One document matched: draft-tanaka-pce-stateful-pce-mbb-00.txt
Network Working Group Y. Tanaka
Internet-Draft Y. Kamite
Intended status: Standards Track NTT Communications
Expires: August 22, 2013 Feb 18, 2013
Make-Before-Break MPLS-TE LSP restoration and reoptimization procedure
using Stateful PCE
draft-tanaka-pce-stateful-pce-mbb-00
Abstract
Stateful PCE (Path Computation Element) and its corresponding
protocol extensions provide a mechanism that enables PCE to do
stateful control of MPLS Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE
LSP). Stateful PCE supports manipulating the existing LSP's state
and attributes (e.g., bandwidth and route) and also creating totally
new LSPs in the network.
In the current MPLS TE network using RSVP-TE, LSPs are often
controlled by "make-before-break (M-B-B)" signaling by headend for
the purpose of LSP restoration and reoptimization. In most cases, it
is an essential operation to reroute LSP traffic without any data
disruption.
This document specifies the procedure of applying Stateful PCE's
control to make-before-break RSVP-TE signaling. In this document,
two types of restoration/reoptimization procedures are defined, one-
stroke mode and granular mode. This document also specifies the
usage and handling of stateful PCEP (PCE Communication Protocol)
messages, expected behavior of PCC as RSVP-TE headend and several
extensions of additional objects.
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."
Tanaka & Kamite Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft M-B-B procedure using Stateful PCE Feb 2013
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 22, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 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
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.
Tanaka & Kamite Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft M-B-B procedure using Stateful PCE Feb 2013
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Make-Before-Break LSP procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. One Stroke Make-Before-Break Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. Granular Make-Before-Break Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2.1. Establish new LSP triggered by a PCCreate message . . 9
5.2.2. Transfer Data Traffic triggered by a PCUpd message . . 10
5.2.3. Tear Down old LSP triggered by a PCUpd message . . . . 11
6. Objects and TLV Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1. DATA-CONTROL TLV in LSP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.1. PCEP TLV Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.2. PCEP Error Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Tanaka & Kamite Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft M-B-B procedure using Stateful PCE Feb 2013
1. Introduction
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] describes the Stateful Path Computation
Elements(PCE). Stateful PCE defines the extensions to PCEP to enable
stateful control of LSPs between and across PCEP sessions, and it
also describes mechanisms to effect LSP state synchronization between
PCCs and PCEs, and PCE control of timing and sequence of path
computations within and across PCEP sessions.
[I-D.crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-protection] describes the extensions for
the setup and management of MPLS-TE LSP path protection by PCE. This
specification is focused on the control of protection path, making
protection paths which are pre-signaled ahead of the failure or set
up after the failure. The proposed extension is beneficial for PCEs
to place several act/standby LSPs for protection purposes in MPLS
network.
Today, however, there is no detailed procedure specified as to how to
restore and reoptimize one particular MPLS-TE LSP using stateful PCE.
In today's MPLS RSVP-TE mechanism, make-before-break (M-B-B) is a
widely common scheme supported by headend LER in order to assure no
traffic disruption during restoration and reoptimization. Hence it
is naturally desirable for stateful PCE to control M-B-B based
signaling and forwarding process.
This document specifies the definite procedures of applying Stateful
PCE's control to M-B-B method. In this document, two types of
restoration/reoptimization procedures are defined, one-stroke mode
and granular mode. This document also specifies the usage and
handling of stateful PCEP (PCE Communication Protocol) messages,
expected behavior of PCC as RSVP-TE headend and several extensions of
additional objects.
2. 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 RFC2119[RFC2119].
3. Terminology
This document uses the following terms defined in [RFC5440]: PCC,
PCE, PCEP Peer.
This document uses the following terms defined in [RFC3209]: make-
before-break.
Tanaka & Kamite Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft M-B-B procedure using Stateful PCE Feb 2013
This document uses the following terms defined in [RFC4426] and
[RFC4427]: recovery, protection, restoration.
According to their definition the term "recovery" is generically used
to denote both protection and restoration; the specific terms
"protection" and "restoration" are used only when differentiation is
required. The subtle distinction between protection and restoration
is made based on the resource allocation done during the recovery
period. Hence the protection allocates LSP resource in advance of a
failure, while the restoration allocates LSP after a failure occur.
4. Motivation
As for current MPLS mechanism, make-before-break(M-B-B) concept is
outlined in [RFC3209], which allows adaptive and smooth RSVP-TE LSP
rerouting that does not disrupt traffic or adversely impact network
operations while rerouting is in progress. M-B-B is applicable for
reoptimizing LSP's route and resources for several use cases, for
example, to adopt better path for reversion after failure, to change
traversing node/links for planned maintenance, to change bandwidth of
LSPs. M-B-B is also used for global restoration scenario in case of
failure, which is effective if operators do not want to reserve both
working and standby LSPs' bandwidth in advance. In real deployment,
it can also be operated with local protection scheme FRR (Fast
ReRoute).
Since M-B-B operational scheme is universally common in MPLS network
today, it is naturally much desirable to utilize it under the
architecture of Stateful PCE.
The basicprocedure of Make-Before-Break is outlined as follows,
1. Establish a new LSP
2. Transfer data traffic from old LSP onto the new LSP
3. Tear down the old LSP
In M-B-B, it is an important behavior that headend node treats the
sequence of data traffic switchover. The headend is able to "make"
one or more new LSPs for a particular Tunnel (i.e., it is allowed to
signal multiple RSVP sessions with different LSP-IDs that share a
common Tunnel IDs), and the headend will switch the traffic upon only
one (or some) of those LSPs. In some use cases about stateful PCE,
it is expected that operators can watch and control when the data is
switched over and which LSPs are used. Therefore, this document
covers such a procedure and related message extensions.
Tanaka & Kamite Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft M-B-B procedure using Stateful PCE Feb 2013
5. Make-Before-Break LSP procedures
There are possibly two modes introduced for Make-Before-Break
procedure under stateful PCE. The first one is "one stroke M-B-B
mode", where the operation is triggered by a PC Update Request(PCUpd)
message from a PCE, and a PCC handles whole Make-Before-Break steps
(signaling and transferring data traffic) for itself. This mode
utilizes the existing messages as defined in
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] and
[I-D.crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-mpls-te].
The second one is "granular M-B-B mode", where the operation is
triggered by a LSP Create Request(PCCreate) message from a PCE, and a
PCE also controls timing and sequence of each granular step that a
PCC takes. This procedure additionally uses a new extended TLV that
is defined in Section 6.1
Both types of procedure require at least two LSPs residing in a
single MPLS-TE tunnel, working LSP and restoration LSP. An ingress
node is currently transporting data traffic on the working LSP, and
then it establishes one or more restoration LSPs. As per [RFC3209]
Section 2.5. "LSP ID" of restoration LSP, which is newly signaled,
differs from that of restoration LSP. In this document, LSP ID of a
working LSP describes "old" and that of a restoration LSP describes
"new" as a simple example.
One-stroke mode has high affinity with most existing MPLS edge node
implementations which perform entire steps of M-B-B automatically at
once. This mode is particularly applicable for migration scenario
for the existing deployment where service providers want their
recovery operation be delegated to centralized PCE.
Granular mode is much more flexible than One-stroke mode since it
allows PCEs to manage each LSP step-by-step. Granular mode is
applicable to several new use cases that require split control of
signaling and data switchover. For example, if end-to-end data path
is created by connecting multiple individual LSPs across different
segments (e.g., LSP stitching), in reoptimization scenario, data
flowing cannot be started unless all signaling of all LSPs are
completed. Similarly, there is a case under Software Defined Network
(SDN) applications, where MPLS domain is connected to other non-MPLS
domains, and the end-to-end data switchover timing should be
carefully coordinated with various different methods of path/flow
setup in each domain.
PCC and PCE can distinguish which mode, one stroke mode or granular
mode, is to be performed by checking the type of PCEP messages that
are exchanged. The implementation MAY support both modes, but for
Tanaka & Kamite Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft M-B-B procedure using Stateful PCE Feb 2013
each restoration/reoptimization operation, either one of them SHOULD
be exclusively selected.
5.1. One Stroke Make-Before-Break Mode
This specifies the detailed procedure of M-B-B LSP restoration and
reoptimization using exsisting messages which are defined in
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] and
[I-D.crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-protection]. This procedure is based on
the current existing messages/TLVs and no extended TLV is used. Once
a PCC receives PCUpd message from a PCE, the PCC automatically
executes the one stroke M-B-B procedure.
First, A PCUpd message is sent from PCE to trigger M-B-B procecure.
This PCUpd message MUST carry a LSP Object with LSP Identifiers TLV.
LSP Identifiers TLV format is specified in
[I-D.crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-mpls-te]. This TLV contains the value
for a desired new LSP ID.
If the specified LSP ID value is a non-zero and is not currently used
by the exsisting RSVP-TE sessions about the corresponding tunnel
owned by the PCC, that value MUST be used for next signaling by PCC
as headend, i.e., "make" a new LSP for restoration. If the value is
already used in the existing network in the specified tunnel, a PCC
replies a PCEP Error message as defined in
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] with Error-type-19(Invalid Operation) and
Error-Value=[TBD](Value already in use).
If the specified LSP ID value is zero, the PCC MUST automatically
assign a new LSP ID to signal restoration LSP.
A PCC replies PCEP Error message to a PCE if a PCUpd does not carry
LSP Identifiers TLV nor SYMBOLIC-PATH-NAME TLV. Error-type-
6(Mandatory Object Missing) and Error-Value=[TBD](See Section 7.2).
If LSP Identifiers TLV or SYMBOLIC-PATH-NAME TLV in a PCUpd message
is specifying non-delegated LSP, the PCC sends PCErr as defined in
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce].
Second, once a restoration LSP is successfully established, a PCC
transfers data traffic from working LSP to restoration LSP. If the
restoration LSP failed in setup, the PCC MAY retry RSVP-TE signaling
with possibly different attributes.
Finally, when a PCC successfully transfered data traffic to
restoration LSP, the PCC tears down the (previous) working LSP by
RSVP-TE signaling, then the PCC MUST send a PCRpt message. That
PCRpt message MUST carry a LSP Object with LSP Identifiers TLV which
Tanaka & Kamite Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft M-B-B procedure using Stateful PCE Feb 2013
indicates the value of RSVP-TE signaling the PCC has just
established.
Following Figure 1 illustrates the example of one stroke M-B-B
procedure, in following conditions.
working LSP : ERO=a-b, Tunnel ID=T1, LSP ID=old
restoration LSP : ERO=a-c-b, Tunnel ID=T1, LSP ID=new
__c__
/ \
PCE PCC(Ingress)--a-------b---Egress
| | |
| Data on old LSP =>)))))))))))))))))))))))|
| | : |
|--PCUpd(O=1, --> | : |
| Tunnel ID=T1, | |
| LSP ID=new, |---Path(ERO=a-c-b-, --> |
| ERO=a-c-b) | LSP ID new) |
| | |
| | <-----Resv-------------|
| | |
| Transfer data |))))))))))))))))))))))))|
| from old to new =>}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}|
| | : |
| | : |
| |---PathTear(ERO=a-b, -> |
| | LSP ID old) |
| <-- PCRpt(O=1, ----| |
| Tunnel ID=T1, | |
| LSP ID=new, | |
| RRO=a-c-b) | |
O flag = Operational flag in LSP object.
Figure 1: One Stroke Make-Before-Break Procedure
Figure 1
5.2. Granular Make-Before-Break Mode
Compareing to the one stroke M-B-B mode, Granular M-B-B mode allows a
PCE to control timing and sequence of subsequent make-before-break
steps as follows.
First, the PCE initiates PCC's signaling of a new LSP by sending a
LSP Create Request(PCCreate) message. Second, the PCE instructs the
PCC to transfer data traffic from old LSP to new LSP by sending a PC
Tanaka & Kamite Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft M-B-B procedure using Stateful PCE Feb 2013
Update Request(PCUpd) message with extension TLV that are defined in
this document. Third, the PCE instructs the PCC to tear down the old
LSP by sending a PCUpd message indicating LSP removal.
Note that this procedure uses not only PC Update Request(PCUpd) but
also LSP Create Request(PCCreate) message that are defined in
[I-D.crabbe-pce-pce-initiated-lsp].
The following subsections specify each Make-Before-Break steps in
detail.
5.2.1. Establish new LSP triggered by a PCCreate message
As a first step of M-B-B procedure, a PCC establishes a restoration
LSP once PCC receives PCCreate message from a PCE. This document
defines a PCCreate message MUST have a LSP Object with LSP
Identifiers TLV, which is used to specify Tunnel ID and the new LSP
ID that the PCC must establish.
[I-D.crabbe-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] defines that PCCreate message MUST
contain LSPA object with SYMBOLIC-PATH-NAME TLV. Regarding SYMBOLIC-
PATH-NAME TLV, [I-D.crabbe-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] describes that
SYMBOLIC-PATH-NAME TLV is mandatory and that value must not have
conflict with LSP name of any existing LSP in the PCC. If this
specification is applied directly, PCE has to allocate different
symbolic path name for every signaling of "make" procedure. If
conflict happens, it leads to PCEP Error from PCC. (authors' note: it
needs further study about treatment of SYMBOLIC-PATH-NAME TLV
particularly if there is a requirement for using the same symbolic
path name for reoptimization and restoration.)
When a new LSP was signaled successfully, the PCC sends a PCRpt
message toward the PCE to notify the result by setting Operational
flag 1 in the LSP object. A PCRpt message from the PCC MUST have the
LSP object with LSP Identifiers TLV that indicates Tunnel ID and LSP
ID the PCC has just established.
If a new LSP failed to be established by some reason of RSVP-TE
signaling, the PCC MUST send PCRpt message carrying LSP Identifiers
TLV and RSVP-ERROR-SPEC TLV as defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]
Section 7.2.2. to the PCE.
Figure 2 illustrates a example, working LSP(Tunnel ID T1, LSP-ID old,
ERO Ingress-a-b-Egress), restoration LSP(Tunnel ID T1, LSP-ID new,
ERO Ingress-a-c-b-Egress).
Tanaka & Kamite Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft M-B-B procedure using Stateful PCE Feb 2013
__c__
/ \
PCE PCC(Ingress)--a-------b---Egress
| data traffic on old LSP |
| |))))))))))))))))))))))))|
|--PCCreate --->| : |
| (tunnel ID=T1, | : |
| LSP ID=new, | |
| ERO=a-c-b ) |---Path(LSP ID=new, --> |
| | ERO=a-c-b) |
| | |
| | <----- Resv------------|
| <-- PCRpt(O=1, ----| |
| tunnel ID=T1, |))))))))))))))))))))))))|
| LSP ID=new, | : |
| RRO=a-c-b) | : |
| | |
Figure 2: Establish new LSP
Figure 2
5.2.2. Transfer Data Traffic triggered by a PCUpd message
As a second step, PCC(Ingress) transfers data traffic from primary
LSP to restoration LSP. To specify transferring data traffic, this
document introduces a new TLV, called Data Contro TLV.
PCUpd carries the Data Control TLV, which is used for transferring
data traffic from one LSP to another(See Section 6.1). And PCUpd
also carries a LSP Identifiers TLV to specify the Tunnel ID and LSP
ID that data traffic will get onto.
Once the PCC receives the PCUpd message with LSP Identifier TLV and
Data Control TLV in LSP Object, the PCC MSUT transfer data traffic
from old LSP to new LSP immediately.(See Figure 3)
If the LSP Identifiers TLV in the PCUpd message specifies invalid
LSP, PCErr MUST be sent out from the PCC to the PCE. The error
message with Error-Type-19 (Invalid Operation) and Error-
Value[TBD](See Section 7.2.
Tanaka & Kamite Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft M-B-B procedure using Stateful PCE Feb 2013
__c__
/ \
PCE PCC(Ingress)--a-------b---Egress
| | |
| |))))))))))))))))))))))))| data on old LSP
|--PCUpd ------> |))))))))))))))))))))))))|
| (tunnel ID=T1, |}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}| data on new LSP
| LSP ID=new, |}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}|
| +Data Control TLV)| : |
| | : |
| | |
| | |
| <-- PCRpt(O=1 --| |
| LSP ID=new, | |
| RRO=a-c-b) | |
| | |
O flag = Operational flag in LSP object.
Figure 3: Transfer data traffic from old LSP to new LSP
Figure 3
5.2.3. Tear Down old LSP triggered by a PCUpd message
As a final step of Make-Before-Break procedure, the PCC tears down
the primary LSP which the data traffic is no longer used, by the
PCUpd message from the PCE server.
The PCC MUST tear down the LSP immediately once the PCC receives the
PCUpd message setting Remove(R) flag 1. The PCUpd message MUST carry
LSP Identifiers TLV specifing Tunnel ID and LSP ID that will be torn
down in the LSP Object.(See Figure 4). Note that the PCC MUST tear
down only the LSP that is specified in LSP Identifiers TLV.
Tanaka & Kamite Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft M-B-B procedure using Stateful PCE Feb 2013
__c__
/ \
PCE PCC(Ingress)--a-------b---Egress
| data on new LSP |
| |}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}|
| | : |
|--PCUpd(R=1, ---->| : |
| tunnel ID=T1, |--PathTear(ERO a-b, -->| new LSP remains up
| LSP ID=old) | Tunnel=T1,LSP ID=old)|
| | |
| | |
| <-- PCRpt(O=0, ---| |
| Tunnel ID=T1, | |
| LSP ID=old) | |
| | |
| | |
R flag = Remove flag in LSP object.
Figure 4: Tear down old LSP
Figure 4
6. Objects and TLV Formats
6.1. DATA-CONTROL TLV in LSP Objects
This document defines a new TLV named DATA-CONTROL TLV.
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=TBD | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MUST be Zero | Flags |D|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Load Balance TLV (Optional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: DATA-CONTROL TLV format
Figure 5
Tanaka & Kamite Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft M-B-B procedure using Stateful PCE Feb 2013
LSP Identifiers TLV is mandatory in the LSP Object to use DATA-
CONTROL TLV, which means DATA-CONTROL TLV requires the target to
manipulate data plane. The type of the TLV is [TBD] and it has a
fixed length of 8 octets. The value contains the following fields:
Flags
D (Data traffic - 1 bit): Data traffic(D) bit indicates the Data
traffic MUST get onto the LSP. PCUpd message for Granular
M-B-B mode uses this flag. If there are multiple LSPs in a
single Tunnel, all data traffic will go through only the LSP
that is specified by LSP Object which contains this TLV, and
stop data traffic through the other LSPs.
Load Balance TLV(Optional TLV)
This field is used for load balancing and is available only when
the Data(D) flag is positive.
Load Balance type - 7 bit : This field indicates the type of load
balance.(i.e. Hash function, Round-Robin, ToS base)
Continue flag - 1 bit : If this flag set to 1, it indicates the
next LSP Object in the PCUpd has also Load Balance TLV. If
this flag set to 0, it indicates no more LSP Object continues
and load balance calculation will be completed, then Load
Balance MUST be activated.
Type of Service - 8 bit: This field is used when the Load Balance
type specifies ToS base. Otherwise, this field is to be Zero.
Percentage field - 16 bit : This field specifies ratio of load
balance. The sum of this field across subsequent LSP Object
has to be hundred percent.
7. IANA Considerations
7.1. PCEP TLV Indicators
This document defines the following new PCEP TLVs:
Value Meaning Reference
TBD DATA-CONTROL This document
7.2. PCEP Error Objects
This document defines new Error-Type and Error-Value for the
following new error conditions:
Tanaka & Kamite Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft M-B-B procedure using Stateful PCE Feb 2013
Error-Type Meaning
6 Mandatory Object missing
Error-value=TBD: LSP Identifiers TLV missing
19 Invalid operation
Error-value=TBD: Value already in use.
for one stroke mode
Error-value=TBD: Specified LSP is not existing.
for granular mode
Error-value=TBD: Specified LSP is not operational.
for granular mode
8. Security Considerations
TBD
9. Acknowledgments
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[I-D.crabbe-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]
Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "PCEP
Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
Model", draft-crabbe-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-00 (work in
progress), October 2012.
[I-D.crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-mpls-te]
Crabbe, E., Medved, J., Minei, I., and R. Varga, "Stateful
PCE extensions for MPLS-TE LSPs",
draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-mpls-te-00 (work in
progress), October 2012.
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]
Crabbe, E., Medved, J., Minei, I., and R. Varga, "PCEP
Extensions for Stateful PCE",
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-02 (work in progress),
October 2012.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP. and JL. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element
Tanaka & Kamite Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft M-B-B procedure using Stateful PCE Feb 2013
(PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
March 2009.
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-protection]
Crabbe, E., Medved, J., Minei, I., and R. Torvi, "PCEP
Extensions for MPLS-TE LSP protection with stateful PCE",
draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-protection-00 (work in
progress), October 2012.
[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.
[RFC4426] Lang, J., Rajagopalan, B., and D. Papadimitriou,
"Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Recovery Functional Specification", RFC 4426, March 2006.
[RFC4427] Mannie, E. and D. Papadimitriou, "Recovery (Protection and
Restoration) Terminology for Generalized Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4427, March 2006.
Authors' Addresses
Yosuke Tanaka
NTT Communications Corporation
Granpark Tower
3-4-1 Shibaura, Minato-ku
Tokyo 108-8118
Japan
Email: yosuke.tanaka@ntt.com
Yuji Kamite
NTT Communications Corporation
Granpark Tower
3-4-1 Shibaura, Minato-ku
Tokyo 108-8118
Japan
Email: y.kamite@ntt.com
Tanaka & Kamite Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 15]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 14:04:35 |