1. 60th IETF, San Diego, August 2004 OSPF MPLS Traffic Engineering capabilities draft-vasseur-ospf-te-caps-00.txt Jean-Philippe Vasseur (jvasseur@cisco.com)jvasseur@cisco.com Peter Psenak (ppsenak@cisco.com)ppsenak@cisco.com Seisho Yasukawa (yasukawa.seisho@lab.ntt.co.jp)yasukawa.seisho@lab.ntt.co.jp Jean Louis Le Roux (jeanlouis.leroux@francetelecom.com)jeanlouis.leroux@francetelecom.com

2. 60th IETF, San Diego, August 2004 Background Used to be two drafts specifying TE-related sub-TLVs:  draft-vasseur-ccamp-isis-te-caps  draft-vasseur-ccamp-ospf-te-caps  draft-vasseur-ccamp-router-info-00.txt (CCAMP) Describes extensions to MPLS Traffic Engineering routing for the advertisement of Traffic Engineering Router Information and capabilities. This document specifies a functional description of these extensions whereas protocol specific formats and mechanisms are described in separate documents.  draft-vasseur-ospf-te-caps-00.txt (OSPF) This document specifies OSPF traffic engineering capability TLVs related to various MPLS Traffic Engineering capabilities. These OSPF TE capability TLVs are carried within the OSPF router information LSA (opaque type of 4, opaque ID of 0) specified in draft-ietf-ospf-cap- 02.txt.  draft-vasseur-isis-te-caps-00.txt (IS-IS) IS-IS specifics

3. 60th IETF, San Diego, August 2004 Quick overview/summary Three categories of TE-related sub-TLVs defined in the ID  PCE (Path Computation Element) discovery: used in various contexts such as Inter-domain, CPU intensive TE LSP path computation (NP-complete pbs, …), GMPLS, …  TE-MESH-GROUP: allows for auto-discovery of TE mesh group members  TE-NODE-CAP: used of the advertisement of control and data plane node capabilities (e.g. P2MP TE capable node) Some sub-TLV can be made of sub-TLVs themselves Support of various flooding scopes (link, area, routing) by means of the opaque LSA type (9, 10 or 11) – Defined on a per-capability basis. A router may generate multiple OSPF router information LSAs with different flooding scopes. No specific new elements of procedure as far as OSPF is concerned.

4. 60th IETF, San Diego, August 2004 Proposed next steps Pretty straightforward draft … no outstanding issues as far as OSPF is concerned, Implementations exists, technology deployed. No Major planned changes Make it a WG document?