV由类型的2个八位字节、指定值字段长度的2个八位字节和一个值字段组成。
The OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV has the following format:
OSPF TE节点能力描述符TLV具有以下格式：
TYPE: 5 (see Section 8.1) LENGTH: Variable (multiple of 4). VALUE: Array of units of 32 flags numbered from the most significant bit as bit zero, where each bit represents a TE node capability.
类型：5（见第8.1节）长度：变量（4的倍数）。值：32个标志的单元数组，从最高有效位开始编号为位0，其中每个位表示TE节点能力。
The following bits are defined:
定义了以下位：
Bit Capabilities
比特能力
0 B bit: P2MP Branch Node capability: When set, this indicates that the LSR can act as a branch node on a P2MP LSP [RFC4461]. 1 E bit: P2MP Bud-LSR capability: When set, this indicates that the LSR can act as a bud LSR on a P2MP LSP, i.e., an LSR that is both transit and egress [RFC4461]. 2 M bit: If set, this indicates that the LSR supports MPLS-TE signaling ([RFC3209]). 3 G bit: If set, this indicates that the LSR supports GMPLS signaling ([RFC3473]). 4 P bit: If set, this indicates that the LSR supports P2MP MPLS-TE signaling ([RFC4875]).
0 B位：P2MP分支节点能力：设置后，表示LSR可以作为P2MP LSP上的分支节点[RFC4461]。1 E位：P2MP Bud LSR能力：当设置时，这表示LSR可以作为P2MP LSP上的Bud LSR，即同时作为传输和出口的LSR[RFC4461]。2M位：如果设置，则表示LSR支持MPLS-TE信令（[RFC3209]）。3 G位：如果设置，则表示LSR支持GMPLS信令（[RFC3473]）。4 P位：如果设置，则表示LSR支持P2MP MPLS-TE信令（[RFC4875]）。
5-31 Reserved for future assignments by IANA.
5-31保留给IANA未来的任务。
Reserved bits MUST be set to zero on transmission, and MUST be ignored on reception. If the length field is greater than 4, implying that there are more than 32 bits in the value field, then any additional bits (i.e., not yet assigned) are reserved.
传输时必须将保留位设置为零，接收时必须忽略保留位。如果长度字段大于4，意味着值字段中有超过32位，则保留任何附加位（即，尚未分配）。
The IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV is a variable length sub-TLV that contains a series of bit flags, where each bit corresponds to a TE node capability. The bit-field MAY be extended with additional bytes if more bit flags need to be assigned. Any unknown bit flags SHALL be treated as Reserved bits.
IS-IS TE节点能力描述符子TLV是一个可变长度子TLV，包含一系列位标志，其中每个位对应于TE节点能力。如果需要分配更多的位标志，则可以使用额外的字节扩展位字段。任何未知位标志应视为保留位。
The IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV is carried within an IS-IS CAPABILITY TLV, which is defined in [RFC4971].
IS-IS TE节点能力描述符子TLV包含在IS-IS能力TLV中，该TLV在[RFC4971]中定义。
The format of the IS-IS TE Node Capability sub-TLV is the same as the sub-TLV format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions to IS-IS [RFC3784]. That is, the sub-TLV is composed of 1 octet for the type, 1 octet specifying the length of the value field.
IS-IS TE节点能力子TLV的格式与IS-IS[RFC3784]的交通工程扩展使用的子TLV格式相同。也就是说，子TLV由类型的1个八位字节组成，1个八位字节指定值字段的长度。
The IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV has the following format:
IS-IS TE节点能力描述符子TLV具有以下格式：
TYPE: 1 (see Section 8.2) LENGTH: Variable VALUE: Array of units of 8 flags numbered from the most significant bit as bit zero, where each bit represents a TE node capability.
类型：1（参见第8.2节）长度：变量值：由8个标志组成的单元组成的数组，从最高有效位开始编号为位0，其中每个位表示TE节点能力。
The following bits are defined:
定义了以下位：
Bit Capabilities
比特能力
0 B bit: P2MP Branch Node capability: When set, this indicates that the LSR can act as a branch node on a P2MP LSP [RFC4461]. 1 E bit: P2MP Bud-LSR capability: When set, this indicates that the LSR can act as a bud LSR on a P2MP LSP, i.e., an LSR that is both transit and egress [RFC4461]. 2 M bit: If set, this indicates that the LSR supports MPLS-TE signaling ([RFC3209]). 3 G bit: If set, this indicates that the LSR supports GMPLS signaling ([RFC3473]). 4 P bit: If set, this indicates that the LSR supports P2MP MPLS-TE signaling ([RFC4875]).
0 B位：P2MP分支节点能力：设置后，表示LSR可以作为P2MP LSP上的分支节点[RFC4461]。1 E位：P2MP Bud LSR能力：当设置时，这表示LSR可以作为P2MP LSP上的Bud LSR，即同时作为传输和出口的LSR[RFC4461]。2M位：如果设置，则表示LSR支持MPLS-TE信令（[RFC3209]）。3 G位：如果设置，则表示LSR支持GMPLS信令（[RFC3473]）。4 P位：如果设置，则表示LSR支持P2MP MPLS-TE信令（[RFC4875]）。
5-7 Reserved for future assignments by IANA.
5-7保留给IANA未来的任务。
Reserved bits MUST be set to zero on transmission, and MUST be ignored on reception. If the length field is great than 1, implying that there are more than 8 bits in the value field, then any additional bits (i.e., not yet assigned) are reserved.
传输时必须将保留位设置为零，接收时必须忽略保留位。如果长度字段大于1，意味着值字段中有超过8位，则保留任何附加位（即，尚未分配）。
The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is advertised, within an OSPFv2 Router Information LSA (Opaque type of 4 and Opaque ID of 0) or an OSPFv3 Router Information LSA (function code of 12), which are defined in [RFC4970]. As such, elements of procedure are inherited from those defined in [RFC2328], [RFC2740], and [RFC4970].
TE节点能力描述符TLV在[RFC4970]中定义的OSPFv2路由器信息LSA（不透明类型为4，不透明ID为0）或OSPFv3路由器信息LSA（功能代码为12）中公布。因此，程序元素继承自[RFC2328]、[RFC2740]和[RFC4970]中定义的元素。
The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV advertises capabilities that may be taken into account as constraints during path selection. Hence, its flooding scope is area-local, and it MUST be carried within an OSPFv2 type 10 Router Information LSA (as defined in [RFC2370]) or an OSPFv3 Router Information LSA with the S1 bit set and the S2 bit cleared (as defined in [RFC2740]).
TE节点能力描述符TLV公布可在路径选择期间作为约束考虑的能力。因此，其泛洪范围为区域本地，必须在OSPFv2类型10路由器信息LSA（定义见[RFC2370]）或OSPFv3路由器信息LSA中携带，S1位设置且S2位清除（定义见[RFC2740]）。
A router MUST originate a new OSPF Router Information LSA whenever the content of the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV changes or whenever required by the regular OSPF procedure (LSA refresh (every LSRefreshTime)).
每当TE节点能力描述符TLV的内容发生变化或当常规OSPF过程（LSA刷新（每次LSRefreshTime））要求时，路由器必须发起新的OSPF路由器信息LSA。
The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is OPTIONAL and MUST NOT appear more than once in an OSPF Router Information LSA. If a TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV appears more than once in an OSPF Router Information LSA, only the first occurrence MUST be processed and others MUST be ignored.
TE节点能力描述符TLV是可选的，在OSPF路由器信息LSA中不得出现多次。如果TE节点能力描述符TLV在OSPF路由器信息LSA中多次出现，则只需处理第一次出现的情况，其他情况必须忽略。
When an OSPF Router Information LSA does not contain any TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV, this means that the TE node capabilities of that LSR are unknown.
当OSPF路由器信息LSA不包含任何TE节点能力描述符TLV时，这意味着该LSR的TE节点能力未知。
Note that a change in any of these capabilities MAY trigger Constrained Shortest Path First (CSPF) computation, but MUST NOT trigger normal SPF computation.
请注意，这些功能的任何更改都可能触发约束最短路径优先（CSPF）计算，但不得触发正常的SPF计算。
Note also that TE node capabilities are expected to be fairly static. They may change as the result of configuration change or software upgrade. This is expected not to appear more than once a day.
还请注意，TE节点功能预计是相当静态的。它们可能因配置更改或软件升级而更改。预计每天出现的次数不会超过一次。
The TE Node Capability sub-TLV is carried within an IS-IS CAPABILITY TLV defined in [RFC4971]. As such, elements of procedure are inherited from those defined in [RFC4971].
TE节点能力子TLV包含在[RFC4971]中定义的is-is能力TLV中。因此，程序元素继承自[RFC4971]中定义的元素。
The TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV advertises capabilities that may be taken into account as constraints during path selection. Hence, its flooding is area-local, and it MUST be carried within an IS-IS CAPABILITY TLV having the S flag cleared.
TE节点能力描述符子TLV公布可在路径选择期间作为约束考虑的能力。因此，其泛洪是局部区域，必须在is-is能力TLV内携带，并清除S标志。
An IS-IS router MUST originate a new IS-IS LSP whenever the content of any of the TE Node Capability sub-TLV changes or whenever required by the regular IS-IS procedure (LSP refresh).
每当任何TE节点能力子TLV的内容发生变化或常规IS-IS过程（LSP刷新）要求时，IS-IS路由器必须发起新的IS-IS LSP。
The TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV is OPTIONAL and MUST NOT appear more than once in an ISIS Router Capability TLV.
TE节点能力描述符子TLV是可选的，在ISIS路由器能力TLV中不得出现多次。
When an IS-IS LSP does not contain any TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV, this means that the TE node capabilities of that LSR are unknown.
当IS-IS LSP不包含任何TE节点能力描述符子TLV时，这意味着该LSR的TE节点能力未知。
Note that a change in any of these capabilities MAY trigger CSPF computation, but MUST NOT trigger normal SPF computation.
请注意，这些功能的任何更改都可能触发CSPF计算，但不得触发正常的SPF计算。
Note also that TE node capabilities are expected to be fairly static. They may change as the result of configuration change, or software upgrade. This is expected not to appear more than once a day.
还请注意，TE节点功能预计是相当静态的。它们可能因配置更改或软件升级而更改。预计每天出现的次数不会超过一次。
The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLVs defined in this document do not introduce any interoperability issues. For OSPF, a router not supporting the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV will just silently ignore the TLV, as specified in [RFC4970]. For IS-IS, a router not supporting the TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV will just silently ignore the sub-TLV, as specified in [RFC4971].
本文档中定义的TE节点能力描述符TLV不会引入任何互操作性问题。对于OSPF，不支持TE节点能力描述符TLV的路由器只会静默地忽略TLV，如[RFC4970]中所述。对于IS-IS，不支持TE节点能力描述符子TLV的路由器只会静默地忽略子TLV，如[RFC4971]中所述。
When the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is absent, this means that the TE Capabilities of that LSR are unknown.
当TE节点能力描述符TLV不存在时，这意味着该LSR的TE能力未知。
The absence of a word of capability flags in OSPF or an octet of capability flags in IS-IS means that these capabilities are unknown.
OSPF中没有一个字的能力标志，IS-IS中没有八位字节的能力标志，这意味着这些能力是未知的。
This document specifies the content of the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV in IS-IS and OSPF to be used for (G)MPLS-TE path computation. As this TLV is not used for SPF computation or normal routing, the extensions specified here have no direct effect on IP routing. Tampering with this TLV may have an effect on Traffic Engineering computation. Mechanisms defined to secure IS-IS Link State PDUs [RFC3567], OSPF LSAs [RFC2154], and their TLVs can be used to secure this TLV as well.
本文件规定了IS-IS和OSPF中用于（G）MPLS-TE路径计算的TE节点能力描述符TLV的内容。由于此TLV不用于SPF计算或正常路由，因此此处指定的扩展对IP路由没有直接影响。篡改此TLV可能会影响交通工程计算。定义用于保护IS-IS链路状态PDU[RFC3567]、OSPF LSA[RFC2154]及其TLV的机制也可用于保护该TLV。
[RFC4970] defines a new codepoint registry for TLVs carried in the Router Information LSA defined in [RFC4970].
[RFC4970]为[RFC4970]中定义的路由器信息LSA中携带的TLV定义新的码点注册表。
IANA has made a new codepoint assignment from that registry for the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV defined in this document and carried within the Router Information LSA. The value is 5. See Section 4.1 of this document.
IANA已从该注册表中为本文档中定义的TE节点能力描述符TLV分配了一个新的代码点，并在路由器信息LSA中进行了分配。值为5。见本文件第4.1节。
IANA has defined a registry for sub-TLVs of the IS-IS CAPABILITY TLV defined in [RFC4971].
IANA已为[RFC4971]中定义的IS-IS能力TLV的子TLV定义了一个注册表。
IANA has made a new codepoint assignment from that registry for the TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV defined in this document, and carried within the ISIS CAPABILITY TLV. The value is 1. See Section 4.2 of this document.
IANA已从该注册表中为本文件中定义的TE节点能力描述符子TLV分配了一个新的代码点，并在ISIS能力TLV中进行了分配。该值为1。见本文件第4.2节。
IANA has created a new registry to manage the space of capability bit flags carried within the OSPF and ISIS TE Node Capability Descriptor.
IANA已经创建了一个新的注册表来管理OSPF和ISIS TE节点能力描述符中承载的能力位标志的空间。
A single registry must be defined for both protocols. A new base registry has been created to cover IGP-TE registries that apply to both OSPF and IS-IS, and the new registry requested by this document is a sub-registry of this new base registry.
必须为两个协议定义一个注册表。已创建一个新的基本注册表，以涵盖适用于OSPF和IS-IS的IGP-TE注册表，本文件要求的新注册表是该新基本注册表的子注册表。
Bits in the new registry should be numbered in the usual IETF notation, starting with the most significant bit as bit zero.
新注册表中的位应以通常的IETF表示法进行编号，从最高有效位开始，即位0。
New bit numbers may be allocated only by an IETF Consensus action.
新的位号只能由IETF一致行动分配。
Each bit should be tracked with the following qualities: - Bit number - Defining RFC - Name of bit
每一位都应按以下质量进行跟踪：-位号-定义RFC-位名称
IANA has made assignments for the five TE node capabilities defined in this document (see Sections 8.1 and 8.2) using the following values:
IANA已使用以下值对本文件中定义的五个TE节点功能（见第8.1节和第8.2节）进行了分配：
Bit No. Name Reference
--------+---------------------------------------+---------------
0 B bit: P2MP Branch LSR capability [RFC5073]
1 E bit: P2MP Bud LSR capability [RFC5073]
2 M bit: MPLS-TE support [RFC5073]
3 G bit: GMPLS support [RFC5073]
4 P bit: P2MP RSVP-TE support [RFC5073]
5-7 Unassigned [RFC5073]
Bit No. Name Reference
--------+---------------------------------------+---------------
0 B bit: P2MP Branch LSR capability [RFC5073]
1 E bit: P2MP Bud LSR capability [RFC5073]
2 M bit: MPLS-TE support [RFC5073]
3 G bit: GMPLS support [RFC5073]
4 P bit: P2MP RSVP-TE support [RFC5073]
5-7 Unassigned [RFC5073]
We would like to thank Benoit Fondeviole, Adrian Farrel, Dimitri Papadimitriou, Acee Lindem, and David Ward for their useful comments and suggestions.
我们要感谢Benoit Fondeviole、Adrian Farrel、Dimitri Papadimitriou、Acee Lindem和David Ward提出的有用意见和建议。
We would also like to thank authors of [RFC4420] and [RFC4970] by which some text of this document has been inspired.
我们还要感谢[RFC4420]和[RFC4970]的作者，本文件的一些文本就是从这些作者那里得到启发的。
Adrian Farrel prepared the final version of this document for submission to the IESG.
Adrian Farrel编制了本文件的最终版本，以提交给IESG。
[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。
[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001.
[RFC3031]Rosen，E.，Viswanathan，A.，和R.Callon，“多协议标签交换体系结构”，RFC 30312001年1月。
[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.
[RFC3209]Awduche，D.，Berger，L.，Gan，D.，Li，T.，Srinivasan，V.，和G.Swallow，“RSVP-TE：LSP隧道RSVP的扩展”，RFC 3209，2001年12月。
[RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC3473]Berger，L.，Ed.“通用多协议标签交换（GMPLS）信令资源预留协议流量工程（RSVP-TE）扩展”，RFC 3473，2003年1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。
[IS-IS] "Intermediate System to Intermediate System Intra-Domain Routeing Exchange Protocol for use in Conjunction with the Protocol for Providing the Connectionless-mode Network Service (ISO 8473)", ISO 10589.
[IS-IS]“与提供无连接模式网络服务的协议一起使用的中间系统到中间系统域内路由交换协议（ISO 8473）”，ISO 10589。
[RFC4971] Vasseur, JP., 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，JP.，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。
[RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Ed., and S. Yasukawa, Ed., "Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875, May 2007.
[RFC4875]Aggarwal，R.，Ed.，Papadimitriou，D.，Ed.，和S.Yasukawa，Ed.，“资源预留协议的扩展-点对多点TE标签交换路径（LSP）的流量工程（RSVP-TE）”，RFC 48752007年5月。
[RFC2154] Murphy, S., Badger, M., and B. Wellington, "OSPF with Digital Signatures", RFC 2154, June 1997.
[RFC2154]Murphy，S.，Badger，M.，和B.Wellington，“具有数字签名的OSPF”，RFC 2154，1997年6月。
[RFC3567] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Cryptographic Authentication", RFC 3567, July 2003.
[RFC3567]Li，T.和R.Atkinson，“中间系统到中间系统（IS-IS）加密认证”，RFC 3567，2003年7月。
[RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005.
[RFC4203]Kompella，K.，Ed.，和Y.Rekhter，Ed.，“支持通用多协议标签交换（GMPLS）的OSPF扩展”，RFC 4203，2005年10月。
[RFC4205] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4205, October 2005.
[RFC4205]Kompella，K.，Ed.，和Y.Rekhter，Ed.，“支持通用多协议标签交换（GMPLS）的中间系统到中间系统（IS-IS）扩展”，RFC 4205，2005年10月。
[RFC4420] Farrel, A., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, J.-P., and A. Ayyangar, "Encoding of Attributes for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Establishment Using Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 4420, February 2006.
[RFC4420]Farrel，A.，Ed.，Papadimitriou，D.，Vasseur，J.-P.，和A.Ayyangar，“使用资源预留协议流量工程（RSVP-TE）建立多协议标签交换（MPLS）标签交换路径（LSP）的属性编码”，RFC 4420，2006年2月。
[RFC4461] Yasukawa, S., Ed., "Signaling Requirements for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic-Engineered MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4461, April 2006.
[RFC4461]Yasukawa，S.，Ed.“点对多点流量工程MPLS标签交换路径（LSP）的信令要求”，RFC 4461，2006年4月。
[OSPFv3-TE] Ishiguro K., Manral V., Davey A., and Lindem A., "Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF version 3", Work in Progress.
[OSPFv3 TE]Ishiguro K.，Manral V.，Davey A.，和Lindem A.，“OSPF版本3的流量工程扩展”，正在进行中。
Contributors' Addresses
投稿人地址
Seisho Yasukawa NTT 3-9-11 Midori-cho, Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180-8585, Japan EMail: s.yasukawa@hco.ntt.co.jp
日本东京武藏野市靖川正雄NTT 3-9-11 Midori cho 180-8585电子邮件：s。yasukawa@hco.ntt.co.jp
Stefano Previdi Cisco Systems, Inc Via Del Serafico 200 Roma, 00142 Italy EMail: sprevidi@cisco.com
Stefano Previdi Cisco Systems，Inc.通过Del Serafico 200 Roma，00142意大利电子邮件：sprevidi@cisco.com
Peter Psenak Cisco Systems, Inc Pegasus Park DE Kleetlaan 6A Diegmen, 1831 BELGIUM EMail: ppsenak@cisco.com
Peter Psenak Cisco Systems，Inc.Pegasus Park DE Kleetlaan 6A Diegmen，1831比利时电子邮件：ppsenak@cisco.com
Paul Mabbey Comcast USA
保罗马贝康卡斯特美国公司
Editors' Addresses
编辑地址
Jean-Philippe Vasseur Cisco Systems, Inc. 1414 Massachusetts Avenue Boxborough, MA, 01719 USA EMail: jpv@cisco.com
Jean-Philippe Vasseur Cisco Systems，Inc.马萨诸塞州博克斯伯勒大道1414号，美国马萨诸塞州01719电子邮件：jpv@cisco.com
Jean-Louis Le Roux France Telecom 2, avenue Pierre-Marzin 22307 Lannion Cedex FRANCE EMail: jeanlouis.leroux@orange-ftgroup.com
Jean-Louis Le Roux法国电信2号，Pierre Marzin大街22307 Lannion Cedex France电子邮件：jeanlouis。leroux@orange-ftgroup.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.