[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Moving LSP ownership between control plane and management plane



Sorry for this but may be not all have read the ID, I hope that having the
text help the discussion.

Regards

Diego




   Network Working Group
   Internet Draft                                        Diego Caviglia
   Document: draft-caviglia-mp2cpcp2mp-02.txt             Marconi
   Proposed Status: Updates RFC 3473                      Dino Bramanti
                                                                Marconi
   Expires: December 2005                                 Nicola Ciulli
                                                              NextWorks

                                                              June 2005




     GMPLS Signaling Extensions for the Transfer of Ownership of Label
         Switched Paths Between the Management and Control Planes



   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progressÆÆ.

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html


Abstract

   During migration scenarios it may be desirable to transfer the
   ownership of a Label Switched Path (LSP) from the Management Plane
   (MP) to the Control Plane (CP), or vice versa. If the LSP is carrying
   traffic this change needs to be made "in service," that is, without
   affecting traffic.
   This memo provides minor extensions to the Generalized Multi Protocol
   Label Switching (GMPLS) signaling protocol, GRSVP_TE (Generalized
   Resource Reservation Protocol with Traffic Engineering Extensions),



Caviglia et al.        Expires - December 2005               [Page 1]
                     draft-caviglia-mp2cpcp2mp-02            June 2005


   to enable such transfer of ownership and describes the proposed
   procedures.


Conventions used in this document

   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 [1].


Table of Contents

   1. Introduction...................................................2
   2. Problem Explanation............................................3
   3. Proposed solution..............................................3
   4. LSP Ownership Handover Procedure Between Management And Control
   Planes............................................................5
      4.1 "MP to CP handover" - LSP Ownership Transfer From Management
      Plane To Control Plane.........................................5
      4.2 MP to CP Handover Procedure Failure Handling...............8
      4.3 "CP to MP handover" - LSP Ownership Transfer From Control
      Plane To     Management Plane..................................8
      4.4 CP to MP Handover Procedure Failure Handling...............9
   5. RSVP Message Formats..........................................10
      5.1 Object Modification.......................................10
   6. Security Considerations.......................................10
   7. IANA Consideration............................................10
   8. References....................................................11
   9. Acknowledgments...............................................11
   Author's Addresses...............................................11


1. Introduction

   In a typical, traditional transport network scenario, Data Plane
   connections between two endpoints are controlled basically by means
   of a Network Management System (NMS) operating within Management
   Plane (MP). NMS/MP is the owner of such transport connections, being
   responsible of their set up, tear down and maintenance. The adoption
   and use of a GMPLS Control Plane over networks that are controlled by
   NMS at Management Plane level and that are already in service could
   not be considered a green field application. In this context, let's
   indicate with the term Label Switched Path (LSP) the Data Plane
   forwarding path and Data Plane state associated to a connection,
   whose control is owned by either Management or Control Plane (via
   GRSVP-TE). In a mixed scenario, LSPs owned by Management Plane and
   LSPs owned by Control Plane have to coexist and a way to move their
   control and ownership between planes, while preserving corresponding


Caviglia et al.        Expires - December 2005               [Page 2]
                     draft-caviglia-mp2cpcp2mp-02            June 2005


   Data Plane traffic, is needed. It is in fact possible that a network
   operator wants to move the control of a Management Plane owned
   transport connection to Control Plane and, in the same way, the
   opposite operation is also needed. In this memo let's indicate with
   "MP to CP handover" the procedure that is aimed at moving the control
   and ownership of a transport connection owned by Management Plane to
   Control Plane. Let's call "CP to MP handover" the opposite procedure,
   aimed at moving the ownership of a LSP from Control Plane to
   Management Plane.



2. Problem Explanation

   Having the ownership of a LSP means basically having the access to
   the information associated to a physical Data Plane connection
   between two endpoints (ingress and egress of LSP) that traverses a
   list of nodes. The owner of a LSP has to store and use such
   information (LSP hop list, associated TE information etc.) to control
   completely the LSP. Let's take the case of a Data Plane connection
   between an ingress node and an egress node, which has been set up by
   means of NMS. The network resources allocated to this connection
   cannot be used or controlled by GRSVP-TE as it doesn't have any
   information record about it. If a standard GRSVP-TE setup request
   over the same resources was issued, the nodes will reject it, as they
   find the involved resources already allocated. A standard GRSVP-TE
   release request for that LSP wont be successful as well, because LSP
   related information to be matched with the one sent in signaling
   messages is not available at Control Plane level.
   If a Data Plane connection between an ingress node and an egress has
   been set up via GRSVP-TE signaling, all the info related to the LSP
   is present at Control Plane level which is the owner of that
   connection. If NMS wants to take over the LSP, the Control Plane has
   to be informed that involved resources are no more under its control.
   In both cases, the point is that the Data Plane connection has to
   stay up, but related information allowing control of the LSP has to
   be handed over to Control Plane or Management Plane. In other words,
   a handover of LSP ownership between planes means that Data Plane
   circuit has to stay untouched in terms of topology and resources
   allocated, not only in terms of carried traffic.



3. Proposed solution

   A new flag in the Administrative Status Object (RFC 3471[4] and RFC
   3473 [5]), named Handover flag, is proposed in this memo as a mean to
   make possible necessary information exchange among GMPLS enabled
   nodes, in order to implement and support the functionality introduced


Caviglia et al.        Expires - December 2005               [Page 3]
                     draft-caviglia-mp2cpcp2mp-02            June 2005


   above. The idea is that standard GRSVP-TE signaling flow can be used
   to inform nodes about the ownership handover procedure, where such
   flow has to be flagged in order to distinguish it from normal LSP
   setup/release procedure. When a LSP owned by Management Plane has to
   be handed over to Control Plane, a signaling set-up with HANDOVER
   flag set has to be sent from ingress node. At ingress node all the
   information related to the LSP is passed to GRSVP-TE, which uses it
   to fill in the PATH message (Explicit Route Object - ERO, Traffic
   Engineering and context information). Such PATH message, sent with
   HANDOVER flag set, reaches the nodes along the LSP path and informs
   them that the referred LSP is already present at Data Plane level and
   that it has to be adopted by Control Plane. After a node has received
   such special PATH, it becomes owner of the LSP and treat it like any
   other LSP set up via GRSVP-TE. Let's call this procedure "MP to CP
   handover".
   The opposite procedure "CP to MP handover" works in a similar way.
   When a LSP owned by Control Plane has to be handed over to Management
   Plane, a signaling PATH DOWN with HANDOVER flag set has to be sent
   from ingress node along the LSP path, informing involved nodes that a
   CP to MP handover is in progress for that LSP.
   The information about that LSP under control within GRSVP-TE scope is
   passed to Management Plane at ingress node, and in every node, which
   receives flagged PATH DOWN. A node is able to recognize such special
   PATH DOWN by reading the handover flag value. If a node finds that
   flag set, then it is aware that that the related LSP has to stay
   untouched at Data Plane level, but its ownership has to be passed to
   Management Plane. It is worth stressing that, when the LSP is adopted
   either by CP or MP, i.e. at the end of signaling with Handover flag
   set, normal CP procedures or MP procedures have to take their place
   as usual when needed. This means that a LSP formerly owned by MP,
   signaled within CP with Handover flag set (i.e. handed over to CP)
   can be deleted by usual relevant Control Plane signaling flows (i.e.
   with Handover flag not set). The same applies when considering the
   handover of a LSP from CP to MP when, at the end of procedure, the
   LSP belongs to Management Plane and can be fully controlled by NMS.
   In other words, after the LSP handover procedures have taken place,
   the LSP is not different from the other LSP owned by handover
   destination entity and it has to be treated with usual rules for that
   entity.
   This is in some way similar to the Restart Procedure, (Section 4.3
   RFC 3473 [5]), in the sense that the status of the physical resources
   at Data Plane has to stay unmodified but the associated information
   allowing its control has to be transferred. The modification proposed
   in this document refers only to Administrative Status object, that
   is, the message flow is left unmodified for both set-up and deletion.
   Following section gives detailed description of proposed "MP to CP
   handover" and "CP to MP handover" procedures.
   In the following the handover of a bidirectional LSP is assumed. The
   case of unidirectional LSP can be easily derived from that.


Caviglia et al.        Expires - December 2005               [Page 4]
                     draft-caviglia-mp2cpcp2mp-02            June 2005




4. LSP Ownership Handover Procedure Between Management And Control
   Planes

   Resv Confirm message within LSP setup signaling flow SHOULD be
   supported in order to manage at best LSP Ownership Handover Procedure
   Between Control And Management Planes. If Resv Confirm is not present
   in message set used for LSP setup, the handover procedure described
   below is still applicable using the simple Path/Resv sequence (with
   handover flag set as detailed in the following). In that case,
   handover related operations that in the following description are
   triggered by reception of Resv Confirm, MUST to be executed at the
   reception of Resv message.

4.1 "MP to CP handover" - LSP Ownership Transfer From Management Plane
    To Control Plane

   Let's consider the case of a Data Plane connection between two nodes
   acting as ingress and egress for a LSP. Let's assume that Management
   Plane has the ownership and control of the LSP and that we want to
   hand it over to Control Plane.
   At the ingress node NMS initiates the transfer of LSP related
   information residing within Management Plane to GRSVP-TE records
   within Control Plane. We assume that this happens under operator or
   management application control and in particular that:

   - Control requests are sent to the ingress LSR by the MP

   - The MP has some way of knowing when the CP has completed its task
     or has failed.

   Ingress node collects from MP all the LSP related information needed
   at Control Plane level. The way this operation is done and where such
   information is collected within MP is outside the scope of this memo.
   A relevant part of such information is represented by the LSP path,
   which has to be handed over to CP to be used by signaling entity to
   fill the Explicit Route Object (ERO) during setup.
   In order to support the MP to CP handover of LSP, the ERO object in
   the Path message MUST be filled with all the LSP relevant information
   down to the Label level.  That can be done by means of the object and
   procedures defined in [5].
   The precise filling of the ERO object is needed as we are assuming
   that the LSP already exists in the network and that every signaling
   relevant info about it is available and accessible to MP in terms of
   required LSP parameters to build a GRSVP-TE PATH message. After
   gathering all the LSP related information, the ingress node sends out
   a GRSVP-TE PATH message including the Administrative Status Object
   with HANDOVER flag set.


Caviglia et al.        Expires - December 2005               [Page 5]
                     draft-caviglia-mp2cpcp2mp-02            June 2005


   Upon reception of such GRSVP-TE PATH, a node MUST be able to
   understand that a MP to CP handover procedure is in progress by
   reading Handover flag.
   Either the ingress node of the LSP (upon request from MP) and
   intermediate and egress nodes (when receiving a Path message
   containing an Administrative Status object with the Handover flag
   set) is informed about the fact that a LSP adoption procedure is
   requested or ongoing. The node assumes that a Data Plane resource
   related to the info carried in Path Message is already allocated and
   in place. The node SHOULD check however the consistence of the actual
   Data Plane status of such resource:

   - If the check goes OK, then a GRSVP-TE record for the LSP is
     created associating it to the corresponding Data Plane state. The
     node accepts all the LSP information carried in PATH (if the node
     is not ingress of the LSP, otherwise the information is sent from
     relevant MP entity) and stores it in Path State Block. After that,
     the procedure goes on as described below.

   - If the check goes NOT OK, that is actual Data Plane state for the
     indicated resource is different from the one indicated in the Path
     message, then:

        o A PathErr with Path State Removed flag set should be generated

        o GMPLS Control Plane state information about it is not accepted
          by the  handover destination entity


   In both cases, no operation is done over Data Plane. In case of
   positive check, no change is required at that level since the
   connection is already set up and in service. In case of negative
   check, a mismatch or some other error has occurred and no LSP control
   handover is possible. The procedure rolls back and information
   transfer process from MP to CP at ingress node of the LSP has to be
   fixed and reinitiated. A node participating in a MP to CP handover
   procedure MUST in fact keep track of the special 'handover' condition
   of the LSP involved, by retaining handover flag status within GRSVP-
   TE records.
   This is important because during handover procedure no other Data
   Plane, Control Plane or Management Plane action has to be taken on
   the LSP outside the control of the procedure itself. Such special
   state regarding the involved LSP has to be retained until the
   procedure itself has correctly ended.
   After propagating handover Path, a node MUST wait for a Resv message
   including Administrative Status Object with handover flag set. After
   receiving it, the actual migration of LSP information is complete.
   However, Handover flag is cleared in Path/Resv state block of the
   involved LSP, only by reception of ResvConfirm message (or Resv


Caviglia et al.        Expires - December 2005               [Page 6]
                     draft-caviglia-mp2cpcp2mp-02            June 2005


   message, if ResvConfirm is not supported). After the flag is cleared,
   the LSP is left completely under control of GRSVP- TE within Control
   Plane. This means that any memory about the former MP ownership of
   the LSP is lost.
   The following example covers all possible MP to CP Handover
   scenarios, either in case of success or failure. In the example we
   assume that Data Plane connection, whose control and control
   information has to be handed over from MP to CP, is TDM based (either
   SDH or SONET). A more generic case, where the Data Plane resource
   making up the LSP is not tied to a specific technology, can easily be
   derived from this one. The table refers to possible cases when a node
   at CP level has received LSP information provided by MP and verifies
   if handover is feasible.
   Let's consider a LSP over the network, connecting a ingress node I
   with an egress node E. Let's call timeslot A and B the Data Plane
   resources referred by control information involved in Handover in a
   given node traversed by the LSP. This means that Handover flagged
   signaling refers to A-B cross-connection over Data Plane.
   The ingress node initiates the procedure upon request from Management
   Plane. The way LSP related information is passed from MP to ingress
   node is outside the scope of this procedure description.
   Intermediates nodes and egress node receive the request for LSP
   adoption and the information needed for the operation from Handover
   flagged GRSVP-TE signaling.
   The symbol <----> in table below indicates that the two Timeslots
   involved in Data Plane cross-connection are actually cross-connected
   over Data Plane, hence Data Plane state corresponds to the indication
   provided by LSP data held by MP and in the process of being handed
   over to CP.

         |Actual Data|Control Plane  |Management Plane|Data Plane
         |Plane State|LSP data record|LSP data record |Resources check
   Case 1|  A<---->B |No info yet    |MP expects A-B  |OK to MP to CP
         |           |               |                |LSP handover
   Case 2|  A<---->C |No info yet    |MP expects A-B  |NOT OK for MP to
         |           |               |                |CP LSP handover

   Case 1:
   - LSP info from Management Plane to be used for LSP control hand
     over to GRSVP-TE matches Data Plane state in terms of involved
     resources
   - LSP data record is not owned yet by Control Plane, hence LSP
     control is still up to MP
   - Checks are OK, so GRSVP-TE state (related to involved LSP) is
     associated to Data Plane state after Handover flagged signaling
     flow (Path/Resv/Resv Confirm with Handover flag set) has ended.
   - At the end of signaling the LSP is completely under CP control.
   - No actions are taken in the Data Plane.


Caviglia et al.        Expires - December 2005               [Page 7]
                     draft-caviglia-mp2cpcp2mp-02            June 2005




   Case 2:
   - LSP info from Management Plane to be used for LSP control hand
     over to GRSVP-TE doesn't match Data Plane state in terms of
     involved resources.
   - Control Plane does not own LSP data record yet; hence LSP control
     is still up to MP.
   - Checks are NOT OK. A-B connection is not actually present over
     Data Plane and indicated resources are used within other context
     (A is x-connected to C).
   - GRSVP-TE state (related to involved LSP) is not associated to the
     cross connection after Handover flagged Path message.
   - A PathErr with Path State Removed flag set MUST be sent Upstream.
   - LSP ownership remains completely under MP control. Handover has
     failed.
   - No actions are taken in the Data Plane.


4.2 MP to CP Handover Procedure Failure Handling


   When a mismatch is detected between LSP information owned by MP (and
   going to be handed over to CP) and the actual Data Plane state
   corresponding to that LSP, actions have to be taken to roll back the
   LSP ownership handover correctly.
   If such mismatch is detected at LSP ingress node, the issue has to be

   resolved directly between ingress node and MP designed entity and
   this lies outside the scope of this memo. No Control plane signaling
   is involved yet at this stage.
   If the mismatch is detected at intermediate or egress nodes, when the
   LSP control information arrives at the node via handover flagged Path
   message, the node MUST reject it by issuing PathErr with Path State
   Removed towards the ingress node. In such a way the procedure is
   interrupted at that node, upstream nodes are informed and no changes
   are done over control and Data Plane. When a node receives PathErr
   with Path State Removed referred to a LSP, whose data record at CP
   has handover flag set (being in 'handover state'), it MUST clear such
   LSP data record and propagate the PathErr message upstream.
   No Data Plane actions have to be taken in this case as well.
   The same applies to PathTear message.


4.3 "CP to MP handover" - LSP Ownership Transfer From Control Plane To
    Management Plane

   Let's now consider the case of LSP Ownership Transfer From Control
   Plane To     Management Plane. The scenario is still a Data Plane
   connection between two     nodes acting as ingress and egress for a


Caviglia et al.        Expires - December 2005               [Page 8]
                     draft-caviglia-mp2cpcp2mp-02            June 2005


   LSP. But let's assume in this case     that Control Plane has the
   ownership and control of the LSP and that we want    to hand it over
   to Management Plane. This means that at the end of such    procedure,
   the Data Plane state related to that connection is still untouched,
   but the LSP related information record is no more owned by GRSVP-TE
   over Control Plane.
   In other words, after LSP ownership transfer from CP to MP, the LSP
   is no more under control of GRSVP-TE, which is no more able to "see"
   the LSP itself. This Section covers the procedure needed to manage
   this procedure as a dual, opposite procedure respect to the one
   described in previous section.
   The procedure is performed at a signaling level as described in
   Section 7.2.1 of the RFC 3473 [5].

   At LSP ingress node, relevant MP entity requests the ownership of the
   LSP, How this is done is outside the scope of memo. Ingress node and
   MP exchange the relevant information for this task and then
   propagates it over Control Plane by means of GRSVP-TE tear down
   signaling flow as detailed below.
   Ingress node MUST send out a Path Down message, with Handover and
   Reflect bits in Admin Status set. No action is taken over Data Plane
   and Control Plane keeps track of special handover state the LSP is
   in.
   Transit and Egress nodes, upon reception of such handover Path Down,
   propagate it without any Data Plane action, retaining the handover
   state information associated to the LSP. After that, every node waits
   until the Handover bit is received back in the Resv. Then a PathTear
   is issued and the whole LSP information record is cleared from GRSVP-
   TE data structures. In other words, a normal LSP tear down signaling
   is exchanged between nodes traversed by the LSP, but handover flag
   set in Path Down message indicates that no Data Plane action has to
   correspond to Control Plane signaling. At the end of handover tear
   down signaling flow, the LSP is released from Control Plane point of
   view, but its Data Plane state is still unmodified and it is now
   owned and controllable by MP.



4.4 CP to MP Handover Procedure Failure Handling

   Failures during CP to MP handover procedure MUST be managed at
   signaling level as in normal LSP tear down procedure. The only
   difference is the handover flag set in Administrative Status Object
   inside Path Down message which MUST be read by receiving node and
   imposes that no action has to be made over Data Plane resource whose
   corresponding Control Plane record is involved in handover procedure.





Caviglia et al.        Expires - December 2005               [Page 9]
                     draft-caviglia-mp2cpcp2mp-02            June 2005



5. RSVP Message Formats

   This memo does not introduce any modification in RSVP messages.


5.1 Object Modification

   This memo introduces a new flag into the Administrative Status
   object.
   The Admin_Status Object is defined in RFC 3473 [5].
   This document uses the H-bit of the Admin_Status object. The bit is
   bit number (TBD by IANA).

   Handover signaling (H): 1 bit

   When set, indicates that a Handover procedure for the transfer of LSP
   ownership between Management and Control Planes is ongoing .



6. Security Considerations

   The procedures described in this document rely completely on GRSVP-TE
   messages and mechanism. The use of Handover Flag set in Admin Status
   Object basically informs the receiving entity that no operations are
   to be done over Data Plane as consequence of such special signaling
   flow. Using specially flagged signaling messages we want to limit the
   function of setup and tear down messages to Control Plane, making
   them not effective over related Data Plane resource usage. So, no
   additional or special issues are arisen by adopting this procedure,
   that aren't already brought up by the use of the same messages,
   without handover flag setting, for LSP control. For GRSVP-TE Security
   please refer to [3].

7. IANA Consideration

   IANA has been asked to manage the bit allocations for the
   Administrative Status object [6].
   This document requires the allocation of the Handover bit: the H-bit.
   IANA is requested to allocate a bit for this purpose.










Caviglia et al.        Expires - December 2005              [Page 10]
                     draft-caviglia-mp2cpcp2mp-02            June 2005


8. References

   [1] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP
   9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

   [2] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
   Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997

   [3] Crocker, D. and Overell, P.(Editors), "Augmented BNF for Syntax
   Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, Internet Mail Consortium and Demon
   Internet Ltd., November 1997

   [4] L. Berger (Ed.) ææGeneralized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
   (GMPLS) Signaling Functional DescriptionÆÆ, RFC 3471, January 2003

   [5] L. Berger (Ed.) ææGeneralized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
   (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering
   (RSVP-TE) ExtensionsÆÆ, RFC 3473, January 2003

   [6] Zamfir, A., " Component Link Recording and Resource Control for

   GMPLS Link Bundles", draft-zamfir-explicit-resource-control-bundle-
   03, February 2004 - work in progress.

   [7] L. Berger (Ed.) "GMPLS - Communication of Alarm Information",
   draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-02.txt, November 2004, work in
   progress.



9. Acknowledgments

   Adrian Farrel provided editorial assistance to prepare this draft for
   publication.


Author's Addresses

   Diego Caviglia
   Marconi
   Via A. Negrone 1/A
   Genova-Sestri Ponente, Italy
   Phone: +390106003738
   Email: diego.caviglia@marconi.com


   Dino Bramanti
   Marconi
   Via Moruzzi 1



Caviglia et al.        Expires - December 2005              [Page 11]
                     draft-caviglia-mp2cpcp2mp-02            June 2005


   C/O Area Ricerca CNR
   Pisa, Italy
   Email: dino.bramanti@marconi.com

   Nicola Ciulli
   NextWorks
   Corso Italia 116
   56125 Pisa, Italy
   Email: n.ciulli@nextworks.it


Intellectual Property Rights Notices

   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.

   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.

   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.


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). 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.

   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 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.


Caviglia et al.        Expires - December 2005              [Page 12]
                     draft-caviglia-mp2cpcp2mp-02            June 2005





















































Caviglia et al.        Expires - December 2005              [Page 13]