Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect
draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect
TEAS Working Group F. Zhang, Ed.
Internet-Draft Huawei
Intended status: Standards Track O. Gonzalez de Dios, Ed.
Expires November 26, 2016 Telefonica Global CTO
M. Hartley
Z. Ali
Cisco
C. Margaria
May 26, 2016
RSVP-TE Extensions for Collecting SRLG Information
draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-06
Abstract
This document provides extensions for the Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE), including GMPLS, to support
automatic collection of Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) information for
the TE link formed by a Label Switched Path (LSP).
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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 progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 26, 2016.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
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
Zhang, et al. Expires November 26, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Ext for Collecting SRLG May 2016
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Applicability Example: Dual Homing . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. RSVP-TE Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. SRLG Collection Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. SRLG Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. SRLG Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4. SRLG ID definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Encodings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. SRLG Collection Flag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. RRO SRLG sub-object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Signaling Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. SRLG Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. SRLG Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.3 Domain Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.4. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. Policy Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2. Coherent SRLG IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.1. RSVP Attribute Bit Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.2. ROUTE_RECORD Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.3. Policy Control Failure Error subcodes . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
It is important to understand which Traffic Engineering (TE) links in
the network might be at risk from the same failures. In this sense,
a set of links can constitute a 'shared risk link group' (SRLG) if
they share a resource whose failure can affect all links in the set
[RFC4202].
Zhang, et al. Expires November 26, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Ext for Collecting SRLG May 2016
On the other hand, as described in [RFC4206] and [RFC6107], H-LSP
(Hierarchical LSP) or S-LSP (stitched LSP) can be used for carrying
one or more other LSPs. Both of the H-LSP and S-LSP can be formed as
a TE link. In such cases, it is important to know the SRLG
information of the LSPs that will be used to carry further LSPs.
This document provides a signaling mechanism to collect the SRLGs
used by a LSP, which can then be advertized as properties of the TE-
link formed by that LSP.
1.1. Applicability Example: Dual Homing
An interesting use case for the SRLG collection procedures defined in
this document is achieving LSP diversity in a dual homing scenario.
The use case is illustrated in Figure 1, when the overlay model is
applied as defined in RFC 4208 [RFC4208] . In this example, the
exchange of routing information over the User-Network Interface (UNI)
is prohibited by operator policy.
+---+ +---+
| P |....| P |
+---+ +---+
/ \
+-----+ +-----+
+---+ | PE1 | | PE3 | +---+
|CE1|----| | | |----|CE2|
+---+\ +-----+ +-----+ /+---+
\ | | /
\ +-----+ +-----+ /
\| PE2 | | PE4 |/
| | | |
+-----+ +-----+
\ /
+---+ +---+
| P |....| P |
+---+ +---+
Figure 1: Dual Homing Configuration
Single-homed customer edge (CE) devices are connected to a single
provider edge (PE) device via a single UNI link (which could be a
bundle of parallel links, typically using the same fiber cable). This
single UNI link can constitute a single point of failure. Such a
single point of failure can be avoided if the CE device is connected
to two PE devices via two UNI interfaces as depicted in Figure 1
above for CE1 and CE2, respectively.
For the dual-homing case, it is possible to establish two connections
Zhang, et al. Expires November 26, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Ext for Collecting SRLG May 2016
(LSPs) from the source CE device to the same destination CE device
where one connection is using one UNI link to PE1, for example, and
the other connection is using the UNI link to PE2. In order to avoid
single points of failure within the provider network, it is necessary
to also ensure path (LSP) diversity within the provider network in
order to achieve end-to-end diversity for the two LSPs between the
two CE devices CE1 and CE2. This use case describes how it is
possible to achieve path diversity within the provider network based
on collected SRLG information. As the two connections (LSPs) enter
the provider network at different PE devices, the PE device that
receives the connection request for the second connection needs to
know the additional path computation constraints such that the path
of the second LSP is disjoint with respect to the already established
first connection.
As SRLG information is normally not shared between the provider
network and the client network, i.e., between PE and CE devices, the
challenge is how to solve the diversity problem when a CE is dual-
homed. The RSVP extensions for collecting SRLG information defined
in this document make it possible to retrieve SRLG information for an
LSP and hence solve the dual-homing LSP diversity problem. For
example, CE1 in Figure 1 may have requested an LSP1 to CE2 via PE1
that is routed via PE3 to CE2. CE1 can then subsequently request an
LSP2 to CE2 via PE2 with the constraint that it needs to be maximally
SRLG disjoint with respect to LSP1. PE2, however, does not have any
SRLG information associated with LSP1, which is needed as input for
its constraint-based path computation function. If CE1 is capable of
retrieving the SRLG information associated with LSP1 from PE1, it can
pass this discovered information to PE2 as part of the LSP2 setup
request (RSVP PATH message) in an EXCLUDE_ROUTE Object (XRO) or
Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject (EXRS) as described in [RFC4874],
and PE2 can now calculate a path for LSP2 that is SRLG disjoint with
respect to LSP1. The SRLG information associated with LSP1 can be
retrieved when LSP1 is established or at any time before LSP2 is
setup.
When CE1 sends the setup request for LSP2 to PE2, it can also request
the collection of SRLG information for LSP2 and send that information
to PE1 by re-signaling LSP1 with SRLG-exclusion based on LSP2's
discovered SRLGs. This will ensure that the two paths for the two
LSPs remain mutually diverse, which is important when the provider
network is capable of restoring connections that failed due to a
network failure (fiber cut) in the provider network.
Note that the knowledge of SRLG information even for multiple LSPs
does not allow a CE device to derive the provider network topology
based on the collected SRLG information. It would, however, be
possible for an entity controlling multiple CE devices to derive some
Zhang, et al. Expires November 26, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Ext for Collecting SRLG May 2016
information related to the topology. This document therefore allows
PE devices to control the communication of SRLGs outside the provider
network if desired.
2. Requirements Language
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].
3. RSVP-TE Requirements
The SRLG-collection process takes place in three stages:
o The LSP's ingress node requests that SRLG collection take place;
o SRLG data is added to the Path and Resv ROUTE_RECORD Objects
(RROs) by all nodes during signaling;
o Changes to previously-signaled SRLG data are made by sending
updated Path and Resv messages as required.
3.1. SRLG Collection Indication
The ingress node of the LSP needs be capable of indicating whether
the SRLG information of the LSP is to be collected during the
signaling procedure of setting up an LSP. There is no need for SRLG
information to be collected without an explicit request for it being
made by the ingress node.
It may be preferable for the SRLG collection request to be understood
by all nodes along the LSP's path, or it may be more important for
the LSP to be established successfully even if it traverses nodes
that cannot supply SRLG information or have not implemented the
procedures specified in this document. It is desirable for the
ingress node to make the SRLG collection request in a manner that
best suits its own policy.
3.2. SRLG Collection
If requested, the SRLG information is collected during the setup of
an LSP. SRLG information is added by each hop to the Path RRO during
Path message processing. The same information is also added to the
Resv RRO during Resv processing at each hop.
3.3. SRLG Update
Zhang, et al. Expires November 26, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Ext for Collecting SRLG May 2016
When the SRLG information of an existing LSP for which SRLG
information was collected during signaling changes, the relevant
nodes of the LSP need to be capable of updating the SRLG information
of the LSP. This means that the signaling procedure needs to be
capable of updating the new SRLG information.
3.4. SRLG ID definition
The identifier of an SRLG (SRLG ID) is defined as a 32-bit quantity
in [RFC4202]. This definition is used in this document.
4. Encodings
4.1. SRLG Collection Flag
In order to indicate to nodes that SRLG collection is desired, this
document defines a new flag in the Attribute Flags TLV (see RFC 5420
[RFC5420]), which MAY be carried in an LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES or
LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object:
o Bit Number (specified in Section 8.1): SRLG Collection flag
The SRLG Collection flag is meaningful on a Path message. If the
SRLG Collection flag is set to 1, it means that the SRLG information
SHOULD be reported to the ingress and egress node along the setup of
the LSP.
The rules for the processing of the Attribute Flags TLV are not
changed.
4.2. RRO SRLG sub-object
This document defines a new RRO sub-object (ROUTE_RECORD sub-object)
to record the SRLG information of the LSP. Its format is modeled on
the RRO sub-objects defined in RFC 3209 [RFC3209].
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 |D| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SRLG ID 1 (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ...... ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SRLG ID n (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Zhang, et al. Expires November 26, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Ext for Collecting SRLG May 2016
Type (8 bits)
The type of the sub-object. The value is specified in Section 8.2.
Length (8 bits)
The Length field contains the total length of the sub-object in
octets, including the Type and Length fields. The Length depends on
the number of SRLG IDs.
Direction bit (D-bit) (1 bit)
If not set, the SRLGs contained in this sub-object apply to the
downstream direction. If set, they apply to the upstream direction.
Reserved (15 bits)
This 15-bit field is reserved. It SHOULD be set to zero on
transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
SRLG ID (4 octets)
This field contains one SRLG ID. There is one SRLG ID field per SRLG
collected. There MAY be multiple SRLG ID fields in an SRLG sub-
object.
A node MUST NOT push a SRLG sub-object in the RECORD_ROUTE without
also pushing either a IPv4 sub-object, a IPv6 sub-object, a
Unnumbered Interface ID sub-object or a Path Key sub-object.
As described in RFC 3209 [RFC3209], the RECORD_ROUTE object is
managed as a stack. The SRLG sub-object SHOULD be pushed by the node
before the node IP address or link identifier. The SRLG-sub-object
SHOULD be pushed after the Attribute sub-object, if present, and
after the LABEL sub-object, if requested. It MUST be pushed within
the hop to which it applies.
RFC 5553 [RFC5553] describes mechanisms to carry a PKS (Path Key Sub-
object) in the RRO so as to facilitate confidentiality in the
signaling of inter-domain TE LSPs, and allows the path segment that
needs to be hidden (that is, a Confidential Path Segment (CPS)) to be
replaced in the RRO with a PKS. If the CPS contains SRLG Sub-
objects, these MAY be retained in the RRO by adding them again after
the PKS Sub-object in the RRO. The CPS is defined in RFC 5520
[RFC5520].
The rules for the processing of the LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES,
LSP_ATTRIBUTE and ROUTE_RECORD Objects are not changed.
Zhang, et al. Expires November 26, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Ext for Collecting SRLG May 2016
5. Signaling Procedures
The ingress node of the LSP MUST be capable of indicating whether the
SRLG information of the LSP is to be collected during the signaling
procedure of setting up an LSP.
5.1. SRLG Collection
Per RFC 3209 [RFC3209], an ingress node initiates the recording of
the route information of an LSP by adding a RRO to a Path message. If
an ingress node also desires SRLG recording, it MUST set the SRLG
Collection Flag in the Attribute Flags TLV which MAY be carried
either in an LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object when the collection is
mandatory, or in an LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object when the collection is
desired, but not mandatory.
A node SHOULD NOT add SRLG information without an explicit request
for it being made by the ingress node in the Path message.
When a node receives a Path message which carries an
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object with the SRLG Collection Flag set, if
local policy determines that the SRLG information is not to be
provided to the endpoints, it MUST return a PathErr message with:
o Error Code 2 (policy) and
o Error subcode "SRLG Recording Rejected" (see Section 8.3 for
value)
to reject the Path message.
When a node receives a Path message which carries an LSP_ATTRIBUTES
Object with the SRLG Collection Flag set, if local policy determines
that the SRLG information is not to be provided to the endpoints, the
Path message SHOULD NOT be rejected due to the SRLG recording
restriction and the Path message SHOULD be forwarded without any SRLG
sub-object(s) added to the RRO of the corresponding outgoing Path
message.
If local policy permits the recording of the SRLG information, the
processing node SHOULD add local SRLG information, as defined below,
to the RRO of the corresponding outgoing Path message. The
processing node MAY add multiple SRLG sub-objects to the RRO if
necessary. It then forwards the Path message to the next node in the
downstream direction. The processing node MUST retain a record of the
SRLG recording request for reference during Resv processing described
below.
If the addition of SRLG information to the RRO would result in the
RRO exceeding its maximum possible size or becoming too large for the
Path message to contain it, the requested SRLGs MUST NOT be added. If
Zhang, et al. Expires November 26, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Ext for Collecting SRLG May 2016
the SRLG collection request was contained in an
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object, the processing node MUST behave as
specified by RFC 3209 [RFC3209] and drop the RRO from the Path
message entirely. If the SRLG collection request was contained in an
LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object, the processing node MAY omit some or all of
the requested SRLGs from the RRO; otherwise it MUST behave as
specified by [RFC3209] and drop the RRO from the Path message
entirely.
Following the steps described above, the intermediate nodes of the
LSP can collect the SRLG information in the RRO during the processing
of the Path message hop by hop. When the Path message arrives at the
egress node, the egress node receives SRLG information in the RRO.
Per RFC 3209 [RFC3209], when issuing a Resv message for a Path
message which contains an RRO, an egress node initiates the RRO
process by adding an RRO to the outgoing Resv message. The
processing for RROs contained in Resv messages then mirrors that of
the Path messages.
When a node receives a Resv message for an LSP for which SRLG
Collection was specified in the corresponding Path message, then when
local policy allows recording SRLG information, the node MUST add
SRLG information to the RRO of the corresponding outgoing Resv
message as specified below. When the Resv message arrives at the
ingress node, the ingress node can extract the SRLG information from
the RRO in the same way as the egress node.
Note that a link's SRLG information for the upstream direction cannot
be assumed to be the same as that in the downstream.
o For Path and Resv messages for a unidirectional LSP, a node SHOULD
include SRLG sub-objects in the RRO for the downstream data link
only.
o For Path and Resv messages for a bidirectional LSP, a node SHOULD
include SRLG sub-objects in the RRO for both the upstream data
link and the downstream data link from the local node. In this
case, the node MUST include the information in the same order for
both Path messages and Resv messages. That is, the SRLG sub-
object for the upstream link is added to the RRO before the SRLG
sub-object for the downstream link.
If SRLG data is added for both the upstream and downstream links,
the two sets of SRLG data MUST be added in separate SRLG sub-
objects. A single SRLG sub-object MUST NOT contain a mixture of
upstream and downstream SRLGs. When adding a SRLG sub-object to an
RRO, the D-bit MUST be set appropriately to indicate the direction
Zhang, et al. Expires November 26, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Ext for Collecting SRLG May 2016
of the SRLGs. If an SRLG ID applies in both directions, it SHOULD
be added to both the upstream and downstream SRLG sub-objects.
Based on the above procedure, the endpoints can get the SRLG
information automatically. Then the endpoints can for instance
advertise it as a TE link to the routing instance based on the
procedure described in [RFC6107] and configure the SRLG information
of the Forwarding Adjacency (FA) automatically.
5.2. SRLG Update
When the SRLG information of a link is changed, the endpoints of LSPs
using that link need to be made aware of the changes. When a change
to the set of SRLGs associated with a link occurs, the procedures
defined in Section 4.4.3 of RFC 3209 [RFC3209] MUST be used to
refresh the SRLG information for each affected LSP if the SRLG change
is to be communicated to other nodes according to the local node's
policy. If local policy is that the SRLG change SHOULD be suppressed
or would result in no change to the previously signaled SRLG-list,
the node SHOULD NOT send an update.
5.3 Domain Boundaries
If mandated by local policy, a node MAY remove SRLG information from
any RRO in a Path or Resv message being processed. It MAY add a
summary of the removed SRLGs or map them to other SRLG values.
However, this SHOULD NOT be done unless explicitly mandated by local
policy.
5.4. Compatibility
A node that does not recognize the SRLG Collection Flag in the
Attribute Flags TLV is expected to proceed as specified in RFC 5420
[RFC5420]. It is expected to pass the TLV on unaltered if it appears
in a LSP_ATTRIBUTES object, or reject the Path message with the
appropriate Error Code and Value if it appears in a
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object.
A node that does not recognize the SRLG RRO sub-object is expected to
behave as specified in RFC 3209 [RFC3209]: unrecognized sub-objects
are to be ignored and passed on unchanged.
6. Manageability Considerations
6.1. Policy Configuration
In a border node of inter-domain or inter-layer network, the
following SRLG processing policy MUST be capable of being configured:
Zhang, et al. Expires November 26, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Ext for Collecting SRLG May 2016
o Whether the node is allowed to participate in SRLG collection.
o Whether the node should notify changes to collected SRLG
information to endpoint nodes as described in section 5.2.
o Whether the SRLG IDs of the domain or specific layer network can
be exposed to the nodes outside the domain or layer network, or
whether they SHOULD be summarized, mapped to values that are
comprehensible to nodes outside the domain or layer network, or
removed entirely as described in section 5.3.
A node using RFC 5553 [RFC5553] and PKS MAY apply the same policy.
6.2. Coherent SRLG IDs
In a multi-layer multi-domain scenario, SRLG IDs can be configured by
different management entities in each layer/domain. In such
scenarios, maintaining a coherent set of SRLG IDs is a key
requirement in order to be able to use the SRLG information properly.
Thus, SRLG IDs SHOULD be unique. Note that current procedure is
targeted towards a scenario where the different layers and domains
belong to the same operator, or to several coordinated administrative
groups. Ensuring the aforementioned coherence of SRLG IDs is beyond
the scope of this document.
Further scenarios, where coherence in the SRLG IDs cannot be
guaranteed are out of the scope of the present document and are left
for further study.
7. Security Considerations
This document builds on the mechanisms defined in [RFC3473], which
also discusses related security measures. In addition, [RFC5920]
provides an overview of security vulnerabilities and protection
mechanisms for the GMPLS control plane. The procedures defined in
this document permit the transfer of SRLG data between layers or
domains during the signaling of LSPs, subject to policy at the layer
or domain boundary. It is recommended that domain/layer boundary
policies take the implications of releasing SRLG information into
consideration and behave accordingly during LSP signaling.
8. IANA Considerations
8.1. RSVP Attribute Bit Flags
IANA has created a registry and manages the space of the Attribute
bit flags of the Attribute Flags TLV, as described in section 11.3 of
RFC 5420 [RFC5420], in the "Attribute Flags" section of the "Resource
Zhang, et al. Expires November 26, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Ext for Collecting SRLG May 2016
Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Parameters"
registry located in http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-
parameters".
This document introduces a new Attribute Bit Flag:
Bit No Name Attribute Attribute RRO Reference
Flags Path Flags Resv
-------------- ---------- ---------- ----------- --- ---------
TBD; suggested SRLG Yes No Yes This I-D
value: 12 Flag
8.2. ROUTE_RECORD Object
IANA manages the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters. This document
introduces a new RRO sub-object:
Value Description Reference
--------------------- ------------------- ---------
TBD; suggested SRLG sub-object This I-D
value: 34
8.3. Policy Control Failure Error subcodes
IANA manages the assignments in the "Error Codes and Globally-Defined
Error Value Sub-Codes" section of the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry
located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters.
This document introduces a new Policy Control Failure Error sub-code:
Value Description Reference
--------------------- ----------------------- ---------
TBD; suggested SRLG Recording Rejected This I-D
value: 21
9. Contributors
Dan Li
Huawei
F3-5-B RD Center
Bantian, Longgang District, Shenzhen 518129
P.R.China
Email: danli@huawei.com
10. Acknowledgements
Zhang, et al. Expires November 26, 2016 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Ext for Collecting SRLG May 2016
The authors would like to thank Dieter Beller, Vishnu Pavan Beeram,
Lou Berger, Deborah Brungard, Igor Bryskin, Ramon Casellas, Niclas
Comstedt, Alan Davey, Elwyn Davies, Dhruv Dhody, Himanshu Shah and
Xian Zhang for their useful comments and improvements to this
document.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC4202] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Routing Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005.
[RFC5420] Farrel, A., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, JP., and A.
Ayyangarps, "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP
Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 5420, February 2009.
[RFC5520] Bradford, R., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel, "Preserving
Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path Computation
Using a Path-Key-Based Mechanism", RFC 5520, April 2009.
[RFC5553] Farrel, A., Bradford, R., and JP. Vasseur, "Resource
Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Extensions for Path Key
Support", RFC 5553, May 2009.
11.2. Informative References
[RFC4206] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths (LSP)
Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206, October 2005.
[RFC4208] Swallow, G., Drake, J., Ishimatsu, H., and Y. Rekhter,
"Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) User-
Network Interface (UNI): Resource ReserVation Protocol-
Zhang, et al. Expires November 26, 2016 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Ext for Collecting SRLG May 2016
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Support for the Overlay
Model", RFC 4208, October 2005.
[RFC4874] Lee, CY., Farrel, A., and S. De Cnodder, "Exclude Routes -
Extension to Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 4874, April 2007.
[RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
[RFC6107] Shiomoto, K. and A. Farrel, "Procedures for Dynamically
Signaled Hierarchical Label Switched Paths", RFC 6107,
February 2011.
Authors' Addresses
Fatai Zhang (editor)
Huawei
F3-5-B RD Center
Bantian, Longgang District, Shenzhen 518129
P.R.China
Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com
Oscar Gonzalez de Dios (editor)
Telefonica Global CTO
Distrito Telefonica, edificio sur, Ronda de la Comunicacion 28045
Madrid 28050
Spain
Phone: +34 913129647
Email: oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com
Cyril Margaria
Suite 4001, 200 Somerset Corporate Blvd.
Bridgewater, NJ 08807
US
Email: cyril.margaria@gmail.com
Matt Hartley
Cisco
Email: mhartley@cisco.com
Zafar Ali
Cisco
Email: zali@cisco.com
Zhang, et al. Expires November 26, 2016 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Ext for Collecting SRLG May 2016
Zhang, et al. Expires November 26, 2016 [Page 15]
