draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-03.txt   draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-04.txt 
PCE Working Group D. Dhody PCE Working Group D. Dhody
Internet-Draft U. Palle Internet-Draft U. Palle
Intended status: Experimental Huawei Technologies Intended status: Experimental Huawei Technologies
Expires: January 10, 2014 R. Casellas Expires: July 11, 2014 R. Casellas
CTTC CTTC
July 9, 2013 January 7, 2014
Standard Representation Of Domain-Sequence Standard Representation Of Domain-Sequence
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-03 draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-04
Abstract Abstract
The ability to compute shortest constrained Traffic Engineering Label The ability to compute shortest constrained Traffic Engineering Label
Switched Paths (TE LSPs) in Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Switched Paths (TE LSPs) in Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks across multiple domains has been Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks across multiple domains has been
identified as a key requirement. In this context, a domain is a identified as a key requirement. In this context, a domain is a
collection of network elements within a common sphere of address collection of network elements within a common sphere of address
management or path computational responsibility such as an Interior management or path computational responsibility such as an Interior
Gateway Protocol (IGP) area or an Autonomous Systems (AS). This Gateway Protocol (IGP) area or an Autonomous Systems (AS). This
document specifies a standard representation and encoding of a document specifies a standard representation and encoding of a
Domain-Sequence, which is defined as an ordered sequence of domains Domain-Sequence, which is defined as an ordered sequence of domains
traversed to reach the destination domain to be used by Path traversed to reach the destination domain to be used by Path
Computation Elements (PCEs) to compute inter-domain shortest Computation Elements (PCEs) to compute inter-domain shortest
constrained paths across a predetermined sequence of domains . This constrained paths across a predetermined sequence of domains . This
document also defines new subobjects to be used to encode domain document also defines new subobjects to be used to encode domain
identifiers. identifiers.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://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 January 10, 2014. This Internet-Draft will expire on July 11, 2014.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2014 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://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
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Detail Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Detail Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1. Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Domain-Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2. Domain-Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Standard Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.3. Standard Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. Include Route Object (IRO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.4. Include Route Object (IRO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4.1. Subobjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.4.1. Subobjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4.2. Option (A): New IRO Object Type . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.4.2. Option (A): New IRO Object Type . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4.2.1. Handling of the Domain-Sequence IRO object . . . . 11 3.4.2.1. Handling of the Domain-Sequence IRO object . . . 11
3.4.3. Option B: Existing IRO Object Type . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.4.3. Option B: Existing IRO Object Type . . . . . . . . . 12
3.5. Exclude Route Object (XRO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.4.4. Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.5.1. Subobjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.5. Exclude Route Object (XRO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.5.1.1. Autonomous system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.5.1. Subobjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.5.1.2. IGP Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.5.1.1. Autonomous system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.6. Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject (EXRS) . . . . . . . . 16 3.5.1.2. IGP Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.7. Explicit Route Object (ERO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.6. Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject (EXRS) . . . . . . . . 16
4. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3.7. Explicit Route Object (ERO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.1. Inter-Area Path Computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.2. Inter-AS Path Computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.1. Inter-Area Path Computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.2.1. Example 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.2. Inter-AS Path Computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.2.2. Example 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 4.2.1. Example 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.3. Boundary Node and Inter-AS-Link . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 4.2.2. Example 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.4. PCE Serving multiple Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 4.3. Boundary Node and Inter-AS-Link . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.5. P2MP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 4.4. PCE Serving multiple Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.6. Hierarchical PCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 4.5. P2MP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.7. Relationship to PCE Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 4.6. Hierarchical PCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.8. Relationship to RSVP-TE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 4.7. Relationship to PCE Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 4.8. Relationship to RSVP-TE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.1. PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.2. New Subobjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 5.1. PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.3. Error Object Field Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 5.2. New Subobjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 5.3. Error Object Field Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
7. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 7. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 7.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 7.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 7.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 7.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 7.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 7.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
A PCE may be used to compute end-to-end paths across multi-domain A PCE may be used to compute end-to-end paths across multi-domain
environments using a per-domain path computation technique [RFC5152]. environments using a per-domain path computation technique [RFC5152].
The so called backward recursive path computation (BRPC) mechanism The so called backward recursive path computation (BRPC) mechanism
[RFC5441] defines a PCE-based path computation procedure to compute [RFC5441] defines a PCE-based path computation procedure to compute
inter-domain constrained (G)MPLS TE LSPs. However, both per-domain inter-domain constrained (G)MPLS TE LSPs. However, both per-domain
and BRPC techniques assume that the sequence of domains to be crossed and BRPC techniques assume that the sequence of domains to be crossed
from source to destination is known, either fixed by the network from source to destination is known, either fixed by the network
operator or obtained by other means. Further for inter-domain point- operator or obtained by other means. Also for inter-domain point-to-
to-multi-point (P2MP) tree computation, [PCE-P2MP-PROCEDURES] assumes multi-point (P2MP) tree computation, [PCE-P2MP-PROCEDURES] assumes
the domain-tree is known. the domain-tree is known in priori.
The list of domains (domain-sequence) in a point-to-point (P2P) path The list of domains (domain-sequence) in a point-to-point (P2P) path
or a point-to-multi-point (P2MP) tree is usually a constraint in the or a point-to-multi-point (P2MP) tree is usually a constraint in the
path computation request. The PCE determines the next PCE to forward path computation request. The PCE determines the next PCE to forward
the request based on the domain-sequence. In a multi-domain path the request based on the domain-sequence. In a multi-domain path
computation, a PCC MAY indicate the sequence of domains to be computation, a PCC MAY indicate the sequence of domains to be
traversed using the Include Route Object (IRO) defined in [RFC5440]. traversed using the Include Route Object (IRO) defined in [RFC5440].
When the sequence of domains is not known in advance, the When the sequence of domains is not known in advance, the
Hierarchical PCE (H-PCE) [RFC6805] architecture and mechanisms can be Hierarchical PCE (H-PCE) [RFC6805] architecture and mechanisms can be
skipping to change at page 4, line 46 skipping to change at page 4, line 13
document. document.
[RFC5440] defines the Include Route Object (IRO) and the Explicit [RFC5440] defines the Include Route Object (IRO) and the Explicit
Route Object (ERO); [RFC5521] defines the Exclude Route Object (XRO) Route Object (ERO); [RFC5521] defines the Exclude Route Object (XRO)
and the Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject (EXRS); The use of and the Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject (EXRS); The use of
Autonomous System (AS) (albeit with a 2-Byte AS number) as an Autonomous System (AS) (albeit with a 2-Byte AS number) as an
abstract node representing domain is defined in [RFC3209], this abstract node representing domain is defined in [RFC3209], this
document specifies new subobjects to include or exclude domains such document specifies new subobjects to include or exclude domains such
as an IGP area or an Autonomous Systems (4-Byte as per [RFC4893]). as an IGP area or an Autonomous Systems (4-Byte as per [RFC4893]).
Further, the domain identifier may simply act as delimiter to specify
where the domain boundary starts and ends.
This is a companion document to Resource ReserVation Protocol -
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) extensions for the domain identifiers
[DOMAIN-SUBOBJ].
1.1. Requirements Language 1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
The following terminology is used in this document. The following terminology is used in this document.
skipping to change at page 6, line 34 skipping to change at page 6, line 4
AS or both. AS or both.
3.2. Domain-Sequence 3.2. Domain-Sequence
A domain-sequence is an ordered sequence of domains traversed to A domain-sequence is an ordered sequence of domains traversed to
reach the destination domain. reach the destination domain.
A domain-sequence can be applied as a constraint and carried in path A domain-sequence can be applied as a constraint and carried in path
computation request to PCE(s). A domain-sequence can also be the computation request to PCE(s). A domain-sequence can also be the
result of a path computation. For example, in the case of H-PCE result of a path computation. For example, in the case of H-PCE
[RFC6805] Parent PCE MAY send the Domain-Sequence as a result in a [RFC6805] Parent PCE MAY send the Domain-Sequence as a result in a
path computation reply. path computation reply.
In this context, the ordered nature of a domain-sequence is In this context, the ordered nature of a domain-sequence is
important. In a P2P path, the domains listed appear in the order considered to be important. In a P2P path, the domains listed appear
that they are crossed. In a P2MP path, the domain tree is in the order that they are crossed. In a P2MP path, the domain tree
represented as list of domain sequences. is represented as list of domain sequences.
A domain-sequence enables a PCE to select the next PCE to forward the A domain-sequence enables a PCE to select the next PCE to forward the
path computation request based on the domain information. path computation request based on the domain information.
A PCC or PCE MAY add an additional constraints covering which A PCC or PCE MAY add an additional constraints covering which
Boundary Nodes (ABR or ASBR) or Border links (Inter-AS-link) MUST be Boundary Nodes (ABR or ASBR) or Border links (Inter-AS-link) MUST be
traversed while defining a Domain-Sequence. traversed while defining a Domain-Sequence.
Thus a Domain-Sequence MAY be made up of one or more of - Thus a Domain-Sequence MAY be made up of one or more of -
o AS Number o AS Number
o Area ID o Area ID
o Boundary Node ID o Boundary Node ID
o Inter-AS-Link Address o Inter-AS-Link Address
Consequently, a Domain-Sequence can be used: Consequently, a Domain-Sequence can be used:
skipping to change at page 7, line 46 skipping to change at page 7, line 16
certain abstract nodes that MUST be excluded from whole path. certain abstract nodes that MUST be excluded from whole path.
These subobjects are used to specify certain domains that MUST be These subobjects are used to specify certain domains that MUST be
avoided to reach the destination. avoided to reach the destination.
o Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject (EXRS): As per [RFC5521], used o Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject (EXRS): As per [RFC5521], used
to specify exclusion of certain abstract nodes between a specific to specify exclusion of certain abstract nodes between a specific
pair of nodes. EXRS are a subobject inside the IRO. These pair of nodes. EXRS are a subobject inside the IRO. These
subobjects are used to specify the domains that must be excluded subobjects are used to specify the domains that must be excluded
between two abstract nodes. between two abstract nodes.
o Explicit Route Object (ERO): As per [RFC5440],used to specify a o Explicit Route Object (ERO): As per [RFC5440], used to specify a
computed path in the network. computed path in the network. For example, in the case of H-PCE
[RFC6805] Parent PCE MAY send the Domain-Sequence as a result in a
path computation reply using ERO.
3.4. Include Route Object (IRO) 3.4. Include Route Object (IRO)
As per [RFC5440], IRO (Include Route Object) can be used to specify As per [RFC5440], IRO (Include Route Object) can be used to specify
that the computed path MUST traverse a set of specified network that the computed path MUST traverse a set of specified network
elements or abstract nodes. elements or abstract nodes.
3.4.1. Subobjects 3.4.1. Subobjects
Some subobjects are defined in [RFC3209], [RFC3473], [RFC3477] and Some subobjects are defined in [RFC3209], [RFC3473], [RFC3477] and
[RFC4874], but new subobjects related to Domain-Sequence are needed. [RFC4874], but new subobjects related to Domain-Sequence are needed.
The following subobject types are used in IRO. The following subobject types are used in IRO.
The following subobject types are used.
Type Subobject Type Subobject
1 IPv4 prefix 1 IPv4 prefix
2 IPv6 prefix 2 IPv6 prefix
4 Unnumbered Interface ID 4 Unnumbered Interface ID
32 Autonomous system number (2 Byte) 32 Autonomous system number (2 Byte)
33 Explicit Exclusion (EXRS) 33 Explicit Exclusion (EXRS)
This document extends the above list to support 4-Byte AS numbers and This document extends the above list to support 4-Byte AS numbers and
IGP Areas. IGP Areas.
The following subobject types are used.
Type Subobject Type Subobject
TBD Autonomous system number (4 Byte) TBD Autonomous system number (4 Byte)
TBD OSPF Area id TBD OSPF Area id
TBD ISIS Area id TBD ISIS Area id
- Autonomous system - Autonomous system
[RFC3209] already defines 2 byte AS number. [RFC3209] already defines 2 byte AS number.
To support 4 byte AS number as per [RFC4893] following subobject is To support 4 byte AS number as per [RFC4893] following subobject is
skipping to change at page 9, line 23 skipping to change at page 8, line 34
AS-ID: The 4-Byte AS Number. Note that if 2-Byte AS numbers are in AS-ID: The 4-Byte AS Number. Note that if 2-Byte AS numbers are in
use, the low order bits (16 through 31) should be used and the use, the low order bits (16 through 31) should be used and the
high order bits (0 through 15) should be set to zero. high order bits (0 through 15) should be set to zero.
- IGP Area - IGP Area
Since the length and format of Area-id is different for OSPF and Since the length and format of Area-id is different for OSPF and
ISIS, following two subobjects are defined: ISIS, following two subobjects are defined:
For OSPF, the area-id is a 32 bit number. The Subobject looks For OSPF, the area-id is a 32 bit number. The subobject is encoded
as follows:
0 1 2 3 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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type | Length | Reserved | |L| Type | Length | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OSPF Area Id (4 bytes) | | OSPF Area Id (4 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
L: The L bit is an attribute of the subobject as defined in L: The L bit is an attribute of the subobject as defined in
[RFC3209]. [RFC3209].
skipping to change at page 9, line 45 skipping to change at page 9, line 11
Type: (TBA by IANA) indicating a 4-Byte OSPF Area ID. Type: (TBA by IANA) indicating a 4-Byte OSPF Area ID.
Length: 8 (Total length of the subobject in bytes). Length: 8 (Total length of the subobject in bytes).
Reserved: Zero at transmission, ignored at receipt. Reserved: Zero at transmission, ignored at receipt.
OSPF Area Id: The 4-Byte OSPF Area ID. OSPF Area Id: The 4-Byte OSPF Area ID.
For IS-IS, the area-id is of variable length and thus the length of For IS-IS, the area-id is of variable length and thus the length of
the Subobject is variable. The Area-id is as described in IS-IS by the Subobject is variable. The Area-id is as described in IS-IS by
ISO standard [ISO 10589]. ISO standard [ISO10589]. The subobject is encoded as follows:
0 1 2 3 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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type | Length | Area-Len | Reserved | |L| Type | Length | Area-Len | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
// IS-IS Area ID // // IS-IS Area ID //
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 11, line 11 skipping to change at page 10, line 25
Subobjects: The IRO is made of subobjects identical to the ones Subobjects: The IRO is made of subobjects identical to the ones
defined in [RFC3209], [RFC3473], and [RFC3477], where the IRO defined in [RFC3209], [RFC3473], and [RFC3477], where the IRO
subobject type is identical to the subobject type defined in the subobject type is identical to the subobject type defined in the
related documents. Some new subobjects related to Domain-Sequence related documents. Some new subobjects related to Domain-Sequence
are also added in this document as mentioned in Section 3.4. are also added in this document as mentioned in Section 3.4.
[RFC3209] defines subobjects for IPv4, IPv6 and unnumbered Interface [RFC3209] defines subobjects for IPv4, IPv6 and unnumbered Interface
ID, which in the context of domain-sequence is used to specify ID, which in the context of domain-sequence is used to specify
Boundary Node (ABR/ASBR) and Inter-AS-Links. The subobjects for AS Boundary Node (ABR/ASBR) and Inter-AS-Links. The subobjects for AS
Number (2 or 4 Byte) and IGP Area is used to specify the domains in Number (2 or 4 Byte) and IGP Area is used to specify the domain
the domain-sequence. identifiers in the domain-sequence.
The new IRO Object-Type used to define the domain-sequence would The new IRO Object-Type used to define the domain-sequence would
handle the L bit (Loose / Strict) in the subobjects similar to handle the L bit (Loose / Strict) in the subobjects similar to
[RFC3209]. [RFC3209].
Further we have following options: Further we have following options:
* Option (A.1): New IRO Object Type for Domain-Sequence object only. * Option (A.1): New IRO Object Type for Domain-Sequence object only.
A new IRO Object Type is used to specify the ordered sequence of A new IRO Object Type is used to specify the ordered sequence of
domains (Domain-Sequence) only. The PCReq message is modified to domains (Domain-Sequence) only. The PCReq message is modified to
skipping to change at page 11, line 38 skipping to change at page 11, line 4
Object Header) is as per [RFC5440]. Object Header) is as per [RFC5440].
* Option (A.2): New IRO Object Type for both intra and inter-domain * Option (A.2): New IRO Object Type for both intra and inter-domain
(domain-sequence). A new IRO Object Type is used to include both (domain-sequence). A new IRO Object Type is used to include both
intra nodes and inter-domains nodes but the sequence of domain is intra nodes and inter-domains nodes but the sequence of domain is
strict. The intra-domain nodes can still be ordered. In case of strict. The intra-domain nodes can still be ordered. In case of
inter-domain path computation, only the new IRO type is used which inter-domain path computation, only the new IRO type is used which
contains the specific intra domain network nodes as well as inter- contains the specific intra domain network nodes as well as inter-
domain abstract nodes or domains. The inter-domain abstract nodes domain abstract nodes or domains. The inter-domain abstract nodes
are encoded in the sequence they must be traversed but the intra- are encoded in the sequence they must be traversed but the intra-
domain elements MAY be an unordered set. domain elements MAY be an unordered set. There is no need to
change the PCReq message format.
3.4.2.1. Handling of the Domain-Sequence IRO object 3.4.2.1. Handling of the Domain-Sequence IRO object
An IRO object containing Domain-Sequence subobjects constraints or An IRO object containing Domain-Sequence subobjects constraints or
defines the domains involved in a multi-domain path computation, defines the domains involved in a multi-domain path computation,
typically involving two or more collaborative PCEs. typically involving two or more collaborative PCEs.
A Domain-Sequence can have varying degrees of granularity; it is A Domain-Sequence can have varying degrees of granularity; it is
possible to have a Domain-Sequence composed of, uniquely, AS possible to have a Domain-Sequence composed of, uniquely, AS
identifiers. It is also possible to list the involved areas for a identifiers. It is also possible to list the involved areas for a
skipping to change at page 14, line 13 skipping to change at page 13, line 32
well. well.
o Scope: Coexistence of intra-domain nodes, boundary nodes and o Scope: Coexistence of intra-domain nodes, boundary nodes and
domain nodes in the same IRO List. It is the job of PCE to figure domain nodes in the same IRO List. It is the job of PCE to figure
out the scope and apply the processing rules accordingly. The out the scope and apply the processing rules accordingly. The
nodes in the IRO which are recognized by the PCE are handled nodes in the IRO which are recognized by the PCE are handled
locally and others are forwarded to next PCE hoping they would locally and others are forwarded to next PCE hoping they would
handle them, the aggregating PCE (Ingress PCE or Parent) would handle them, the aggregating PCE (Ingress PCE or Parent) would
make sure that all nodes in IRO are handled correctly. make sure that all nodes in IRO are handled correctly.
3.4.4. Comparison
+-------------+-------------------+-------------------+-------------------+
| |Option (A.1): New |Option (A.2): New |Option B: Existing |
| |IRO Object Type for|IRO Object Type for|IRO Object Type |
| |Domain-Sequence |both intra and | |
| |object only |inter-domain | |
+-------------+-------------------+-------------------+-------------------+
|Order |Yes |Yes |No |
+-------------+-------------------+-------------------+-------------------+
|L/X bit |Yes |Yes |No |
+-------------+-------------------+-------------------+-------------------+
|Msg Format |No |Yes |Yes |
|Unchanged | | | |
+-------------+-------------------+-------------------+-------------------+
|Seperation |Yes |Yes* |No |
|of scope | | | |
+-------------+-------------------+-------------------+-------------------+
* becasue of the ordered nature, intra-domain nodes would be first in the
new IRO type
[Editor's Note: Based on our opinion and the feedback received so
far, we feel the option A.2 should be selected.]
3.5. Exclude Route Object (XRO) 3.5. Exclude Route Object (XRO)
The Exclude Route Object (XRO) [RFC5521] is an optional object used The Exclude Route Object (XRO) [RFC5521] is an optional object used
to specify exclusion of certain abstract nodes or resources from the to specify exclusion of certain abstract nodes or resources from the
whole path. whole path.
3.5.1. Subobjects 3.5.1. Subobjects
The following subobject types are defined to be used in XRO as The following subobject types are defined to be used in XRO as
defined in [RFC3209], [RFC3477], [RFC4874], and [RFC5521]. defined in [RFC3209], [RFC3477], [RFC4874], and [RFC5521].
skipping to change at page 16, line 9 skipping to change at page 15, line 47
1: indicates that the OSFF Area specified SHOULD be avoided from the 1: indicates that the OSFF Area specified SHOULD be avoided from the
inter-domain path computed by the PCE(s), but MAY be included inter-domain path computed by the PCE(s), but MAY be included
subject to PCE policy and the absence of a viable path that meets subject to PCE policy and the absence of a viable path that meets
the other constraints. the other constraints.
All other fields are consistent with the definition in Section 3.4. All other fields are consistent with the definition in Section 3.4.
For IS-IS, the area-id is of variable length and thus the length of For IS-IS, the area-id is of variable length and thus the length of
the subobject is variable. The Area-id is as described in IS-IS by the subobject is variable. The Area-id is as described in IS-IS by
ISO standard [ISO 10589]. The subobject is encoded as follows: ISO standard [ISO10589]. The subobject is encoded as follows:
0 1 2 3 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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|X| Type | Length | Area-Len | Reserved | |X| Type | Length | Area-Len | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
// IS-IS Area ID // // IS-IS Area ID //
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 18, line 7 skipping to change at page 17, line 45
can be specified as a sequence of domains. can be specified as a sequence of domains.
In case of Hierarchical PCE [RFC6805], a Parent PCE MAY be requested In case of Hierarchical PCE [RFC6805], a Parent PCE MAY be requested
to find the domain-sequence. Refer example in Section 4.6. to find the domain-sequence. Refer example in Section 4.6.
The format of the new ERO subobjects is similar to new IRO The format of the new ERO subobjects is similar to new IRO
subobjects, refer Section 3.4. subobjects, refer Section 3.4.
4. Other Considerations 4. Other Considerations
The examples in this section are for illustration purposes only; to
show how the new subobjects may be encoded.
4.1. Inter-Area Path Computation 4.1. Inter-Area Path Computation
In an inter-area path computation where the ingress and the egress In an inter-area path computation where the ingress and the egress
nodes belong to different IGP areas within the same AS, the Domain- nodes belong to different IGP areas within the same AS, the Domain-
Sequence MAY be represented using a ordered list of Area subobjects. Sequence MAY be represented using a ordered list of Area subobjects.
The AS number MAY be skipped, as area information is enough to select The AS number MAY be skipped, as area information is enough to select
the next PCE. the next PCE.
+-------------------+ +-------------------+ +-------------------+ +-------------------+
| | | | | | | |
skipping to change at page 19, line 51 skipping to change at page 19, line 51
| +--+ | | | | | | +--+ | | | | |
| + + +--+ | | + + +--+ |
| +--+ | | | | +--+ | | |
| | | | | +--+ | | | | | | +--+ |
| +--+ | | | | | | +--+ | | | | |
| | | +--+ | | | | +--+ |
| | | | | | | |
| Area 1 | | Area 5 | | Area 1 | | Area 5 |
+------------------+ +--------------------+ +------------------+ +--------------------+
AS Number is 100.
Figure 1: Inter-Area Path Computation Figure 1: Inter-Area Path Computation
AS Number is 100.
This could be represented in the <IRO> as: This could be represented in the <IRO> as:
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
|IRO | |Sub | |Sub | |Sub | |IRO | |Sub | |Sub | |Sub |
|Object | |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object |
|Header | |Area 2 | |Area 0 | |Area 4 | |Header | |Area 2 | |Area 0 | |Area 4 |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
skipping to change at page 21, line 35 skipping to change at page 21, line 35
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| +------+ | | +------+ | | +------+ | | +------+ |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |PCE | | | |PCE | | | |PCE | | | |PCE | |
| +------+ | | +------+ | | +------+ | | +------+ |
| | | | | | | |
+------------------------+ | | +------------------------+ | |
+---------------------------------+ +---------------------------------+
Both AS are made of Area 0.
Figure 2: Inter-AS Path Computation Figure 2: Inter-AS Path Computation
Both AS are made of Area 0.
This could be represented in the <IRO> as: This could be represented in the <IRO> as:
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
|IRO | |Sub | |Sub | |IRO | |Sub | |Sub |
|Object | |Object AS| |Object AS| |Object | |Object AS| |Object AS|
|Header | |100 | |200 | |Header | |100 | |200 |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
|IRO | |Sub | |Sub | |Sub | |Sub | |IRO | |Sub | |Sub | |Sub | |Sub |
|Object | |Object AS| |Object | |Object AS| |Object | |Object | |Object AS| |Object | |Object AS| |Object |
|Header | |100 | |Area 0 | |200 | |Area 0 | |Header | |100 | |Area 0 | |200 | |Area 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
Area subobject is optional and it MAY be skipped. PCE should be
able to understand both notations. Area subobject is optional and it MAY be skipped. PCE should be able
to understand both notations.
4.2.2. Example 2 4.2.2. Example 2
As shown in Figure 3, where AS 200 is made up of multiple areas and As shown in Figure 3, where AS 200 is made up of multiple areas and
multiple domain-sequence exist, PCE MAY include both AS and Area multiple domain-sequence exist, PCE MAY include both AS and Area
subobject to uniquely identify the next domain and PCE. subobject to uniquely identify the next domain and PCE.
| |
| +-------------+ +----------------+ | +-------------+ +----------------+
| |Area 2 | |Area 4 | | |Area 2 | |Area 4 |
skipping to change at page 24, line 4 skipping to change at page 23, line 31
| |\ +--+ | +--+ | | |\ +--+ | +--+ |
| | \ +--+ | | | | | | | \ +--+ | | | | |
| | \| | | | +--+ | | | \| | | | +--+ |
| | *--+ | | | | | *--+ | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| +------------+ +----------------+ | +------------+ +----------------+
| |
| |
AS 100 | AS 200 AS 100 | AS 200
| |
Figure 3: Inter-AS Path Computation Figure 3: Inter-AS Path Computation
The Domain-Sequence can be carried in the IRO as shown below: The Domain-Sequence can be carried in the IRO as shown below:
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
|IRO | |Sub | |Sub | |Sub | |Sub | |Sub | |Sub | |IRO | |Sub | |Sub | |Sub | |Sub | |Sub | |Sub |
|Object | |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object |
|Header | |AS 100 | |Area 1 | |AS 200 | |Area 3 | |Area 0 | |Area 4 | |Header | |AS 100 | |Area 1 | |AS 200 | |Area 3 | |Area 0 | |Area 4 |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
The combination of both an AS and an Area uniquely identify a domain The combination of both an AS and an Area uniquely identify a domain
in the Domain-Sequence. in the Domain-Sequence.
skipping to change at page 30, line 33 skipping to change at page 30, line 27
7.6. Impact On Network Operations 7.6. Impact On Network Operations
Mechanisms defined in this document do not have any impact on network Mechanisms defined in this document do not have any impact on network
operations in addition to those already listed in [RFC5440]. operations in addition to those already listed in [RFC5440].
8. Acknowledgments 8. Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Pradeep Shastry, Suresh Babu, We would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Pradeep Shastry, Suresh Babu,
Quintin Zhao, Fatai Zhang, Daniel King, Oscar Gonzalez, Chen Huaimo, Quintin Zhao, Fatai Zhang, Daniel King, Oscar Gonzalez, Chen Huaimo,
Venugopal Reddy, Reeja Paul and Sandeep Boina for their useful Venugopal Reddy, Reeja Paul Sandeep Boina and Avantika for their
comments and suggestions. useful comments and suggestions.
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
RFC 2119, March 1997.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
Srinivasan, V., and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
December 2001.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label [RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
(RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC3477] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling [RFC3477] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered Links
Unnumbered Links in Resource ReSerVation in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering
Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)", (RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, January 2003.
RFC 3477, January 2003.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006.
RFC 4655, August 2006.
[RFC4726] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and A. Ayyangar, "A [RFC4726] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and A. Ayyangar, "A Framework for
Framework for Inter-Domain Multiprotocol Label Inter-Domain Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic
Switching Traffic Engineering", RFC 4726, Engineering", RFC 4726, November 2006.
November 2006.
[RFC4873] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., [RFC4873] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., and A. Farrel,
and A. Farrel, "GMPLS Segment Recovery", "GMPLS Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, May 2007.
RFC 4873, May 2007.
[RFC4874] Lee, CY., Farrel, A., and S. De Cnodder, [RFC4874] Lee, CY., Farrel, A., and S. De Cnodder, "Exclude Routes -
"Exclude Routes - Extension to Resource Extension to Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 4874, April 2007.
(RSVP-TE)", RFC 4874, April 2007.
[RFC4893] Vohra, Q. and E. Chen, "BGP Support for Four- [RFC4893] Vohra, Q. and E. Chen, "BGP Support for Four-octet AS
octet AS Number Space", RFC 4893, May 2007. Number Space", RFC 4893, May 2007.
[RFC5152] Vasseur, JP., Ayyangar, A., and R. Zhang, "A [RFC5152] Vasseur, JP., Ayyangar, A., and R. Zhang, "A Per-Domain
Per-Domain Path Computation Method for Path Computation Method for Establishing Inter-Domain
Establishing Inter-Domain Traffic Engineering Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC
(TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 5152, 5152, February 2008.
February 2008.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP. and JL. Le Roux, "Path [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP. and JL. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element
Computation Element (PCE) Communication (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, March
Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, March 2009. 2009.
[RFC5441] Vasseur, JP., Zhang, R., Bitar, N., and JL. Le [RFC5441] Vasseur, JP., Zhang, R., Bitar, N., and JL. Le Roux, "A
Roux, "A Backward-Recursive PCE-Based Backward-Recursive PCE-Based Computation (BRPC) Procedure
Computation (BRPC) Procedure to Compute to Compute Shortest Constrained Inter-Domain Traffic
Shortest Constrained Inter-Domain Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths", RFC 5441, April 2009.
Engineering Label Switched Paths", RFC 5441,
April 2009.
[RFC5520] Bradford, R., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel, [RFC5520] Bradford, R., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel, "Preserving
"Preserving Topology Confidentiality in Inter- Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path Computation
Domain Path Computation Using a Path-Key-Based Using a Path-Key-Based Mechanism", RFC 5520, April 2009.
Mechanism", RFC 5520, April 2009.
[RFC5521] Oki, E., Takeda, T., and A. Farrel, [RFC5521] Oki, E., Takeda, T., and A. Farrel, "Extensions to the
"Extensions to the Path Computation Element Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for
Communication Protocol (PCEP) for Route Route Exclusions", RFC 5521, April 2009.
Exclusions", RFC 5521, April 2009.
[RFC5886] Vasseur, JP., Le Roux, JL., and Y. Ikejiri, "A [RFC5886] Vasseur, JP., Le Roux, JL., and Y. Ikejiri, "A Set of
Set of Monitoring Tools for Path Computation Monitoring Tools for Path Computation Element (PCE)-Based
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 5886, Architecture", RFC 5886, June 2010.
June 2010.
[RFC6805] King, D. and A. Farrel, "The Application of [RFC6805] King, D. and A. Farrel, "The Application of the Path
the Path Computation Element Architecture to Computation Element Architecture to the Determination of a
the Determination of a Sequence of Domains in Sequence of Domains in MPLS and GMPLS", RFC 6805, November
MPLS and GMPLS", RFC 6805, November 2012. 2012.
[PCE-P2MP-PROCEDURES] Zhao, Q., Dhody, D., Ali, Z., Saad,, T., [PCE-P2MP-PROCEDURES]
Sivabalan,, S., and R. Casellas, "PCE-based Zhao, Q., Dhody, D., Ali, Z., Saad,, T., Sivabalan,, S.,
Computation Procedure To Compute Shortest and R. Casellas, "PCE-based Computation Procedure To
Constrained P2MP Inter-domain Traffic Compute Shortest Constrained P2MP Inter-domain Traffic
Engineering Label Switched Paths (draft-ietf- Engineering Label Switched Paths (draft-ietf-pce-pcep-
pce-pcep-inter-domain-p2mp-procedures)", inter-domain-p2mp-procedures)", July 2013.
May 2013.
[PCEP-MIB] Koushik, A., Emile, S., Zhao, Q., King, D., [PCEP-MIB]
and J. Hardwick, "PCE communication Koushik, A., Emile, S., Zhao, Q., King, D., and J.
protocol(PCEP) Management Information Base", Hardwick, "PCE communication protocol(PCEP) Management
Feb 2013. Information Base", July 2013.
[PCE-P2MP-PER-DEST] Dhody, D., Palle, U., and V. Kondreddy, [PCE-P2MP-PER-DEST]
"Supporting explicit inclusion or exclusion of Dhody, D., Palle, U., and V. Kondreddy, "Supporting
abstract nodes for a subset of P2MP explicit inclusion or exclusion of abstract nodes for a
destinations in Path Computation Element subset of P2MP destinations in Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCEP). Communication Protocol (PCEP). (draft-dhody-pce-pcep-p2mp-
(draft-dhody-pce-pcep-p2mp-per-destination)", per-destination)", October 2013.
April 2013.
[DOMAIN-SUBOBJ] Dhody, D., Palle, U., Kondreddy, V., and R. [DOMAIN-SUBOBJ]
Casellas, "Domain Subobjects for Resource Dhody, D., Palle, U., Kondreddy, V., and R. Casellas,
ReserVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering "Domain Subobjects for Resource ReserVation Protocol -
(RSVP-TE). Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE). (draft-dhody-ccamp-rsvp-te-
(draft-dhody-ccamp-rsvp-te-domain- domain-subobjects)", January 2014.
subobjects)", July 2013.
[ISO 10589] ISO, "Intermediate system to Intermediate [ISO10589]
system routing information exchange protocol ISO, "Intermediate system to Intermediate system routing
for use in conjunction with the Protocol for information exchange protocol for use in conjunction with
providing the Connectionless-mode Network the Protocol for providing the Connectionless-mode Network
Service (ISO 8473)", ISO/IEC 10589:2002. Service (ISO 8473)", ISO/IEC 10589:2002, 1992.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Dhruv Dhody Dhruv Dhody
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
Leela Palace Leela Palace
Bangalore, Karnataka 560008 Bangalore, Karnataka 560008
INDIA INDIA
EMail: dhruv.dhody@huawei.com EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
Udayasree Palle Udayasree Palle
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
Leela Palace Leela Palace
Bangalore, Karnataka 560008 Bangalore, Karnataka 560008
INDIA INDIA
EMail: udayasree.palle@huawei.com EMail: udayasree.palle@huawei.com
Ramon Casellas Ramon Casellas
CTTC CTTC
Av. Carl Friedrich Gauss n7 Av. Carl Friedrich Gauss n7
Castelldefels, Barcelona 08860 Castelldefels, Barcelona 08860
SPAIN SPAIN
EMail: ramon.casellas@cttc.es EMail: ramon.casellas@cttc.es
 End of changes. 53 change blocks. 
169 lines changed or deleted 194 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/