Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) H. Long
Request for Comments: 8330 M. Ye
Category: Standards Track Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
ISSN: 2070-1721 G. Mirsky
ZTE
A. D'Alessandro
Telecom Italia S.p.A.
H. Shah
Ciena
February 2018
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) H. Long
Request for Comments: 8330 M. Ye
Category: Standards Track Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
ISSN: 2070-1721 G. Mirsky
ZTE
A. D'Alessandro
Telecom Italia S.p.A.
H. Shah
Ciena
February 2018
OSPF Traffic Engineering (OSPF-TE) Link Availability Extension for Links with Variable Discrete Bandwidth
可变离散带宽链路的OSPF流量工程（OSPF-TE）链路可用性扩展
Abstract
摘要
A network may contain links with variable discrete bandwidth, e.g., microwave and copper. The bandwidth of such links may change discretely in response to a changing external environment. The word "availability" is typically used to describe such links during network planning. This document defines a new type of Generalized Switching Capability-Specific Information (SCSI) TLV to extend the Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) routing protocol. The extension can be used for route computation in a network that contains links with variable discrete bandwidth. Note that this document only covers the mechanisms by which the availability information is distributed. The mechanisms by which availability information of a link is determined and the use of the distributed information for route computation are outside the scope of this document. It is intended that technology-specific documents will reference this document to describe specific uses.
网络可能包含具有可变离散带宽的链路，例如微波和铜缆。这种链路的带宽可以响应于变化的外部环境而离散地变化。“可用性”一词通常用于描述网络规划期间的此类链路。本文档定义了一种新型的通用交换能力特定信息（SCSI）TLV，以扩展通用多协议标签交换（GMPLS）开放最短路径优先（OSPF）路由协议。该扩展可用于包含可变离散带宽链路的网络中的路由计算。请注意，本文档仅介绍分发可用性信息的机制。确定链路可用性信息和使用分布式信息进行路由计算的机制不在本文件范围内。技术特定文件将引用本文件来描述特定用途。
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 7841.
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 7841第2节。
Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8330.
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https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8330.
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
版权所有（c）2018 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 (https://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(https://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 ....................................................3
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document ..........................3
2. Abbreviations ...................................................4
3. Overview ........................................................4
4. TE Metric Extension to OSPF-TE ..................................5
4.1. Availability SCSI-TLV ......................................5
4.2. Processing Procedures ......................................6
5. Security Considerations .........................................6
6. IANA Considerations .............................................7
7. References ......................................................7
7.1. Normative References .......................................7
7.2. Informative References .....................................8
Acknowledgments ...................................................10
Authors' Addresses ................................................10
1. Introduction ....................................................3
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document ..........................3
2. Abbreviations ...................................................4
3. Overview ........................................................4
4. TE Metric Extension to OSPF-TE ..................................5
4.1. Availability SCSI-TLV ......................................5
4.2. Processing Procedures ......................................6
5. Security Considerations .........................................6
6. IANA Considerations .............................................7
7. References ......................................................7
7.1. Normative References .......................................7
7.2. Informative References .....................................8
Acknowledgments ...................................................10
Authors' Addresses ................................................10
Some data-plane technologies, e.g., microwave and copper, allow seamless changes of maximum physical bandwidth through a set of known discrete values. The parameter "availability", as described in [G.827], [F.1703], and [P.530], is often used to describe the link capacity. The availability is a time scale, representing a proportion of the operating time that the requested bandwidth is ensured. To set up a Label Switched Path (LSP) across these links, availability information is required by the nodes to verify the bandwidth before making a bandwidth reservation. Assigning different availability classes over such links provides for more efficient planning of link capacity to support different types of services. The link availability information will be determined by the operator and is statically configured. It will usually be determined from the availability requirements of the services expected to be carried on the LSP. For example, voice service usually needs "five nines" availability, while non-real-time services may adequately perform at four or three nines availability. For the route computation, both the availability information and the bandwidth resource information are needed. Since different service types may need different availability guarantees, multiple <availability, bandwidth> pairs may be required to be associated with a link.
一些数据平面技术，例如微波和铜，允许通过一组已知的离散值无缝改变最大物理带宽。[G.827]、[F.1703]和[P.530]中所述的参数“可用性”通常用于描述链路容量。可用性是一个时间尺度，表示确保所请求带宽的操作时间的一部分。为了在这些链路上设置标签交换路径（LSP），节点需要提供可用性信息，以便在进行带宽预留之前验证带宽。通过在这些链路上分配不同的可用性类别，可以更有效地规划链路容量，以支持不同类型的服务。链路可用性信息将由操作员确定，并进行静态配置。通常根据LSP上预期提供的服务的可用性要求来确定。例如，语音服务通常需要“五个9”的可用性，而非实时服务的可用性可能达到四个或三个9。对于路由计算，同时需要可用性信息和带宽资源信息。由于不同的服务类型可能需要不同的可用性保证，因此可能需要将多个<availability，bandwidth>对与链路相关联。
In this document, a new type of Generalized SCSI-TLV, the Availability SCSI-TLV, is defined. It is intended that technology-specific documents will reference this document to describe specific uses. The signaling extension to support links with variable discrete bandwidth is defined in [RSVP-TE-Availability].
在本文档中，定义了一种新型的通用SCSI-TLV，即可用性SCSI-TLV。技术特定文件将引用本文件来描述特定用途。支持可变离散带宽链路的信令扩展在[RSVP TE Availability]中定义。
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
本文件中的关键词“必须”、“不得”、“必需”、“应”、“不应”、“建议”、“不建议”、“可”和“可选”在所有大写字母出现时（如图所示）应按照BCP 14[RFC2119][RFC8174]所述进行解释。
The following abbreviations are used in this document:
本文件中使用了以下缩写：
GMPLS Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching
广义多协议标签交换
ISCD Interface Switching Capability Descriptor
接口交换能力描述符
LSA Link State Advertisement
链路状态广告
LSP Label Switched Path
标签交换路径
OSPF Open Shortest Path First
开放式最短路径优先
SCSI Switching Capability-Specific Information
SCSI交换能力特定信息
SPF Shortest Path First
最短路径优先
TE Traffic Engineering
交通工程
TLV Type-Length-Value
TLV类型长度值
A node that has link(s) with variable discrete bandwidth attached should include an <availability, bandwidth> information list in its OSPF-TE LSA messages. The list provides the mapping between the link nominal bandwidth and its availability level. This information is used for path calculation by the node(s). The setup of an LSP requires this information to be flooded in the network and used by the nodes or the PCE for the path computation. In this document, a new type of Generalized SCSI-TLV, the Availability SCSI-TLV, is defined. The computed path can then be provisioned via the signaling protocol [RSVP-TE-Availability].
连接有可变离散带宽链路的节点应在其OSPF-TE LSA消息中包含<可用性，带宽>信息列表。该列表提供链路标称带宽与其可用性级别之间的映射。此信息用于节点的路径计算。LSP的设置要求将该信息淹没在网络中，并由节点或PCE用于路径计算。在本文档中，定义了一种新型的通用SCSI-TLV，即可用性SCSI-TLV。然后可以通过信令协议[RSVP TE Availability]来供应计算出的路径。
Note: The mechanisms described in this document only distribute availability information. The methods for measuring the information or using the information for route computation are outside the scope of this document.
注意：本文档中描述的机制仅分发可用性信息。测量信息或使用信息进行路线计算的方法不在本文件范围内。
The Generalized SCSI is defined in [RFC8258]. This document defines a new type of Generalized SCSI-TLV called the Availability SCSI-TLV. The Availability SCSI-TLV can be included one or more times. It has the following format:
通用SCSI在[RFC8258]中定义。本文档定义了一种新的通用SCSI-TLV类型，称为可用性SCSI-TLV。可用性SCSI-TLV可以包含一次或多次。其格式如下：
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Availability level |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LSP Bandwidth at Availability level 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Availability level |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LSP Bandwidth at Availability level n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: 0x000A, 16 bits
类型：0x000A，16位
Length: 2 octets (16 bits)
长度：2个八位字节（16位）
Availability level: 32 bits
可用性级别：32位
This field is a binary32-format floating-point number as defined by [IEEE754-2008]. The bytes are transmitted in network order; that is, the byte containing the sign bit is transmitted first. This field describes the decimal value of the availability guarantee of the Switching Capability in the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor object [RFC4202]. The value MUST be less than 1. The Availability level field is usually expressed as the value 0.99/0.999/0.9999/0.99999.
此字段是[IEEE754-2008]定义的二进制32格式浮点数。字节按网络顺序传输；也就是说，首先传输包含符号位的字节。此字段描述接口交换能力描述符对象[RFC4202]中交换能力的可用性保证的十进制值。该值必须小于1。可用性级别字段通常表示为值0.99/0.999/0.9999/0.99999。
LSP Bandwidth at Availability level n: 32 bits
可用性级别n的LSP带宽：32位
This field is a 32-bit IEEE floating-point number as defined by [IEEE754-2008]. The bytes are transmitted in network order; that is, the byte containing the sign bit is transmitted first. This field describes the LSP bandwidth for the availability level represented in the Availability level field. The units are bytes per second.
此字段是[IEEE754-2008]定义的32位IEEE浮点数。字节按网络顺序传输；也就是说，首先传输包含符号位的字节。此字段描述可用性级别字段中表示的可用性级别的LSP带宽。单位为每秒字节数。
The ISCD allows routing protocols such as OSPF to carry technology-specific information in the "Switching Capability-specific information" field; see [RFC4203]. A node advertising an interface with a Switching Capability that supports variable discrete bandwidth attached SHOULD contain one or more Availability SCSI-TLVs in its OSPF-TE LSA messages. Each Availability SCSI-TLV provides information about how much bandwidth a link can support for a specified availability. This information may be used for path calculation by the node(s).
ISCD允许OSPF等路由协议在“交换能力特定信息”字段中携带特定于技术的信息；见[RFC4203]。为具有支持可变离散带宽的交换功能的接口做广告的节点应在其OSPF-TE LSA消息中包含一个或多个可用性SCSI TLV。每个可用性SCSI-TLV都提供了有关链路可支持指定可用性的带宽的信息。该信息可用于节点的路径计算。
The Availability SCSI-TLV MUST NOT be sent in ISCDs with Switching Capability field values that have not been defined to support the Availability SCSI-TLV. Non-supporting nodes would see such an ISCD/LSA as malformed.
在ISCD中发送的可用性SCSI-TLV不得包含未定义为支持可用性SCSI-TLV的交换能力字段值。非支持节点会认为这样的ISCD/LSA格式不正确。
The absence of the Availability SCSI-TLV in an ISCD containing Switching Capability field values that have been defined to support the Availability SCSI-TLV SHALL be interpreted as representing the fixed-bandwidth link with the highest availability value.
包含交换能力字段值的ISCD中缺少可用性SCSI-TLV，该字段值已定义为支持可用性SCSI-TLV，应解释为代表具有最高可用性值的固定带宽链路。
Only one Availability SCSI-TLV for the specific availability level SHOULD be sent. If multiple TLVs are present, the Availability SCSI-TLV with the lowest bandwidth value SHALL be processed. If an Availability SCSI-TLV with an invalid value (e.g., larger than 1) is received, the Availability SCSI-TLV will be ignored.
只应发送一个特定可用性级别的可用性SCSI-TLV。如果存在多个TLV，则应处理具有最低带宽值的可用性SCSI-TLV。如果收到的可用性SCSI-TLV的值无效（例如大于1），则将忽略该可用性SCSI-TLV。
This document specifies the contents of Opaque LSAs in OSPFv2. Tampering with GMPLS-TE LSAs may have an effect on TE computations. [RFC3630] suggests such mechanisms as the mechanism described in [RFC2154] to protect the transmission of this information, and those or other mechanisms should be used to secure and/or authenticate the information carried in the Opaque LSAs. An analysis of the security of OSPF is provided in [RFC6863] and applies to the OSPF extension defined in this document. Any new mechanisms developed to protect the transmission of information carried in Opaque LSAs will also automatically protect the extension defined in this document.
本文件规定了OSPFv2中不透明LSA的内容。篡改GMPLS-TE LSA可能会影响TE计算。[RFC3630]建议使用[RFC2154]中所述的机制来保护该信息的传输，并且应使用这些或其他机制来保护和/或验证不透明LSA中携带的信息。[RFC6863]中提供了对OSPF安全性的分析，并适用于本文档中定义的OSPF扩展。为保护不透明LSA中信息传输而开发的任何新机制也将自动保护本文件中定义的扩展。
Please refer to [RFC5920] for details on security threats; defensive techniques; monitoring, detection, and reporting of security attacks; and requirements.
有关安全威胁的详细信息，请参阅[RFC5920]；防守技术；监控、检测和报告安全攻击；和要求。
This document introduces a new type of Generalized SCSI-TLV (Availability) that is carried in the OSPF-TE LSA messages. Technology-specific documents will reference this document to describe the specific use of this Availability SCSI-TLV.
本文档介绍了OSPF-TE LSA消息中携带的一种新型通用SCSI-TLV（可用性）。特定于技术的文档将引用本文档来描述此可用性SCSI-TLV的具体用途。
IANA created a registry called the "Generalized SCSI (Switching Capability Specific Information) TLV Types" registry [RFC8258]. The registry has been updated to include the following Availability SCSI-TLV:
IANA创建了一个名为“通用SCSI（交换能力特定信息）TLV类型”注册表[RFC8258]。注册表已更新，以包括以下可用性SCSI-TLV：
Type Description Switching Type Reference
------ ------------ -------------- ---------
0x000A Availability 5, 52 RFC 8330
Type Description Switching Type Reference
------ ------------ -------------- ---------
0x000A Availability 5, 52 RFC 8330
New switching types are required in order to use the Availability SCSI-TLV. IANA has registered the following in the "Switching Types" registry:
为了使用SCSI-TLV的可用性，需要新的交换类型。IANA已在“切换类型”注册表中注册了以下内容：
Value Name Reference
----- -------------------------- ---------
5 PSC with GSCSI support RFC 8330
52 L2SC with GSCSI support RFC 8330
Value Name Reference
----- -------------------------- ---------
5 PSC with GSCSI support RFC 8330
52 L2SC with GSCSI support RFC 8330
[IEEE754-2008] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Floating-Point Arithmetic", IEEE 754-2008, DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2008.4610935.
[IEEE754-2008]IEEE，“IEEE浮点运算标准”，IEEE 754-2008，DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2008.4610935。
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <https://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<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4202] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, DOI 10.17487/RFC4202, October 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4202>.
[RFC4202]Kompella，K.，Ed.，和Y.Rekhter，Ed.，“支持通用多协议标签交换（GMPLS）的路由扩展”，RFC 4202，DOI 10.17487/RFC4202，2005年10月<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4202>.
[RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, DOI 10.17487/RFC4203, October 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4203>.
[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，DOI 10.17487/RFC4203，2005年10月<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4203>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8174]Leiba，B.，“RFC 2119关键词中大写与小写的歧义”，BCP 14，RFC 8174，DOI 10.17487/RFC8174，2017年5月<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8258] Ceccarelli, D. and L. Berger, "Generalized SCSI: A Generic Structure for Interface Switching Capability Descriptor (ISCD) Switching Capability Specific Information (SCSI)", RFC 8258, DOI 10.17487/RFC8258, October 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8258>.
[RFC8258]Ceccarelli，D.和L.Berger，“通用SCSI：接口交换能力描述符（ISCD）交换能力特定信息（SCSI）的通用结构”，RFC 8258，DOI 10.17487/RFC8258，2017年10月<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8258>.
[F.1703] International Telecommunication Union, "Availability objectives for real digital fixed wireless links used in 27 500 km hypothetical reference paths and connections", ITU-R Recommendation F.1703-0, January 2005, <https://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-F.1703-0-200501-I/en>.
[F.1703]国际电信联盟，“27 500 km假设参考路径和连接中使用的真实数字固定无线链路的可用性目标”，ITU-R建议F.1703-0，2005年1月<https://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-F.1703-0-200501-I/en>.
[G.827] International Telecommunication Union, "Availability performance parameters and objectives for end-to-end international constant bit-rate digital paths", ITU-T Recommendation G.827, September 2003, <https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.827/en>.
[G.827]国际电信联盟，“端到端国际恒定比特率数字路径的可用性性能参数和目标”，ITU-T建议G.827，2003年9月<https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.827/en>.
[P.530] International Telecommunication Union, "Propagation data and prediction methods required for the design of terrestrial line-of-sight systems", ITU-R Recommendation P.530-17, December 2017, <https://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-P.530/en>.
[P.530]国际电信联盟，“地面视线系统设计所需的传播数据和预测方法”，ITU-R建议P.530-172017年12月<https://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-P.530/en>.
[RFC2154] Murphy, S., Badger, M., and B. Wellington, "OSPF with Digital Signatures", RFC 2154, DOI 10.17487/RFC2154, June 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2154>.
[RFC2154]Murphy，S.，Badger，M.，和B.Wellington，“具有数字签名的OSPF”，RFC 2154，DOI 10.17487/RFC2154，1997年6月<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2154>.
[RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3630>.
[RFC3630]Katz，D.，Kompella，K.，和D.Yeung，“OSPF版本2的交通工程（TE）扩展”，RFC 3630，DOI 10.17487/RFC3630，2003年9月<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3630>.
[RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks", RFC 5920, DOI 10.17487/RFC5920, July 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5920>.
[RFC5920]方，L.，编辑，“MPLS和GMPLS网络的安全框架”，RFC 5920，DOI 10.17487/RFC5920，2010年7月<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5920>.
[RFC6863] Hartman, S. and D. Zhang, "Analysis of OSPF Security According to the Keying and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design Guide", RFC 6863, DOI 10.17487/RFC6863, March 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6863>.
[RFC6863]Hartman，S.和D.Zhang，“根据路由协议键控和认证（KARP）设计指南分析OSPF安全性”，RFC 6863，DOI 10.17487/RFC6863，2013年3月<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6863>.
[RSVP-TE-Availability] Long, H., Ye, M., Mirsky, G., D'Alessandro, A., and H. Shah, "Ethernet Traffic Parameters with Availability Information", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability-08, January 2018.
[RSVP TE可用性]Long，H.，Ye，M.，Mirsky，G.，D'Alessandro，A.，和H.Shah，“具有可用性信息的以太网流量参数”，正在进行的工作，草稿-ietf-ccamp-RSVP-TE-bandwidth-Availability-082018年1月。
Acknowledgments
致谢
The authors would like to thank Acee Lindem, Daniele Ceccarelli, and Lou Berger for their comments on the document.
作者要感谢Acee Lindem、Daniele Ceccarelli和Lou Berger对该文件的评论。
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Hao Long Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. No. 1899, Xiyuan Avenue, Hi-tech Western District Chengdu 611731 China
中国成都高新西区西园大道1899号昊龙华为技术有限公司611731
Phone: +86-18615778750
Email: longhao@huawei.com
Phone: +86-18615778750
Email: longhao@huawei.com
Min Ye Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. No. 1899, Xiyuan Avenue, Hi-tech Western District Chengdu 611731 China
中国成都高新西区西园大道1899号民业华为技术有限公司611731
Email: amy.yemin@huawei.com
Email: amy.yemin@huawei.com
Greg Mirsky ZTE
格雷格·米尔斯基中兴通讯
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Alessandro D'Alessandro Telecom Italia S.p.A.
亚历山德罗意大利电信公司。
Email: alessandro.dalessandro@telecomitalia.it
Email: alessandro.dalessandro@telecomitalia.it
Himanshu Shah Ciena Corp. 3939 North First Street San Jose, CA 95134 United States of America
Himanshu Shah Ciena Corp.美国加利福尼亚州圣何塞北第一街3939号，邮编95134
Email: hshah@ciena.com
Email: hshah@ciena.com