One document matched: draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution-01.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocompact="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="3"?>
<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc comments="yes"?>
<?rfc inline="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<rfc category="std" docName="draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution-01.txt"
ipr="trust200902">
<front>
<title abbrev="sr-conflict-resolution">Segment Routing Conflict
Resolution</title>
<author fullname="Les Ginsberg" initials="L" surname="Ginsberg">
<organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>510 McCarthy Blvd.</street>
<city>Milpitas</city>
<code>95035</code>
<region>CA</region>
<country>USA</country>
</postal>
<email>ginsberg@cisco.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Peter Psenak" initials="P" surname="Psenak">
<organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>Apollo Business Center Mlynske nivy 43</street>
<city>Bratislava</city>
<code>821 09</code>
<region/>
<country>Slovakia</country>
</postal>
<email>ppsenak@cisco.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Stefano Previdi" initials="S" surname="Previdi">
<organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>Via Del Serafico 200</street>
<city>Rome</city>
<code>0144</code>
<country>Italy</country>
</postal>
<email>sprevidi@cisco.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Martin Pilka" initials="M" surname="Pilka">
<organization/>
<address>
<postal>
<street/>
<city/>
<code/>
<country/>
</postal>
<email>martin@infobox.sk</email>
</address>
</author>
<date day="22" month="June" year="2016"/>
<area>Routing Area</area>
<workgroup>Networking Working Group</workgroup>
<keyword/>
<abstract>
<t>In support of Segment Routing (SR) routing protocols advertise a
variety of identifiers used to define the segments which direct
forwarding of packets. In cases where the information advertised by a
given protocol instance is either internally inconsistent or conflicts
with advertisements from another protocol instance a means of achieving
consistent forwarding behavior in the network is required. This document
defines the policies used to resolve these occurrences.</t>
</abstract>
<note title="Requirements Language">
<t>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].</t>
</note>
</front>
<middle>
<section title="Introduction">
<t>Segment Routing (SR) as defined in [SR-ARCH] utilizes forwarding
instructions called "segments" to direct packets through the network.
Depending on the forwarding plane architecture in use, routing protocols
advertise various identifiers which define the permissible values which
can be used as segments, which values are assigned to specific prefixes,
etc. Where segments have global scope it is necessary to have
non-conflicting assignments - but given that the advertisements may
originate from multiple nodes the possibility exists that advertisements
may be received which are either internally inconsistent or conflicting
with advertisements originated by other nodes. In such cases it is
necessary to have consistent resolution of conflicts network-wide in
order to avoid forwarding loops.</t>
<t>The problem to be addressed is protocol independent i.e., segment
related advertisements may be originated by multiple nodes using
different protocols and yet the conflict resolution MUST be the same on
all nodes regardless of the protocol used to transport the
advertisements.</t>
<t>The remainder of this document defines conflict resolution policies
which meet these requirements. All protocols which support SR MUST
adhere to the policies defined in this document.</t>
</section>
<section title="SR Global Block Inconsistency">
<t>In support of an MPLS dataplane routing protocols advertise an SR
Global Block (SRGB) which defines a set of label ranges reserved for use
by the advertising node in support of SR. The details of how protocols
advertise this information can be found in the protocol specific drafts
e.g., [SR-OSPF], [SR-OSPFv3], and [SR-IS-IS]. However the protocol
independent semantics are illustrated by the following example:</t>
<t><figure>
<artwork><![CDATA[The originating router advertises the following ranges:
Range 1: (100, 199)
Range 2: (1000, 1099)
Range 3: (500, 599)
The receiving routers concatenate the ranges and build the Segment
Routing Global Block (SRGB) as follows:
SRGB = (100, 199)
(1000, 1099)
(500, 599)
The indeces span multiple ranges:
index=0 means label 100
...
index 99 means label 199
index 100 means label 1000
index 199 means label 1099
...
index 200 means label 500
...]]></artwork>
</figure></t>
<t>Note that the ranges are an ordered set - what labels are mapped to a
given index depends on the placement of a given label range in the set
of ranges advertised.</t>
<t>For the set of ranges to be usable the ranges MUST be disjoint.
Sender behavior is defined in various SR protocol drafts such as
[SR-IS-IS] which specify that senders MUST NOT advertise overlapping
ranges.</t>
<t>Receivers of SRGB ranges MUST validate the SRGB ranges advertised by
other nodes. If the advertised ranges do not conform to the restrictions
defined in the respective protocol specification receivers MUST ignore
all advertised SRGB ranges from that node. Operationally the node is
treated as though it did not advertise any SRGB ranges. [SR-MPLS]
defines the procedures for mapping global SIDs to outgoing labels.</t>
<t>Note that utilization of local SIDs (e.g. adjacency SIDs) advertised
by a node is not affected by the state of the advertised SRGB.</t>
</section>
<section title="SR-MPLS Segment Identifier Conflicts">
<t>In support of an MPLS dataplane Segment identifiers (SIDs) are
advertised and associated with a given prefix. SIDs may be advertised in
the prefix reachability advertisements originated by a routing protocol
(PFX) . SIDs may also be advertised by a Segment Routing Mapping Server
(SRMS).</t>
<t>Mapping entries have an explicit context which includes the topology
and the SR algorithm. A generalized mapping entry can be represented
using the following definitions:</t>
<t><figure>
<artwork><![CDATA[ Src- PFX or SRMS
Pi - Initial prefix
Pe - End prefix
L - Prefix length
Lx - Maximum prefix length (32 for IPv4, 128 for IPv6)
Si - Initial SID value
Se - End SID value
R - Range value (See Note 1)
T - Topology
A - Algorithm
A Mapping Entry is then the tuple: (Src, Pi/L, Si, R, T, A)
Pe = (Pi + ((R-1) << (Lx-L))
Se = Si + (R-1)
NOTE 1: The SID advertised in a prefix reachability advertisement
always has an implicit range of 1.
]]></artwork>
</figure>Conflicts in SID advertisements may occur as a result of
misconfiguration. Conflicts may occur either in the set of
advertisements originated by a single node or between advertisements
originated by different nodes. Conflicts which occur within the set of
advertisements (P-SID and SRMS) originated by a single node SHOULD be
prevented by configuration validation on the originating node.</t>
<t>When conflicts occur, it is not possible for routers to know which of
the conflicting advertisements is "correct". In order to avoid
forwarding loops and/or blackholes, there is a need for all nodes to
resolve the conflicts in a consistent manner. This in turn requires that
all routers have identical sets of advertisements and that they all use
the same selection algorithm. This document defines procedures to
achieve these goals.</t>
<section title="Conflict Types">
<t>Two types of conflicts may occur - Prefix Conflicts and SID
Conflicts. Examples are provided in this section to illustrate these
conflict types.</t>
<section title="Prefix Conflict">
<t>When different SIDs are assigned to the same prefix we have a
"prefix conflict". Prefix conflicts are specific to mapping entries
sharing the same topology and algorithm.</t>
<t><figure>
<artwork><![CDATA[Example PC1
(PFX, 192.0.2.120/32, 200, 1, 0, 0)
(PFX, 192.0.2.120/32, 30, 1, 0, 0)
The prefix 192.0.2.120/32 has been assigned two different SIDs:
200 by the first advertisement
30 by the second advertisement
Example PC2
(PFX, 2001:DB8::1/128, 400, 1, 2, 0)
(PFX, 2001:DB8::1/128, 50, 1, 2, 0)
The prefix 2001:DB8::1/128 has been assigned two different SIDs:
400 by the first advertisement
50 by the second advertisement]]></artwork>
</figure></t>
<t>Prefix conflicts may also occur as a result of overlapping prefix
ranges.</t>
<t><figure>
<artwork><![CDATA[Example PC3
(SRMS, 192.0.2.1/32, 200, 200, 0, 0)
(SRMS, 192.0.2.121/32, 30, 10, 0, 0)
Prefixes 192.0.2.121/32 - 192.0.2.130/32 are assigned two
different SIDs:
320 through 329 by the first advertisement
30 through 39 by the second advertisement
Example PC4
(SRMS, 2001:DB8::1/128, 400, 200, 2, 0)
(SRMS, 2001:DB8::121/128, 50, 10, 2, 0)
Prefixes 2001:DB8::121/128 - 2001:DB8::130/128 are assigned
two different SIDs:
420 through 429 by the first advertisement
50 through 59 by the second advertisement]]></artwork>
</figure></t>
<t>Examples PC3 and PC4 illustrate a complication - only part of the
range advertised in the first advertisement is in conflict. It is
logically possible to isolate the conflicting portion and try to use
the non-conflicting portion(s) at the cost of increased
implementation complexity.</t>
<t>A variant of the overlapping prefix range is a case where we have
overlapping prefix ranges but no actual SID conflict.</t>
<figure>
<artwork><![CDATA[Example PC5
(SRMS, 192.0.2.1/32, 200, 200, 0, 0)
(SRMS, 192.0.2.121/32, 320, 10, 0, 0)
(SRMS, 2001:DB8::1/128, 400, 200, 2, 0)
(SRMS, 2001:DB8::121/128, 520, 10, 2, 0)
]]></artwork>
</figure>
<t>Although there is prefix overlap between the two IPv4 entries
(and the two IPv6 entries) the same SID is assigned to all of the
shared prefixes by the two entries.</t>
<t><figure>
<artwork><![CDATA[Given two mapping entries:
(SRC, P1/L1, S1, R1, T1, A1) and
(SRC, P2/L2, S2, R2, T2, A2)
where P1 <= P2
a prefix conflict exists if all of the following are true:
1)(T1 == T2) && (A1 == A2)
2)P1 <= P2
3)The prefixes are in the same address family.
2)L1 == L2
3)(P1e >= P2) && ((S1 + (P2 - P1)) != S2)
]]></artwork>
</figure></t>
</section>
<section title="SID Conflict">
<t>When the same SID has been assigned to multiple prefixes we have
a "SID conflict". SID conflicts are independent of address-family,
independent of prefix len, independent of topology, and independent
of algorithm. A SID conflict occurs when a mapping entry which has
previously been checked to have no prefix conflict assigns one or
more SIDs that are assigned by another entry which also has no
prefix conflicts.</t>
<figure>
<artwork><![CDATA[Example SC1
(PFX, 192.0.2.1/32, 200, 1, 0, 0)
(PFX, 192.0.2.222/32, 200, 1, 0, 0)
SID 200 has been assigned to 192.0.2.1/32 by the
first advertisement.
The second advertisement assigns SID 200 to 192.0.2.222/32.
Example SC2
(PFX, 2001:DB8::1/128, 400, 1, 2, 0)
(PFX, 2001:DB8::222/128, 400, 1, 2, 0)
SID 400 has been assigned to 2001:DB8::1/128 by the
first advertisement.
The second advertisement assigns SID 400 to 2001:DB8::222/128
]]></artwork>
</figure>
<t>SID conflicts may also occur as a result of overlapping SID
ranges.</t>
<figure>
<artwork><![CDATA[Example SC3
(SRMS, 192.0.2.1/32, 200, 200, 0, 0)
(SRMS, 198.51.100.1/32, 300, 10, 0, 0)
SIDs 300 - 309 have been assigned to two different prefixes.
The first advertisement assigns these SIDs
to 192.0.2.101/32 - 192.0.2.110/32.
The second advertisement assigns these SIDs to
198.51.100.1/32 - 198.51.100.10/32.
Example SC4
(SRMS, 2001:DB8::1/128, 400, 200, 2, 0)
(SRMS, 2001:DB8:1::1/128, 500, 10, 2, 0)
SIDs 500 - 509 have been assigned to two different prefixes.
The first advertisement assigns these SIDs to
2001:DB8::101/128 - 2001:DB8::10A/128.
The second advertisement assigns these SIDs to
2001:DB8:1::1/128 - 2001:DB8:1::A/128.
]]></artwork>
</figure>
<t>Examples SC3 and SC4 illustrate a complication - only part of the
range advertised in the first advertisement is in conflict.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Processing conflicting entries">
<t>Two general approaches can be used to process conflicting
entries.</t>
<t><list style="numbers">
<t>Conflicting entries can be ignored</t>
<t>A standard preference algorithm can be used to choose which of
the conflicting entries will be used</t>
</list>The following sections discuss these two approaches in more
detail.</t>
<t>Note: This document does not discuss any implementation details
i.e. what type of data structure is used to store the entries (trie,
radix tree, etc.) nor what type of keys may be used to perform lookups
in the database.</t>
<section title="Policy: Ignore conflicting entries">
<t>In cases where entries are in conflict none of the conflicting
entries are used i.e., the network operates as if the conflicting
advertisements were not present.</t>
<t>Implementations are required to identify the conflicting entries
and ensure that they are not used.</t>
</section>
<section title="Policy: Preference Algorithm/Quarantine">
<t>For entries which are in conflict properties of the conflicting
advertisements are used to determine which of the conflicting
entries are used in forwarding and which are "quarantined" and not
used. The entire quarantined entry is not used.</t>
<t>This approach requires that conflicting entries first be
identified and then evaluated based on a preference rule. Based on
which entry is preferred this in turn may impact what other entries
are considered in conflict i.e. if A conflicts with B and B
conflicts with C - it is possible that A does NOT conflict with C.
Hence if as a result of the evaluation of the conflict between A and
B, entry B is not used the conflict between B and C will not be
detected.</t>
</section>
<section title="Policy: Preference algorithm/ignore overlap only">
<t>A variation of the preference algorithm approach is to quarantine
only the portions of the less preferred entry which actually
conflicts. The original entry is split into multiple ranges. The
ranges which are in conflict are quarantined. The ranges which are
not in conflict are used in forwarding. This approach adds
complexity as the relationship between the derived sub-ranges of the
original mapping entry have to be associated with the original entry
- and every time some change to the advertisement database occurs
the derived sub-ranges have to be recalculated.</t>
</section>
<section title="Preference Algorithm">
<t>The following algorithm is used to select the preferred mapping
entry when a conflict exists. Evaluation is made in the order
specified. Prefix conflicts are evaluated first. SID conflicts are
then evaluated on the Active entries remaining after Prefix
Conflicts have been resolved.</t>
<t><list style="numbers">
<t>PFX source wins over SRMS source</t>
<t>Smaller range wins</t>
<t>IPv6 entry wins over IPv4 entry</t>
<t>Longer prefix length wins</t>
<t>Smaller algorithm wins</t>
<t>Smaller starting address (considered as an unsigned integer
value) wins</t>
<t>Smaller starting SID wins</t>
<t>If topology IDs are NOT identical both entries MUST be
ignored</t>
</list></t>
<t>Using smaller range as the highest priority tie breaker makes
advertisements with a range of 1 the most preferred. This has the
nice property that a single misconfiguration of an SRMS entry with a
large range will not be preferred over a large number of
advertisements with smaller ranges.</t>
<t>Since topology identifiers are locally scoped, it is not possible
to make a consistent choice network wide when all elements of a
mapping entry are identical except for the topology. This is why
both entries MUST be ignored in such cases (Rule #8 above). Note
that Rule #8 only applies when considering SID conflicts since
Prefix conflicts are restricted to a single topology.</t>
</section>
<section title="Example Behavior - Single Topology/Algorithm">
<t>The following mapping entries exist:in the database. For brevity,
Topology/Algorithm is omitted and assumed to be (0,0) in all
entries.</t>
<t><list style="numbers">
<t>(PFX, 192.0.2.1/32, 100, 1)</t>
<t>(PFX, 192.0.2.101/32, 200, 1)</t>
<t>(SRMS, 192.0.2.1/32, 400, 255) !Prefix conflict with entries
1 and 2</t>
<t>(SRMS, 198.51.100.40/32, 200,1) !SID conflict with entry
2</t>
</list></t>
<t>The table below shows what mapping entries will be used in the
forwarding plane (Active) and which ones will not be used (Excluded)
under the three candidate policies:</t>
<t><figure>
<artwork><![CDATA[+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Policy | Active Entries | Excluded Entries |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Ignore | |(PFX,192.0.2.1/32,100,1) |
| | |(PFX,192.0.2.101/32,200,1) |
| | |(SRMS,192.0.2.1/32,400,255) |
| | |(SRMS,198.51.100.40/32,200,1)|
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Quarantine|(PFX,192.0.1.1/32,100,1) |(SRMS,192.0.2.1/32,400,255) |
| |(PFX,192.0.2.101/32,200,1) |(SRMS,198.51.100.40/32,200,1)|
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Overlap- |(PFX,192.0.2.1/32,100,1) |(SRMS,198.51.100.40/32,200,1)|
| Only |(PFX,192.0.2.101/32,200,1) |*(SRMS,192.0.2.1/32,400,1) |
| |*(SRMS,192.0.2.2/32,401,99)|*(SRMS,192.0.2.101/32,500,1) |
| |*(SRMS,192.0.2.102/32, |
| | 501,153) | |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
* Derived from (SRMS,192.0.2.1/32,400,300)
]]></artwork>
</figure></t>
</section>
<section title="Example Behavior - Multiple Topologies">
<t>When using a preference rule the order in which conflict
resolution is applied has an impact on what entries are usable when
entries for multiple topologies (or algorithms) are present. The
following mapping entries exist in the database:</t>
<t><list style="numbers">
<t>(PFX, 192.0.2.1/32, 100, 1, 0, 0) !Topology 0</t>
<t>(PFX, 192.0.2.1/32, 200, 1, 0, 0) !Topology 0, Prefix
Conflict with entry #1</t>
<t>(PFX, 198.51.100.40/32, 200,1,1,0) ! Topology 1, SID conflict
with entry 2</t>
</list></t>
<t>The table below shows what mapping entries will be used in the
forwarding plane (Active) and which ones will not be used (Excluded)
under the Quarantine Policy based on the order in which conflict
resolution is applied.</t>
<t><figure>
<artwork><![CDATA[+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Order | Active Entries | Excluded Entries |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Prefix- |(PFX,192.0.2.1/32,100,1,0,0)|(PFX,192.0.2.101/32,200,1,0)|
|Conflict|(PFX,198.51.100.40/32,200,1,| |
|First | 1,0) | |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|SID- |(PFX,192.0.2.1/32,100,1,0,0)|(PFX,192.0.2.101/32,200,1,0)|
|Conflict| |(PFX,198.51.100.40/32,200,1,|
|First | | 1,0) |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
]]></artwork>
</figure></t>
<t>This illustrates the advantage of evaluating prefix conflicts
within a given topology (or algorithm) before evaluating topology
(or algorithm) independent SID conflicts. It insures that entries
which will be excluded based on intratopology preference will not
prevent a SID assigned in another topology from being considered
Active.</t>
</section>
<section title="Evaluation of Policy Alternatives">
<t>The previous sections have defined three alternatives for
resolving conflicts - ignore, quarantine, and ignore
overlap-only.</t>
<t>The ignore policy impacts the greatest amount of traffic as
forwarding to all destinations which have a conflict is
affected.</t>
<t>Quarantine allows forwarding for some destinations which have a
conflict to be supported.</t>
<t>Ignore overlap-only maximizes the destinations which will be
forwarded as all destinations covered by some mapping entry
(regardless of range) will be able to use the SID assigned by the
winning range. This alternative increases implementation complexity
as compared to quarantine. Mapping entries with a range greater than
1 which are in conflict with other mapping entries have to
internally be split into 2 or more "derived mapping entries". The
derived mapping entries then fall into two categories - those that
are in conflict with other mapping entries and those which are NOT
in conflict. The former are ignored and the latter are used. Each
time the underived mapping database is updated the derived entries
have to be recomputed based on the updated database. Internal data
structures have to be maintained which maintain the relationship
between the advertised mapping entry and the set of derived mapping
entries. All nodes in the network have to achieve the same behavior
regardless of implementation internals.</t>
<t>There is then a tradeoff between a goal of maximizing traffic
delivery and the risks associated with increased implementation
complexity.</t>
<t>It is the opinion of the authors that "quarantine" is the best
alternative.</t>
</section>
<section title="Guaranteeing Database Consistency">
<t>In order to obtain consistent active entries all nodes in a
network MUST have the same mapping entry database. Mapping entries
can be obtained from a variety of sources.</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>SIDs can be configured locally for prefixes assigned to
interfaces on the router itself. Only SIDs which are advertised
to protocol peers can be considered as part of the mapping entry
database.</t>
<t>SIDs can be received in prefix reachability advertisements
from protocol peers. These advertisements may originate from
peers local to the area or be leaked from other areas and/or
redistributed from other routing protocols.</t>
<t>SIDs can be received from SRMS advertisements - these
advertisements can originate from routers local to the area or
leaked from other areas</t>
<t>In cases where multiple routing protocols are in use mapping
entries advertised by all routing protocols MUST be
included.</t>
</list></t>
</section>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Scope of SR-MPLS SID Conflicts">
<t>The previous section defines the types of SID conflicts and
procedures to resolve such conflicts when using an MPLS dataplane. The
mapping entry database used MUST be populated with entries for
destinations for which the associated SID will be used to derive the
labels installed in the forwarding plane of routers in the network. This
consists of entries associated with intra-domain routes.</t>
<t>There are cases where destinations which are external to the domain
are advertised by protocol speakers running within that network - and it
is possible that those advertisements have SIDs associated with those
destinations. However, if reachability to a destination is topologically
outside the forwarding domain of the protocol instance then the SIDs for
such destinations will never be installed in the forwarding plane of any
router within the domain - so such advertisements cannot create a SID
conflict within the domain. Such entries therefore MUST NOT be installed
in the database used for intra-domain conflict resolution.</t>
<t>Consider the case of two sites "A and B" associated with a given
[RFC4364] VPN. Connectivity between the sites is via a provider
backbone. SIDs associated with destinations in Site A will never be
installed in the forwarding plane of routers in Site B. Reachability
between the sites (assuming SR is being used across the backbone) only
requires using a SID associated with a gateway PE. So a destination in
Site A MAY use the same SID as a destination in Site B without
introducing any conflict in the forwarding plane of routers in Site
A.</t>
<t>Such cases are handled by insuring that the mapping entries in the
database used by the procedures defined in the previous section only
include entries associated with advertisements within the site.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="Security" title="Security Considerations">
<t>TBD</t>
</section>
<section title="IANA Consideration">
<t>This document has no actions for IANA.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="Acknowledgements" title="Acknowledgements">
<t>The authors would like to thank Jeff Tantsura, Wim Henderickx, and
Bruno Decraene for their careful review and content suggestions.</t>
</section>
</middle>
<back>
<references title="Normative References">
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119"?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.4364"?>
<reference anchor="SR-MPLS">
<front>
<title>Segment Routing with MPLS dataplane,
draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-04(work in progress)</title>
<author fullname="Filsfils, C., et al"/>
<date month="March" year="2016"/>
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="SR-IS-IS">
<front>
<title>IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing,
draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-07(work in
progress)</title>
<author fullname="Previdi, S., et al"/>
<date month="June" year="2016"/>
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="SR-OSPF">
<front>
<title>OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing,
draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-08(work in
progress)</title>
<author fullname="Psenak, P., et al"/>
<date month="May" year="2016"/>
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="SR-OSPFv3">
<front>
<title>OSPFv3 Extensions for Segment Routing,
draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-05(work in
progress)</title>
<author fullname="Psenak, P., et al"/>
<date month="March" year="2016"/>
</front>
</reference>
</references>
<references title="Informational References">
<reference anchor="SR-ARCH">
<front>
<title>Segment Routing Architecture,
draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-08(work in progress)</title>
<author fullname="Filsfils, C., et al"/>
<date month="May" year="2016"/>
</front>
</reference>
</references>
</back>
</rfc>
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 14:25:43 |