Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) C. Margaria, Ed.
Request for Comments: 7570 Juniper
Category: Standards Track G. Martinelli
ISSN: 2070-1721 Cisco
S. Balls
B. Wright
Metaswitch
July 2015
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) C. Margaria, Ed.
Request for Comments: 7570 Juniper
Category: Standards Track G. Martinelli
ISSN: 2070-1721 Cisco
S. Balls
B. Wright
Metaswitch
July 2015
Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in the Explicit Route Object (ERO)
显式路由对象（ERO）中的标签交换路径（LSP）属性
Abstract
摘要
RFC 5420 extends RSVP-TE to specify or record generic attributes that apply to the whole of the path of a Label Switched Path (LSP). This document defines an extension to the RSVP Explicit Route Object (ERO) and Record Route Object (RRO) to allow them to specify or record generic attributes that apply to a given hop.
RFC 5420扩展RSVP-TE以指定或记录应用于标签交换路径（LSP）的整个路径的通用属性。本文档定义了RSVP显式路由对象（ERO）和记录路由对象（RRO）的扩展，以允许它们指定或记录应用于给定跃点的通用属性。
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
这是一份互联网标准跟踪文件。
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
本文件是互联网工程任务组（IETF）的产品。它代表了IETF社区的共识。它已经接受了公众审查，并已被互联网工程指导小组（IESG）批准出版。有关互联网标准的更多信息，请参见RFC 5741第2节。
Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7570.
有关本文件当前状态、任何勘误表以及如何提供反馈的信息，请访问http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7570.
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
版权所有（c）2015 IETF信托基金和确定为文件作者的人员。版权所有。
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
本文件受BCP 78和IETF信托有关IETF文件的法律规定的约束(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)自本文件出版之日起生效。请仔细阅读这些文件，因为它们描述了您对本文件的权利和限制。从本文件中提取的代码组件必须包括信托法律条款第4.e节中所述的简化BSD许可证文本，并提供简化BSD许可证中所述的无担保。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. ERO Hop Attributes Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Hop Attributes TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. RRO Hop Attributes Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.1. Subobject Presence Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.2. Reporting Compliance with ERO Hop Attributes . . . . 7
3.2.3. Compatibility with RRO Attributes Subobject . . . . . 7
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. ERO Hop Attributes Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. RRO Hop Attributes Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. Existing Attribute Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.4. Existing LSP Attribute TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. ERO Hop Attributes Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Hop Attributes TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. RRO Hop Attributes Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.1. Subobject Presence Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.2. Reporting Compliance with ERO Hop Attributes . . . . 7
3.2.3. Compatibility with RRO Attributes Subobject . . . . . 7
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. ERO Hop Attributes Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. RRO Hop Attributes Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. Existing Attribute Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.4. Existing LSP Attribute TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) can be route constrained by making use of the Explicit Route Object (ERO) and related subobjects as defined in [RFC3209], [RFC3473], [RFC3477], [RFC4873], [RFC4874], [RFC5520], and [RFC5553]. Several documents have identified the need for attributes that can be targeted at specific hops in the path of an LSP, including [RFC6163], [WSON-SIG], [RFC7571], or [OBJ-FUN]. This document provides a generic mechanism for use by these other documents.
通过使用[RFC3209]、[RFC3473]、[RFC3477]、[RFC4873]、[RFC4874]、[RFC5520]和[RFC5553]中定义的显式路由对象（ERO）和相关子对象，可以对广义MPLS（GMPLS）流量工程（TE）标签交换路径（LSP）进行路由约束。一些文档已经确定了对可针对LSP路径中特定跃点的属性的需求，包括[RFC6163]、[WSON-SIG]、[RFC7571]或[OBJ-FUN]。本文档提供了供这些其他文档使用的通用机制。
RSVP already supports generic extension of LSP attributes in [RFC5420]. In order to support current and future ERO constraint extensions, this document provides a mechanism to define per-hop attributes.
RSVP已经支持[RFC5420]中LSP属性的通用扩展。为了支持当前和未来的ERO约束扩展，本文档提供了一种定义每跳属性的机制。
The document describes a generic mechanism for carrying information related to specific nodes when signaling an LSP. This document does not restrict what that information can be used for. The defined approach builds on LSP attributes defined in [RFC5420] and enables
该文档描述了一种通用机制，用于在发送LSP信号时携带与特定节点相关的信息。本文件不限制该信息的用途。定义的方法基于[RFC5420]中定义的LSP属性，并启用
attributes to be expressed in ERO and Secondary Explicit Route Objects (SEROs). A new ERO subobject is defined, containing a list of generic per-hop attributes.
要在ERO和次要显式路由对象（SEROs）中表示的属性。定义了一个新的ERO子对象，其中包含一个通用每跳属性列表。
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。
The ERO Hop Attributes subobject is OPTIONAL. If used, it is carried in the ERO or SERO. The subobject uses the standard format of an ERO subobject.
“ERO跃点属性”子对象是可选的。如果使用，则在ERO或SERO中携带。子对象使用ERO子对象的标准格式。
The length is variable and content is a list of Hop Attributes TLVs defined in Section 2.2. The size of the ERO subobject limits the size of the Hop Attributes TLV to 250 bytes. The typical size of currently defined and forthcoming LSP_ATTRIBUTE TLVs applicable to a specific hop (WSON_SIGNALING, Objective Function (OF), and Metric) is not foreseen to exceed this limit.
长度是可变的，内容是第2.2节中定义的跃点属性TLV列表。ERO子对象的大小将跃点属性TLV的大小限制为250字节。当前定义的和即将出现的适用于特定跃点的LSP_属性TLV（WSON_信令、目标函数（of）和度量）的典型大小预计不会超过该限制。
The ERO Hop Attributes subobject is defined as follows:
ERO Hop Attributes子对象定义如下：
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type | Length | Reserved |R|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Hop Attributes TLVs //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type | Length | Reserved |R|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Hop Attributes TLVs //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The L, Type, and Length parameters are as defined in [RFC3209], Section 4.3.3. The L bit MUST be set to 0. The Type for the ERO Hop Attributes subobject is 35. The Hop Attributes TLVs are encoded as defined in Section 2.2.
L、类型和长度参数如[RFC3209]第4.3.3节所述。L位必须设置为0。ERO跃点属性子对象的类型为35。跳属性TLV按照第2.2节中的定义进行编码。
Reserved: Reserved MUST be set to 0 when the subobject is inserted in the ERO, MUST NOT be changed when a node processes the ERO, and MUST be ignored on the node addressed by the preceding ERO subobjects.
保留：在ERO中插入子对象时，必须将保留设置为0，在节点处理ERO时不得更改，并且必须在前面ERO子对象寻址的节点上忽略保留。
R: This bit reflects the LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTE and LSP_ATTRIBUTE semantic defined in [RFC5420]. When set, it indicates required hop attributes to be processed by the node. When cleared, it indicates that the hop attributes are not required as described in Section 2.3.
R：该位反映了[RFC5420]中定义的LSP_REQUIRED_属性和LSP_属性语义。设置后，它指示节点要处理的所需跃点属性。清除时，表示不需要第2.3节所述的跃点属性。
Hop Attributes TLVs: The TLVs as defined in Section 2.2.
跃点属性TLV：第2.2节中定义的TLV。
ERO attributes carried by the new objects defined in this document are encoded within TLVs. Each object MAY contain one or more TLVs. There are no ordering rules for TLVs, and interpretation SHOULD NOT be placed on the order in which TLVs are received. The TLV format is defined in [RFC5420], Section 3.
本文档中定义的新对象携带的ERO属性在TLV中进行编码。每个对象可能包含一个或多个TLV。没有TLV的订购规则，不应按照收到TLV的顺序进行解释。TLV格式在[RFC5420]第3节中定义。
The Attribute Flags TLV defined in [RFC5420] is carried in an ERO Hop Attributes subobject. Flags set in the Attribute Flags TLV [RFC5420] carried in an ERO Hop Attributes subobject SHALL be interpreted in the context of the received ERO. Only a subset of defined flags are defined as valid for use in Attribute Flags TLV carried in an ERO Hop Attributes subobject. Invalid flags SHALL be silently ignored. Unknown flags SHOULD trigger the generation of a PathErr with Error Code "Unknown Attributes Bit" as defined in [RFC5420], Section 5.2. The set of valid flags are defined in Section 4.3.
[RFC5420]中定义的属性标志TLV包含在ERO Hop Attributes子对象中。ERO跳跃属性子对象中携带的属性标志TLV[RFC5420]中设置的标志应在接收到的ERO上下文中进行解释。只有已定义标志的子集被定义为可在ERO Hop Attributes子对象中携带的属性标志TLV中使用。无效标志应被默默忽略。未知标志应触发生成错误代码为[RFC5420]第5.2节中定义的“未知属性位”的PathErr。第4.3节定义了一组有效标志。
The presence and ordering rule of the Attribute Flags TLV in an ERO Hop Attributes subobject is defined by each Flag. A document defining a flag to be used in an Attribute Flags TLV carried in the ERO Hop Attributes subobject has to describe:
ERO Hop Attributes子对象中属性标志TLV的存在和排序规则由每个标志定义。定义要在ERO Hop属性子对象中携带的属性标志TLV中使用的标志的文档必须描述：
o after which kinds of ERO subobject the flag is valid,
o 标志在哪种类型的ERO子对象之后有效，
o if ordering of the flag and other ERO subobjects associated with the same hop (e.g., Label subobjects) is significant,
o 如果与同一跃点关联的标志和其他ERO子对象（例如，标签子对象）的顺序很重要，
o if ordering is significant, how the flag is interpreted in association with the preceding subobjects, and
o 如果排序很重要，则如何结合前面的子对象解释标志，以及
o any flag modification rules that might apply.
o 可能应用的任何标志修改规则。
As described in [RFC3209], the ERO is managed as a list of subobjects each identifying a specific entity, an abstract node, or a link that defines a waypoint in the network path. Identifying subobjects of various types are defined in [RFC3209], [RFC3477], [RFC4873], [RFC4874], [RFC5520], and [RFC5553].
如[RFC3209]中所述，ERO作为子对象列表进行管理，每个子对象标识网络路径中定义航路点的特定实体、抽象节点或链路。[RFC3209]、[RFC3477]、[RFC4873]、[RFC4874]、[RFC5520]和[RFC5553]中定义了各种类型的识别子对象。
[RFC3473] modified the ERO list by allowing one or two Label subobjects to be interposed in the list after a subobject identifying a link. One or more ERO Hop Attributes subobjects applicable to a particular hop MAY be inserted directly after any of the existing identifying subobjects defined in[RFC3209], [RFC3477], [RFC4873], [RFC4874], [RFC5520], and [RFC5553]. If any Label subobjects are present for a hop, the ERO Hop Attributes subobject(s) MAY also be inserted after the Label subobjects.
[RFC3473]修改了ERO列表，允许在标识链接的子对象之后插入一个或两个标签子对象。可在[RFC3209]、[RFC3477]、[RFC4873]、[RFC4874]、[RFC5520]和[RFC5553]中定义的任何现有标识子对象之后直接插入适用于特定跃点的一个或多个ERO跃点属性子对象。如果跃点存在任何标签子对象，也可以在标签子对象之后插入ERO跃点属性子对象。
The attributes specified in an ERO Hop Attributes subobject apply to the immediately preceding subobject(s) in the ERO subobject list.
ERO跃点属性子对象中指定的属性适用于ERO子对象列表中紧靠前的子对象。
A document defining a specific Hop Attributes TLV has to describe:
定义特定跃点属性TLV的文档必须描述：
o after which kinds of ERO subobject they are valid,
o 在哪种类型的ERO子对象之后有效，
o if ordering of the Hop Attributes subobject and other ERO subobjects associated with the same hop (e.g., Label subobjects) is significant,
o 如果跃点属性子对象和与同一跃点关联的其他ERO子对象（例如，标签子对象）的顺序很重要，
o if ordering is significant, how the attribute is interpreted in association with the preceding ERO subobjects, and
o 如果排序很重要，则如何结合前面的ERO子对象解释属性，以及
o any TLV modification rules that might apply.
o 可能适用的任何TLV修改规则。
For instance, subobject presence rules can be defined by describing rules similar to [RFC4990], Section 6.1.
例如，子对象存在规则可以通过描述类似于[RFC4990]第6.1节的规则来定义。
If a node is processing an ERO Hop Attributes subobject and does not support the handling of the subobject, it will behave as described in [RFC3209] when an unrecognized ERO subobject is encountered. This node will return a PathErr with Error Code "Routing Error" and Error Value "Bad EXPLICIT_ROUTE object" with the EXPLICIT_ROUTE object included, truncated (on the left) to the offending unrecognized subobject.
如果节点正在处理ERO Hop Attributes子对象，并且不支持处理该子对象，则当遇到无法识别的ERO子对象时，该节点的行为将如[RFC3209]中所述。此节点将返回一个PathErr，错误代码为“Routing Error”，错误值为“Bad EXPLICIT_ROUTE object”，其中包含显式_ROUTE对象，并将其截断（在左侧）到有问题的无法识别的子对象。
When the R bit is set, a node MUST examine the attributes TLV present in the subobject following the rules described in [RFC5420], Section 5.2. When the R bit is not set, a node MUST examine the attributes TLV present in the subobject following the rules described in [RFC5420], Section 4.2.
设置R位时，节点必须按照[RFC5420]第5.2节中描述的规则检查子对象中存在的属性TLV。未设置R位时，节点必须按照[RFC5420]第4.2节中描述的规则检查子对象中存在的属性TLV。
A node processing an ERO Hop Attributes subobject with a Hop Attributes TLV longer than the ERO subobject SHOULD return a PathErr with Error Code "Routing Error" and Error Value "Bad EXPLICIT_ROUTE object" with the EXPLICIT_ROUTE object included, truncated (on the left) to the offending malformed subobject. A processing node MUST
处理跃点属性TLV长于ERO子对象的ERO跃点属性子对象的节点应返回一个PathErr，错误代码为“Routing Error”，错误值为“Bad EXPLICIT_ROUTE object”，包含显式_ROUTE对象，并将其截断（在左侧）到有问题的格式错误的子对象。处理节点必须
NOT originate a Hop Attributes TLV longer than the ERO Hop Attributes subobject. The processing of the Hop Attributes TLVs SHOULD be described in the documents defining them.
不发起比ERO跃点属性子对象长的跃点属性TLV。跃点属性TLV的处理应在定义它们的文档中描述。
In some cases, it is important to determine if an OPTIONAL hop attribute has been processed by a node.
在某些情况下，确定节点是否处理了可选的跃点属性非常重要。
The RRO Hop Attributes subobject is OPTIONAL. If used, it is carried in the RECORD_ROUTE object. The subobject uses the standard format of an RRO subobject.
“RRO跃点属性”子对象是可选的。如果使用，它将被带到记录路由对象中。子对象使用RRO子对象的标准格式。
The RRO Hop Attributes subobject is defined as follows:
“RRO跃点属性”子对象定义如下：
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 | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Hop Attributes TLVs //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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 | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Hop Attributes TLVs //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Type and Length parameters are as defined in [RFC3209], Section 4.4.1. The Type for the RRO Hop Attributes subobject is 35. The Hop Attributes TLVs are encoded as defined in Section 2.2.
类型和长度参数如[RFC3209]第4.4.1节所述。“RRO跃点属性”子对象的类型为35。跳属性TLV按照第2.2节中的定义进行编码。
Reserved: Reserved MUST be set to 0 when the subobject is inserted in the RRO, MUST NOT be changed when a node processes the RRO, and MUST be ignored on the node addressed by the preceding RRO subobjects.
保留：在将子对象插入到RRO时，必须将保留设置为0，在节点处理RRO时不得更改，并且必须在前面的RRO子对象所寻址的节点上忽略保留。
Hop Attributes TLVs: The processed or additional Hop Attributes TLVs, using the format defined in Section 2.2.
跃点属性TLV：使用第2.2节中定义的格式处理的或附加的跃点属性TLV。
The RRO rules defined in [RFC3209] are not changed. The RRO Hop Attributes subobject MUST be pushed after the RRO Attributes subobject (if present) as defined in [RFC5420]. The RRO Hop Attributes subobject MAY be present between a pair of subobjects identifying the Label Switching Router (LSR) or links. Unless local
[RFC3209]中定义的RRO规则未更改。必须在[RFC5420]中定义的RRO属性子对象（如果存在）之后推送RRO跃点属性子对象。在标识标签交换路由器（LSR）或链路的一对子对象之间可以存在RRO跳跃属性子对象。除非是本地的
policy applies, all such subobjects SHOULD be forwarded unmodified by transit LSRs.
如果策略适用，则所有此类子对象都应在未经传输LSR修改的情况下转发。
It is noted that a node (e.g., a domain edge node) MAY edit the RRO to prune/modify the RRO, including the RRO Hop Attributes subobject before forwarding due to confidentiality policy or other reasons (for instance, RRO size reduction).
注意，由于保密策略或其他原因（例如，RRO大小减小），节点（例如域边缘节点）可以编辑RRO以修剪/修改RRO，包括在转发之前的RRO跳属性子对象。
To report that an ERO hop attribute has been considered, or to report an additional attribute, an LSR can add a RRO Hop Attributes subobject with the Hop Attributes TLV, which describes the attribute to be reported. The requirement to report compliance MUST be specified in the document that defines the usage of a hop attribute.
要报告已考虑ERO跃点属性，或要报告其他属性，LSR可以添加带有跃点属性TLV的RRO跃点属性子对象，该子对象描述要报告的属性。必须在定义跃点属性用法的文档中指定报告符合性的要求。
The RRO Hop Attributes subobject extends the capability of the RRO Attributes subobject defined in [RFC5420], Section 7.2 by allowing the node to report the attribute value. The mechanism defined in this document is compatible with the RRO Attributes subobject using the following procedures.
RRO Hop Attributes子对象通过允许节点报告属性值扩展了[RFC5420]第7.2节中定义的RRO Attributes子对象的功能。本文档中定义的机制通过以下过程与“RRO属性”子对象兼容。
For LSP attributes signaled in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES objects, a node SHOULD use the RRO Attributes subobject to report processing of those attributes.
对于在LSP_attributes或LSP_REQUIRED_attributes对象中发出信号的LSP属性，节点应使用RRO attributes子对象来报告这些属性的处理。
For LSP attributes signaled in the ERO Hop Attributes subobject and not in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES objects, if a node desires to report the attributes, it SHOULD use the RRO Hop Attributes subobject and SHOULD NOT use the RRO Attributes subobject. Ingress nodes not supporting the RRO Hop Attributes subobject will drop the information, as described in [RFC3209], Section 4.4.5.
对于ERO Hop attributes子对象（而不是LSP_attributes或LSP_REQUIRED_attributes对象）中发出信号的LSP属性，如果节点希望报告属性，则应使用RRO Hop attributes子对象，而不应使用RRO attributes子对象。不支持RRO跃点属性子对象的入口节点将删除该信息，如[RFC3209]第4.4.5节所述。
A node can use the RRO Hop Attributes subobject to report an LSP attribute signaled in LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES only if the following conditions are met:
仅当满足以下条件时，节点才能使用RRO Hop Attributes子对象报告LSP_Attributes或LSP_REQUIRED_属性中发出信号的LSP属性：
The attribute and its corresponding flag is allowed on both the LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES and LSP Hop Attributes subobject.
LSP_属性或LSP_REQUIRED_属性和LSP Hop ATTRIBUTES子对象上都允许该属性及其相应的标志。
The reporting of an LSP attribute signaled in LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES in the RRO Hop Attribute is specified in the document defining that LSP attribute.
在定义LSP属性的文档中指定了报告在LSP_属性或在RRO Hop属性中的LSP_REQUIRED_属性中发出信号的LSP属性。
IANA manages the "Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters" registry located at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters>. Per this document, IANA has made an allocation in the Sub-object type 20 EXPLICIT_ROUTE - Type 1 Explicit Route registry.
IANA管理位于的“资源预留协议（RSVP）参数”注册表<http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters>. 根据本文，IANA在子对象类型20显式路由-类型1显式路由注册表中进行了分配。
This document introduces a new ERO subobject:
本文档介绍了一个新的ERO子对象：
Value Description Reference
------ ----------------- ------------------------
35 Hop Attributes This document, Section 2
Value Description Reference
------ ----------------- ------------------------
35 Hop Attributes This document, Section 2
IANA manages the "Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters" registry located at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters>. Per this document, IANA has made an allocation in the Sub-object type 21 ROUTE_RECORD - Type 1 Route Record registry. This value is the same as that in Section 4.1.
IANA管理位于的“资源预留协议（RSVP）参数”注册表<http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters>. 根据本文件，IANA在子对象类型21 ROUTE_RECORD-类型1 ROUTE RECORD注册表中进行了分配。该值与第4.1节中的值相同。
This document introduces a new RRO subobject:
本文档介绍了一个新的RRO子对象：
Value Description Reference
------ ----------------- ------------------------
35 Hop Attributes This document, Section 3
Value Description Reference
------ ----------------- ------------------------
35 Hop Attributes This document, Section 3
IANA manages the "Attribute Flags" registry as part of the "Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Parameters" registry located at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-parameters>. A new column in the registry is introduced by this document. This column indicates if the flag is permitted to be used in an Attribute Flags TLV carried in the ERO Hop Attributes subobject. The column uses the heading "ERO" and the registry has been updated as follows:
IANA将“属性标志”注册表作为“资源预留协议流量工程（RSVP-TE）参数”注册表的一部分进行管理，该注册表位于<http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-parameters>. 本文档介绍了注册表中的一个新列。此列指示是否允许在ERO Hop Attributes子对象中携带的属性标志TLV中使用该标志。该栏使用标题“ERO”，注册表更新如下：
Bit Name Attribute Attribute RRO ERO Reference
No. FlagsPath FlagsResv
0 End-to-end re- Yes No No No [RFC4920]
routing [RFC5420]
This Document
1 Boundary re-routing Yes No No No [RFC4920]
[RFC5420]
This Document
2 Segment-based re- Yes No No No [RFC4920]
routing [RFC5420]
This Document
3 LSP Integrity Yes No No No [RFC4875]
Required
This Document
4 Contiguous LSP Yes No Yes No [RFC5151]
This Document
5 LSP stitching Yes No Yes No [RFC5150]
desired
This Document
6 Pre-Planned LSP Flag Yes No No No [RFC6001]
This Document
7 Non-PHP behavior Yes No Yes No [RFC6511]
flag
This Document
8 OOB mapping flag Yes No Yes No [RFC6511]
This Document
9 Entropy Label Yes Yes No No [RFC6790]
Capability
This Document
10 OAM MEP entities Yes Yes Yes No [RFC7260]
desired
This Document
11 OAM MIP entities Yes Yes Yes No [RFC7260]
desired
This Document
12 SRLG collection Flag Yes Yes Yes No [SRLG-COLLECT]
(TEMPORARY - This Document
registered
2014-09-11, expires
2015-09-11)
Bit Name Attribute Attribute RRO ERO Reference
No. FlagsPath FlagsResv
0 End-to-end re- Yes No No No [RFC4920]
routing [RFC5420]
This Document
1 Boundary re-routing Yes No No No [RFC4920]
[RFC5420]
This Document
2 Segment-based re- Yes No No No [RFC4920]
routing [RFC5420]
This Document
3 LSP Integrity Yes No No No [RFC4875]
Required
This Document
4 Contiguous LSP Yes No Yes No [RFC5151]
This Document
5 LSP stitching Yes No Yes No [RFC5150]
desired
This Document
6 Pre-Planned LSP Flag Yes No No No [RFC6001]
This Document
7 Non-PHP behavior Yes No Yes No [RFC6511]
flag
This Document
8 OOB mapping flag Yes No Yes No [RFC6511]
This Document
9 Entropy Label Yes Yes No No [RFC6790]
Capability
This Document
10 OAM MEP entities Yes Yes Yes No [RFC7260]
desired
This Document
11 OAM MIP entities Yes Yes Yes No [RFC7260]
desired
This Document
12 SRLG collection Flag Yes Yes Yes No [SRLG-COLLECT]
(TEMPORARY - This Document
registered
2014-09-11, expires
2015-09-11)
New allocation requests to this registry SHALL indicate the value to be used in the ERO column.
向该登记处提出的新分配请求应指明ERO列中使用的值。
IANA manages the "Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Parameters" registry located at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-parameters>. The "Attributes TLV Space" registry manages the following attributes, as defined in [RFC5420]:
IANA管理“资源预留协议流量工程（RSVP-TE）参数”注册表，该注册表位于<http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-parameters>. “属性TLV空间”注册表管理[RFC5420]中定义的以下属性：
o TLV Type (T-field value)
o TLV类型（T字段值）
o TLV Name
o TLV名称
o Whether allowed on LSP_ATTRIBUTES object
o LSP_属性对象上是否允许
o Whether allowed on LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object
o LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES对象上是否允许
Per this document, IANA has added the following information for each TLV in the RSVP TLV type identifier registry.
根据本文档，IANA在RSVP TLV类型标识符注册表中为每个TLV添加了以下信息。
o Whether allowed on LSP Hop Attributes ERO subobject
o LSP跃点属性ERO子对象上是否允许
The existing registry has been modified for existing TLVs as follows. The following abbreviations are used below:
现有TLV的现有注册表已修改如下。下面使用了以下缩写：
LSP_A: Whether allowed on LSP_ATTRIBUTES object.
LSP_A：LSP_属性对象上是否允许。
LSP_RA: Whether allowed on LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object.
LSP_RA：LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES对象上是否允许。
HOP_A: Whether allowed on LSP Hop Attributes subobject.
跃点A：LSP跃点属性子对象上是否允许。
T Name LSP_A LSP_RA HOP_A Ref.
- --------------------- ----- ------ ----- --------------
1 Attribute Flags Yes Yes Yes [RFC5420]
This Document
2 Service ID TLV Yes No No [RFC6060]
This Document
3 OAM Configuration TLV Yes Yes No [RFC7260]
This Document
T Name LSP_A LSP_RA HOP_A Ref.
- --------------------- ----- ------ ----- --------------
1 Attribute Flags Yes Yes Yes [RFC5420]
This Document
2 Service ID TLV Yes No No [RFC6060]
This Document
3 OAM Configuration TLV Yes Yes No [RFC7260]
This Document
This document adds a new subobject in the EXPLICIT_ROUTE and the ROUTE_RECORD objects carried in RSVP messages used in MPLS and GMPLS signaling. It builds on mechanisms defined in [RFC3209] and [RFC5420] and does not introduce any new security. The existing security considerations described in [RFC2205], [RFC3209], [RFC3473], and [RFC5420] do apply.
本文档在MPLS和GMPLS信令中使用的RSVP消息中携带的显式路由和路由记录对象中添加了新的子对象。它以[RFC3209]和[RFC5420]中定义的机制为基础，不引入任何新的安全性。[RFC2205]、[RFC3209]、[RFC3473]和[RFC5420]中描述的现有安全注意事项确实适用。
As with any RSVP-TE signaling request, the procedures defined in this document permit the transfer and reporting of functional preferences on a specific node. The mechanism added in this document does allow more control of LSP attributes at a given node. A node SHOULD check the hop attributes against its policies and admission procedures as it does with other inputs. A node MAY reject the message using existing RSVP Error Codes like "Policy Control Failure" or "Admission Control Failure". The node MAY also, depending on the specific TLV procedures, modify the requested attribute. This can reveal information about the LSP request and status to anyone with unauthorized access. The mechanism described in this document does not contribute to this issue, which can be only resolved by encrypting the content of the whole signaling message.
与任何RSVP-TE信令请求一样，本文件中定义的程序允许在特定节点上传输和报告功能首选项。本文档中添加的机制允许在给定节点上对LSP属性进行更多控制。节点应该像对待其他输入一样，根据其策略和准入过程检查跃点属性。节点可以使用诸如“策略控制失败”或“准入控制失败”之类的现有RSVP错误代码拒绝消息。根据特定的TLV过程，节点还可以修改请求的属性。这可能会向任何未经授权访问的人透露有关LSP请求和状态的信息。本文档中描述的机制不会导致此问题，只能通过加密整个信令消息的内容来解决此问题。
In addition, the reporting of attributes using the RRO can reveal details about the node that the operator wishes to remain confidential. The same strategy and policies that apply to other RRO subobjects also apply to this new mechanism. It is RECOMMENDED that domain boundary policies take the releasing of RRO hop attributes into consideration.
此外，使用RRO报告属性可以揭示操作员希望保密的节点的详细信息。适用于其他RRO子对象的相同策略和策略也适用于此新机制。建议域边界策略考虑释放RRO跃点属性。
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2119]Bradner，S.，“RFC中用于表示需求水平的关键词”，BCP 14，RFC 2119，DOI 10.17487/RFC2119，1997年3月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S. Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205, September 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205>.
[RFC2205]Braden，R.，Ed.，Zhang，L.，Berson，S.，Herzog，S.，和S.Jamin，“资源保留协议（RSVP）——版本1功能规范”，RFC 2205，DOI 10.17487/RFC2205，1997年9月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205>.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
[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，DOI 10.17487/RFC3209，2001年12月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, DOI 10.17487/RFC3473, January 2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3473>.
[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，DOI 10.17487/RFC3473，2003年1月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3473>.
[RFC3477] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered Links in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, DOI 10.17487/RFC3477, January 2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3477>.
[RFC3477]Kompella，K.和Y.Rekhter，“资源预留协议中未编号链路的信令-流量工程（RSVP-TE）”，RFC 3477，DOI 10.17487/RFC3477，2003年1月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3477>.
[RFC4873] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., and A. Farrel, "GMPLS Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, DOI 10.17487/RFC4873, May 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4873>.
[RFC4873]Berger，L.，Bryskin，I.，Papadimitriou，D.，和A.Farrel，“GMPLS段恢复”，RFC 4873，DOI 10.17487/RFC4873，2007年5月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4873>.
[RFC4874] Lee, CY., Farrel, A., and S. De Cnodder, "Exclude Routes - Extension to Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 4874, DOI 10.17487/RFC4874, April 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4874>.
[RFC4874]Lee，CY.，Farrel，A.和S.De Cnodder，“排除路由-资源预留协议流量工程（RSVP-TE）的扩展”，RFC 4874，DOI 10.17487/RFC4874，2007年4月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4874>.
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC4875, May 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4875>.
[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 4875，DOI 10.17487/RFC4875，2007年5月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4875>.
[RFC4920] Farrel, A., Ed., Satyanarayana, A., Iwata, A., Fujita, N., and G. Ash, "Crankback Signaling Extensions for MPLS and GMPLS RSVP-TE", RFC 4920, DOI 10.17487/RFC4920, July 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4920>.
[RFC4920]Farrel，A.，Ed.，Satyanarayana，A.，Iwata，A.，Fujita，N.，和G.Ash，“MPLS和GMPLS RSVP-TE的回退信令扩展”，RFC 4920，DOI 10.17487/RFC4920，2007年7月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4920>.
[RFC5150] Ayyangar, A., Kompella, K., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel, "Label Switched Path Stitching with Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (GMPLS TE)", RFC 5150, DOI 10.17487/RFC5150, February 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5150>.
[RFC5150]Ayyangar，A.，Kompella，K.，Vasseur，JP.，和A.Farrel，“使用通用多协议标签交换流量工程（GMPLS TE）的标签交换路径缝合”，RFC 5150，DOI 10.17487/RFC5150，2008年2月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5150>.
[RFC5151] Farrel, A., Ed., Ayyangar, A., and JP. Vasseur, "Inter-Domain MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering -- Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 5151, DOI 10.17487/RFC5151, February 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5151>.
[RFC5151]Farrel，A.，Ed.，Ayyangar，A.，和JP。Vasseur，“域间MPLS和GMPLS流量工程——资源预留协议流量工程（RSVP-TE）扩展”，RFC 5151，DOI 10.17487/RFC5151，2008年2月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5151>.
[RFC5420] Farrel, A., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, JP., and A. Ayyangarps, "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 5420, DOI 10.17487/RFC5420, February 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5420>.
[RFC5420]Farrel，A.，Ed.，Papadimitriou，D.，Vasseur，JP.，和A.Ayangarps，“使用资源预留协议流量工程（RSVP-TE）对MPLS LSP建立的属性进行编码”，RFC 5420，DOI 10.17487/RFC5420，2009年2月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5420>.
[RFC5520] Bradford, R., Ed., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel, "Preserving Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path Computation Using a Path-Key-Based Mechanism", RFC 5520, DOI 10.17487/RFC5520, April 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5520>.
[RFC5520]Bradford，R.，Ed.，Vasseur，JP.，和A.Farrel，“使用基于路径密钥的机制在域间路径计算中保持拓扑机密性”，RFC 5520，DOI 10.17487/RFC5520，2009年4月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5520>.
[RFC5553] Farrel, A., Ed., Bradford, R., and JP. Vasseur, "Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Extensions for Path Key Support", RFC 5553, DOI 10.17487/RFC5553, May 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5553>.
[RFC5553]Farrel，A.，Ed.，Bradford，R.，和JP。Vasseur，“路径密钥支持的资源预留协议（RSVP）扩展”，RFC 5553，DOI 10.17487/RFC5553，2009年5月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5553>.
[RFC6001] Papadimitriou, D., Vigoureux, M., Shiomoto, K., Brungard, D., and JL. Le Roux, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Protocol Extensions for Multi-Layer and Multi-Region Networks (MLN/ MRN)", RFC 6001, DOI 10.17487/RFC6001, October 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6001>.
[RFC6001]Papadimitriou，D.，Vigoureux，M.，Shiomoto，K.，Brungard，D.，和JL。Le Roux，“多层和多区域网络（MLN/MRN）的通用MPLS（GMPLS）协议扩展”，RFC 6001，DOI 10.17487/RFC6001，2010年10月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6001>.
[RFC6060] Fedyk, D., Shah, H., Bitar, N., and A. Takacs, "Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Control of Ethernet Provider Backbone Traffic Engineering (PBB-TE)", RFC 6060, DOI 10.17487/RFC6060, March 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6060>.
[RFC6060]Fedyk，D.，Shah，H.，Bitar，N.，和A.Takacs，“以太网提供商主干流量工程（PBB-TE）的通用多协议标签交换（GMPLS）控制”，RFC 6060，DOI 10.17487/RFC6060，2011年3月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6060>.
[RFC6511] Ali, Z., Swallow, G., and R. Aggarwal, "Non-Penultimate Hop Popping Behavior and Out-of-Band Mapping for RSVP-TE Label Switched Paths", RFC 6511, DOI 10.17487/RFC6511, February 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6511>.
[RFC6511]Ali，Z.，Swallow，G.和R.Aggarwal，“RSVP-TE标签交换路径的非倒数第二跳弹出行为和带外映射”，RFC 6511，DOI 10.17487/RFC6511，2012年2月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6511>.
[RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding", RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>.
[RFC6790]Kompella，K.，Drake，J.，Amante，S.，Henderickx，W.，和L.Yong，“MPLS转发中熵标签的使用”，RFC 6790，DOI 10.17487/RFC6790，2012年11月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>.
[RFC7260] Takacs, A., Fedyk, D., and J. He, "GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions for Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Configuration", RFC 7260, DOI 10.17487/RFC7260, June 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7260>.
[RFC7260]Takacs，A.，Fedyk，D.，和J.He，“用于运行、管理和维护（OAM）配置的GMPLS RSVP-TE扩展”，RFC 7260，DOI 10.17487/RFC7260，2014年6月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7260>.
[OBJ-FUN] Ali, Z., Swallow, G., Filsfils, C., Fang, L., Kumaki, K., Kunze, R., Ceccarelli, D., and X. Zhang, "Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extension for Signaling Objective Function and Metric Bound", Work in Progress, draft-ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound-05, February 2014.
[OBJ-FUN]Ali，Z.，Swallow，G.，Filsfils，C.，Fang，L.，Kumaki，K.，Kunze，R.，Ceccarelli，D.，和X.Zhang，“信令目标函数和度量界的资源预留协议流量工程（RSVP-TE）扩展”，正在进行的工作，草稿-Ali-ccamp-rc-Objective-Function-Metric-Bound-052014年2月。
[RFC4990] Shiomoto, K., Papneja, R., and R. Rabbat, "Use of Addresses in Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Networks", RFC 4990, DOI 10.17487/RFC4990, September 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4990>.
[RFC4990]Shiomoto，K.，Papneya，R.和R.Rabbat，“通用多协议标签交换（GMPLS）网络中地址的使用”，RFC 4990，DOI 10.17487/RFC4990，2007年9月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4990>.
[RFC6163] Lee, Y., Ed., Bernstein, G., Ed., and W. Imajuku, "Framework for GMPLS and Path Computation Element (PCE) Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs)", RFC 6163, DOI 10.17487/RFC6163, April 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6163>.
[RFC6163]Lee，Y.，Ed.，Bernstein，G.，Ed.，和W.Imajuku，“波长交换光网络（WSON）的GMPLS和路径计算元件（PCE）控制框架”，RFC 6163，DOI 10.17487/RFC6163，2011年4月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6163>.
[RFC7571] Dong, J., Chen, M., Li, Z., and D. Ceccarelli, "GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions for Lock Instruct and Loopback", RFC 7571, DOI 10.17487/RFC7571, July 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7571>.
[RFC7571]Dong，J.，Chen，M.，Li，Z.，和D.Ceccarelli，“锁指令和环回的GMPLS RSVP-TE扩展”，RFC 7571，DOI 10.17487/RFC7571，2015年7月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7571>.
[RSVP-TE-HOPS] Kern, A. and A. Takacs, "Encoding of Attributes of LSP intermediate hops using RSVP-TE", Work in Progress, draft-kern-ccamp-rsvpte-hop-attributes-00, October 2009.
[RSVP-TE-HOPS]Kern，A.和A.Takacs，“使用RSVP-TE对LSP中间跃点的属性进行编码”，正在进行的工作，草稿-Kern-ccamp-rsvpte-hop-Attributes-00，2009年10月。
[SRLG-COLLECT] Zhang, F., Dios, O., Li, D., Margaria, C., Hartley, M., and Z. Ali, "RSVP-TE Extensions for Collecting SRLG Information", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-00, December 2014.
[SRLG-COLLECT]Zhang，F.，Dios，O.，Li，D.，Margaria，C.，Hartley，M.，和Z.Ali，“用于收集SRLG信息的RSVP-TE扩展”，正在进行的工作，草稿-ietf-teas-RSVP-TE-SRLG-COLLECT-00，2014年12月。
[WSON-SIG] Bernstein, G., Xu, S., Lee, Y., Martinelli, G., and H. Harai, "Signaling Extensions for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-10, March 2015.
[WSON-SIG]Bernstein，G.，Xu，S.，Lee，Y.，Martinelli，G.，和H.Harai，“波长交换光网络的信令扩展”，正在进行的工作，草案-ietf-ccamp-WSON-SIGNING-10，2015年3月。
Acknowledgments
致谢
The authors would like to thank Lou Berger for his directions and Attila Takacs for inspiring [RSVP-TE-HOPS]. The authors also thank Dirk Schroetter for his contribution to the initial draft versions of this document.
作者要感谢Lou Berger的指导和Attila Takacs的启发[RSVP-TE-HOPS]。作者还感谢Dirk Schroetter对本文件初稿的贡献。
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Cyril Margaria (editor) Juniper 200 Somerset Corporate Boulevard, Suite 4001 Bridgewater, NJ 08807 United States
Cyril Margaria（编辑）Juniper 200 Somerset Corporate Boulevard，美国新泽西州布里奇沃特4001室08807
Email: cmargaria@juniper.net
Email: cmargaria@juniper.net
Giovanni Martinelli Cisco via Philips 12 Monza 20900 Italy
Giovanni Martinelli Cisco via Philips 12 Monza 20900意大利
Phone: +39 039 209 2044
Email: giomarti@cisco.com
Phone: +39 039 209 2044
Email: giomarti@cisco.com
Steve Balls Metaswitch 100 Church Street Enfield EN2 6BQ United Kingdom
Steve Balls Metaswitch 100 Church Street Enfield EN2 6BQ英国
Phone: +44 208 366 1177
Email: steve.balls@metaswitch.com
Phone: +44 208 366 1177
Email: steve.balls@metaswitch.com
Ben Wright Metaswitch 100 Church Street Enfield EN2 6BQ United Kingdom
Ben Wright Metaswitch 100 Church Street Enfield EN2 6BQ英国
Phone: +44 208 366 1177
Email: Ben.Wright@metaswitch.com
Phone: +44 208 366 1177
Email: Ben.Wright@metaswitch.com