draft-ietf-mpls-ri-rsvp-frr-07.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-ri-rsvp-frr-08.txt 
MPLS Working Group C. Ramachandran MPLS Working Group C. Ramachandran
Internet-Draft T. Saad Internet-Draft T. Saad
Updates: 4090 (if approved) Juniper Networks, Inc. Updates: 4090 (if approved) Juniper Networks, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track I. Minei Intended status: Standards Track I. Minei
Expires: March 6, 2020 Google, Inc. Expires: May 21, 2021 Google, Inc.
D. Pacella D. Pacella
Verizon, Inc. Verizon, Inc.
September 3, 2019 November 17, 2020
Refresh-interval Independent FRR Facility Protection Refresh-interval Independent FRR Facility Protection
draft-ietf-mpls-ri-rsvp-frr-07 draft-ietf-mpls-ri-rsvp-frr-08
Abstract Abstract
RSVP-TE Fast ReRoute extensions specified in RFC 4090 defines two RSVP-TE Fast ReRoute extensions specified in RFC 4090 defines two
local repair techniques to reroute Label Switched Path (LSP) traffic local repair techniques to reroute Label Switched Path (LSP) traffic
over pre-established backup tunnel. Facility backup method allows over pre-established backup tunnel. Facility backup method allows
one or more LSPs traversing a connected link or node to be protected one or more LSPs traversing a connected link or node to be protected
using a bypass tunnel. The many-to-one nature of local repair using a bypass tunnel. The many-to-one nature of local repair
technique is attractive from scalability point of view. This technique is attractive from scalability point of view. This
document enumerates facility backup procedures in RFC 4090 that rely document enumerates facility backup procedures in RFC 4090 that rely
skipping to change at page 2, line 7 skipping to change at page 2, line 7
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 6, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 21, 2021.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
skipping to change at page 2, line 34 skipping to change at page 2, line 34
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Problem Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Problem Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Solution Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Solution Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Requirement on RFC 4090 Capable Node to advertise RI-RSVP 4.1. Requirement on RFC 4090 Capable Node to advertise RI-RSVP
Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. Signaling Handshake between PLR and MP . . . . . . . . . 8 4.2. Signaling Handshake between PLR and MP . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2.1. PLR Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.2.1. PLR Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2.2. Remote Signaling Adjacency . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.2.2. Remote Signaling Adjacency . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.3. MP Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.2.3. MP Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.4. "Remote" State on MP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.2.4. "Remote" State on MP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.3. Impact of Failures on LSP State . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.3. Impact of Failures on LSP State . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.3.1. Non-MP Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.3.1. Non-MP Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.3.2. LP-MP Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.3.2. LP-MP Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.3.3. NP-MP Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.3.3. NP-MP Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.3.4. Behavior of a Router that is both LP-MP and NP-MP . . 14 4.3.4. Behavior of a Router that is both LP-MP and NP-MP . . 14
4.4. Conditional PathTear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.4. Conditional PathTear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.4.1. Sending Conditional PathTear . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.4.1. Sending Conditional PathTear . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.4.2. Processing Conditional PathTear . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.4.2. Processing Conditional PathTear . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.4.3. CONDITIONS Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.4.3. CONDITIONS Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.5. Remote State Teardown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.5. Remote State Teardown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.5.1. PLR Behavior on Local Repair Failure . . . . . . . . 17 4.5.1. PLR Behavior on Local Repair Failure . . . . . . . . 17
4.5.2. PLR Behavior on Resv RRO Change . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.5.2. PLR Behavior on Resv RRO Change . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.5.3. LSP Preemption during Local Repair . . . . . . . . . 18 4.5.3. LSP Preemption during Local Repair . . . . . . . . . 18
skipping to change at page 3, line 16 skipping to change at page 3, line 16
4.6.1. Detecting Support for Refresh interval Independent 4.6.1. Detecting Support for Refresh interval Independent
FRR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 FRR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.6.2. Procedures for Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . 20 4.6.2. Procedures for Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . 20
4.6.2.1. Lack of support on Downstream Node . . . . . . . 20 4.6.2.1. Lack of support on Downstream Node . . . . . . . 20
4.6.2.2. Lack of support on Upstream Node . . . . . . . . 20 4.6.2.2. Lack of support on Upstream Node . . . . . . . . 20
4.6.2.3. Incremental Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4.6.2.3. Incremental Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.1. New Object - CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 6.1. New Object - CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
RSVP-TE relies on periodic refresh of RSVP messages to synchronize RSVP-TE relies on periodic refresh of RSVP messages to synchronize
and maintain the Label Switched Path (LSP) related states along the and maintain the Label Switched Path (LSP) related states along the
reserved path. In the absence of refresh messages, the LSP-related reserved path. In the absence of refresh messages, the LSP-related
skipping to change at page 5, line 25 skipping to change at page 5, line 25
NP-MP node: Merge Point router at the tail of Node-Protecting bypass NP-MP node: Merge Point router at the tail of Node-Protecting bypass
tunnel tunnel
TED: Traffic Engineering Database TED: Traffic Engineering Database
LSP state: The combination of "path state" maintained as Path State LSP state: The combination of "path state" maintained as Path State
Block (PSB) and "reservation state" maintained as Reservation State Block (PSB) and "reservation state" maintained as Reservation State
Block (RSB) forms an individual LSP state on an RSVP-TE speaker Block (RSB) forms an individual LSP state on an RSVP-TE speaker
B-SFRR-Ready: Bypass Summary FRR Ready Extended Association object B-SFRR-Ready: Bypass Summary FRR Ready Extended Association object
defined in Summary FRR extensions [I-D.ietf-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte] defined in Summary FRR extensions [RFC8796] and is added by the PLR
and is added by the PLR for each protected LSP. for each protected LSP.
Conditional PathTear: A PathTear message containing a suggestion to a Conditional PathTear: A PathTear message containing a suggestion to a
receiving downstream router to retain the path state if the receiving receiving downstream router to retain the path state if the receiving
router is an NP-MP router is an NP-MP
Remote PathTear: A PathTear message sent from a Point of Local Repair Remote PathTear: A PathTear message sent from a Point of Local Repair
(PLR) to the MP to delete LSP state on the MP if PLR had not reliably (PLR) to the MP to delete LSP state on the MP if PLR had not reliably
sent the backup Path state before sent the backup Path state before
3. Problem Description 3. Problem Description
skipping to change at page 7, line 51 skipping to change at page 7, line 51
The purpose of this document is to provide solutions to the above The purpose of this document is to provide solutions to the above
problems which will then make it practical to scale up to a large problems which will then make it practical to scale up to a large
number of protected LSPs in the network. number of protected LSPs in the network.
4. Solution Aspects 4. Solution Aspects
The solution consists of five parts. The solution consists of five parts.
- Utilize MP determination mechanism specified in RSVP-TE Summary - Utilize MP determination mechanism specified in RSVP-TE Summary
FRR [I-D.ietf-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte] that enables the PLR to FRR [RFC8796] that enables the PLR to signal the availability of
signal the availability of local protection to the MP. In local protection to the MP. In addition, introduce PLR and MP
addition, introduce PLR and MP procedures to establish Node-ID procedures to to establish Node-ID based hello session between the
based hello session between the PLR and the MP to detect router PLR and the MP to detect router failures and to determine
failures and to determine capability. See section 4.2 for more capability. See section 4.2 for more details. This part of the
details. This part of the solution re-uses some of the extensions solution re-uses some of the extensions defined in RSVP-TE Summary
defined in RSVP-TE Summary FRR [I-D.ietf-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte] FRR [RFC8796] and RSVP-TE Scaling Techniques [RFC8370], and the
and RSVP-TE Scaling Techniques [RFC8370], and the subsequent sub- subsequent sub-sections will list the extensions in these drafts
sections will list the extensions in these drafts that are that are utilized in this document.
utilized in this document.
- Handle upstream link or node failures by cleaning up LSP states if - Handle upstream link or node failures by cleaning up LSP states if
the node has not found itself as an MP through the MP the node has not found itself as an MP through the MP
determination mechanism. See section 4.3 for more details. determination mechanism. See section 4.3 for more details.
- Introduce extensions to enable a router to send a tear down - Introduce extensions to enable a router to send a tear down
message to the downstream router that enables the receiving router message to the downstream router that enables the receiving router
to conditionally delete its local LSP state. See section 4.4 for to conditionally delete its local LSP state. See section 4.4 for
more details. more details.
skipping to change at page 10, line 12 skipping to change at page 10, line 8
set the I-bit in the CAPABILITY object [RFC8370] carried in Hello set the I-bit in the CAPABILITY object [RFC8370] carried in Hello
message corresponding to the Node-ID based Hello session, then the message corresponding to the Node-ID based Hello session, then the
PLR SHOULD conclude that the MP supports refresh-interval PLR SHOULD conclude that the MP supports refresh-interval
independent FRR procedures defined in this document. If the MP independent FRR procedures defined in this document. If the MP
has not sent Node-ID based Hello messages or has not set the I-bit has not sent Node-ID based Hello messages or has not set the I-bit
in CAPABILITY object [RFC8370], then the PLR MUST execute backward in CAPABILITY object [RFC8370], then the PLR MUST execute backward
compatibility procedures defined in Section 4.6.2.1 of this compatibility procedures defined in Section 4.6.2.1 of this
document. document.
- If the bypass LSP comes up and the PLR has made local protection - If the bypass LSP comes up and the PLR has made local protection
available for one or more LSPs, then [I-D.ietf-mpls-summary-frr- available for one or more LSPs, then RSVP-TE Summary FRR [RFC8796]
rsvpte] applies: the PLR MUST include B-SFRR-Ready Extended applies: the PLR MUST include B-SFRR-Ready Extended Association
Association object and trigger a Path message to be sent for those object and trigger a Path message to be sent for those LSPs. If a
LSPs. If a B-SFRR-Ready Extended Association object is included B-SFRR-Ready Extended Association object is included in the Path
in the Path message, then the encoding and object ordering rules message, then the encoding and object ordering rules specified in
specified in RSVP-TE Summary FRR RSVP-TE Summary FRR [RFC8796] MUST be followed.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte] MUST be followed.
4.2.2. Remote Signaling Adjacency 4.2.2. Remote Signaling Adjacency
A Node-ID based RSVP-TE Hello session is one in which Node-ID is used A Node-ID based RSVP-TE Hello session is one in which Node-ID is used
in the source and the destination address fields of RSVP Hello in the source and the destination address fields of RSVP Hello
messages [RFC4558]. This document extends Node-ID based RSVP Hello messages [RFC4558]. This document extends Node-ID based RSVP Hello
session to track the state of any RSVP-TE neighbor that is not session to track the state of any RSVP-TE neighbor that is not
directly connected by at least one interface. In order to apply directly connected by at least one interface. In order to apply
Node-ID based RSVP-TE Hello session between any two routers that are Node-ID based RSVP-TE Hello session between any two routers that are
not immediate neighbors, the router that supports the extensions not immediate neighbors, the router that supports the extensions
skipping to change at page 10, line 40 skipping to change at page 10, line 35
based Hello messages exchanged between the PLR and the MP. The based Hello messages exchanged between the PLR and the MP. The
default hello interval for this Node-ID hello session SHOULD be set default hello interval for this Node-ID hello session SHOULD be set
to the default specified in RSVP-TE Scaling Techniques [RFC8370]. to the default specified in RSVP-TE Scaling Techniques [RFC8370].
In the rest of the document the term "signaling adjacency", or In the rest of the document the term "signaling adjacency", or
"remote signaling adjacency" refers specifically to the RSVP-TE "remote signaling adjacency" refers specifically to the RSVP-TE
signaling adjacency. signaling adjacency.
4.2.3. MP Behavior 4.2.3. MP Behavior
With regard to the MP procedures that are defined in [RFC4090], this With regard to the MP procedures that are defined in [RFC4090] this
document specifies the following additional procedures to support RI- document specifies the following additional procedures to support RI-
RSVP defined in [RFC8370]. RSVP defined in [RFC8370].
Each node along an LSP path supporting the extensions defined in this Each node along an LSP path supporting the extensions defined in this
document MUST also include its router ID in the Node-ID sub-object of document MUST also include its router ID in the Node-ID sub-object of
the RRO object carried in the Resv message of the LSPs. If the PLR the RRO object carried in the Resv message of the LSPs. If the PLR
has not included a Node-ID sub-object in the RRO object carried in has not included a Node-ID sub-object in the RRO object carried in
the Path message and if the PLR is in a different IGP area, then the the Path message and if the PLR is in a different IGP area, then the
router MUST NOT execute the MP procedures specified in this document router MUST NOT execute the MP procedures specified in this document
for those LSPs. Instead, the node MUST execute backward for those LSPs. Instead, the node MUST execute backward
skipping to change at page 11, line 24 skipping to change at page 11, line 19
if the PLR has not advertised RI-RSVP capability in its Node-ID based if the PLR has not advertised RI-RSVP capability in its Node-ID based
Hello messages, then the node MUST execute backward compatibility Hello messages, then the node MUST execute backward compatibility
procedures defined in Section 4.6.2.2. procedures defined in Section 4.6.2.2.
If a matching B-SFRR-Ready Extended Association object is found in If a matching B-SFRR-Ready Extended Association object is found in
the Path message and if there is an operational remote signaling the Path message and if there is an operational remote signaling
adjacency with the PLR that has advertised RI-RSVP capability (I-bit) adjacency with the PLR that has advertised RI-RSVP capability (I-bit)
[RFC8370] in its Node-ID based Hello messages, then the node SHOULD [RFC8370] in its Node-ID based Hello messages, then the node SHOULD
consider itself as the MP for the corresponding PLR. The matching consider itself as the MP for the corresponding PLR. The matching
and ordering rules for Bypass Summary FRR Extended Association and ordering rules for Bypass Summary FRR Extended Association
specified in RSVP-TE Summary FRR [I-D.ietf-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte] specified in RSVP-TE Summary FRR [RFC8796] MUST be followed by the
MUST be followed by the implementations supporting this document. implementations supporting this document.
- If a matching Bypass Summary FRR Extended Association object is - If a matching Bypass Summary FRR Extended Association object is
included by the PPhop node of an LSP and if a corresponding Node- included by the PPhop node of an LSP and if a corresponding Node-
ID signaling adjacency exists with the PPhop node, then the router ID signaling adjacency exists with the PPhop node, then the router
SHOULD conclude it is the NP-MP. SHOULD conclude it is the NP-MP.
- If a matching Bypass Summary FRR Extended Association object is - If a matching Bypass Summary FRR Extended Association object is
included by the Phop node of an LSP and if a corresponding Node-ID included by the Phop node of an LSP and if a corresponding Node-ID
signaling adjacency exists with the Phop node, then the router signaling adjacency exists with the Phop node, then the router
SHOULD conclude it is the LP-MP. SHOULD conclude it is the LP-MP.
skipping to change at page 19, line 17 skipping to change at page 19, line 11
to B. to B.
5. B will delete its reservation and send a ResvTear to A. 5. B will delete its reservation and send a ResvTear to A.
4.6. Backward Compatibility Procedures 4.6. Backward Compatibility Procedures
The "Refresh interval Independent FRR" or RI-RSVP-FRR referred below The "Refresh interval Independent FRR" or RI-RSVP-FRR referred below
in this section refers to the changes that have been defined in in this section refers to the changes that have been defined in
previous sections. Any implementation that does not support them has previous sections. Any implementation that does not support them has
been termed as "non-RI-RSVP-FRR implementation". The extensions been termed as "non-RI-RSVP-FRR implementation". The extensions
proposed in RSVP-TE Summary FRR [I-D.ietf-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte] proposed in RSVP-TE Summary FRR [RFC8796] are applicable to
are applicable to implementations that do not support RI-RSVP-FRR. implementations that do not support RI-RSVP-FRR. On the other hand,
On the other hand, changes proposed relating to LSP state cleanup changes proposed relating to LSP state cleanup namely Conditional and
namely Conditional and "Remote" PathTear require support from one-hop "Remote" PathTear require support from one-hop and two-hop
and two-hop neighboring nodes along the LSP path. So procedures that neighboring nodes along the LSP path. So procedures that fall under
fall under LSP state cleanup category SHOULD be turned on only if all LSP state cleanup category SHOULD be turned on only if all nodes
nodes involved in the node protection FRR i.e. the PLR, the MP and involved in the node protection FRR i.e. the PLR, the MP and the
the intermediate node in the case of NP, support the extensions. intermediate node in the case of NP, support the extensions. Note
Note that for LSPs requesting only link protection, the PLR and the that for LSPs requesting only link protection, the PLR and the LP-MP
LP-MP need to support the extensions. need to support the extensions.
4.6.1. Detecting Support for Refresh interval Independent FRR 4.6.1. Detecting Support for Refresh interval Independent FRR
An implementation supporting the extensions specified in previous An implementation supporting the extensions specified in previous
sections (called RI-RSVP-FRR here after) SHOULD set the flag "Refresh sections (called RI-RSVP-FRR here after) SHOULD set the flag "Refresh
interval Independent RSVP" or RI-RSVP flag in the CAPABILITY object interval Independent RSVP" or RI-RSVP flag in the CAPABILITY object
carried in Hello messages. The RI-RSVP flag is specified in RSVP-TE carried in Hello messages. The RI-RSVP flag is specified in RSVP-TE
Scaling Techniques [RFC8370]. Scaling Techniques [RFC8370].
- As nodes supporting the extensions SHOULD initiate Node Hellos - As nodes supporting the extensions SHOULD initiate Node Hellos
skipping to change at page 23, line 31 skipping to change at page 23, line 24
Email: exa@arrcus.com Email: exa@arrcus.com
Mike Taillon Mike Taillon
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: mtaillon@cisco.com Email: mtaillon@cisco.com
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte]
Taillon, M., Saad, T., Gandhi, R., Deshmukh, A., Jork, M.,
and V. Beeram, "RSVP-TE Summary Fast Reroute Extensions
for LSP Tunnels", draft-ietf-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte-05
(work in progress), July 2019.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S. [RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205, Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205,
September 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205>. September 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205>.
skipping to change at page 24, line 42 skipping to change at page 24, line 31
[RFC5063] Satyanarayana, A., Ed. and R. Rahman, Ed., "Extensions to [RFC5063] Satyanarayana, A., Ed. and R. Rahman, Ed., "Extensions to
GMPLS Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Graceful GMPLS Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Graceful
Restart", RFC 5063, DOI 10.17487/RFC5063, October 2007, Restart", RFC 5063, DOI 10.17487/RFC5063, October 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5063>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5063>.
[RFC8370] Beeram, V., Ed., Minei, I., Shakir, R., Pacella, D., and [RFC8370] Beeram, V., Ed., Minei, I., Shakir, R., Pacella, D., and
T. Saad, "Techniques to Improve the Scalability of RSVP-TE T. Saad, "Techniques to Improve the Scalability of RSVP-TE
Deployments", RFC 8370, DOI 10.17487/RFC8370, May 2018, Deployments", RFC 8370, DOI 10.17487/RFC8370, May 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8370>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8370>.
[RFC8796] Taillon, M., Saad, T., Ed., Gandhi, R., Deshmukh, A.,
Jork, M., and V. Beeram, "RSVP-TE Summary Fast Reroute
Extensions for Label Switched Path (LSP) Tunnels",
RFC 8796, DOI 10.17487/RFC8796, July 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8796>.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS [RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, DOI 10.17487/RFC5920, July 2010, Networks", RFC 5920, DOI 10.17487/RFC5920, July 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5920>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5920>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Chandra Ramachandran Chandra Ramachandran
Juniper Networks, Inc. Juniper Networks, Inc.
Email: csekar@juniper.net Email: csekar@juniper.net
Tarek Saad Tarek Saad
Juniper Networks, Inc. Juniper Networks, Inc.
Email: tsaad@juniper.net Email: tsaad@juniper.net
Ina Minei Ina Minei
Google, Inc. Google, Inc.
Email: inaminei@google.com Email: inaminei@google.com
 End of changes. 18 change blocks. 
47 lines changed or deleted 45 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/