Internet DRAFT - draft-chen-spring-srmpls-frr-ex
draft-chen-spring-srmpls-frr-ex
Network Working Group H. Chen
Internet-Draft Futurewei
Intended status: Standards Track Z. Hu
Expires: 20 April 2024 Huawei Technologies
A. Wang
China Telecom
Y. Liu
China Mobile
G. Mishra
Verizon Inc.
18 October 2023
SR-MPLS FRR Extension
draft-chen-spring-srmpls-frr-ex-03
Abstract
The current SR FRR such as TI-LFA provides fast re-route protection
for the failure of a node on an SR-MPLS path by the neighbor upstream
node as point of local repair (PLR) of the failed node. However,
once the IGP converges, the SR FRR is no longer sufficient to forward
traffic of the path around the failure, since the non-neighbor
upstream node of the failed node will no longer have a route to the
failed node. This document describes a simple mechanism to extend
the fast re-route protection for the failure on an SR-MPLS path after
the IGP converges. The mechanism protects the node SID, adjacency
SID and binding SID of the failed node on the path.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] [RFC8174]
when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Chen, et al. Expires 20 April 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SRMPLS FRR Extension October 2023
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 20 April 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 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 (https://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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Example SR-MPLS FRR Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. SR-MPLS Path with no BSID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.1. Without any Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.2. Before IGP Converges on Failure . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.3. After IGP Converges on Failure . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. SR-MPLS Path with BSID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.1. Without any Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.2. Before IGP Converges on Failure . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2.3. After IGP Converges on Failure . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1. Procedure on Non-neighbor Upstream Node . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2. Procedure on Neighbor Upstream Node . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Chen, et al. Expires 20 April 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SRMPLS FRR Extension October 2023
1. Introduction
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa] describes an SR FRR mechanism
that provides fast re-route protection for the failure of a node on
an SR-TE path by the neighbor upstream node as point of local repair
(PLR) of the failed node. However, once the IGP converges, the SR
FRR is no longer sufficient to forward traffic of the path around the
failure, since the non-neighbor upstream node of the failed node will
no longer have a route to the failed node and drop the traffic.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-protection-sr-te-paths] proposes a solution
in which a hold-down timer is configured on every node in a network.
After the IGP converges on a node failure, when a node is going to
delete the route to the failed node, instead of programming a route
delete, it programs a tunnel/path to the node consisting of the Node
SID of the nearside neighbor of the failed node followed by the
original path in the packet. The modified path will be in force
until the hold-down timer expires.
This document describes a simple mechanism to extend the fast re-
route protection for the failure on an SR-MPLS path after the IGP
converges. The mechanism protects the node SID, adjacency SID and
binding SID of the failed node on the path.
2. Example SR-MPLS FRR Extension
This section illustrates the extension to SR-MPLS FRR for the failure
on SR-MPLS paths after the IGP converges through examples. It shows
the procedure on every related node on each path without any failure,
with a failure before and after the IGP converges on the failure.
Figure 1 shows an example topology with two SR-MPLS paths: Path 1 and
Path 2 for explaining the extension. They go through the same nodes
and links, but represented differently. The former does not have any
binding SID (BSID). The latter has a BSID of node N (BSID-N).
[ P1 ]-----[ P3 ]-----[ N ]-----[ Q1 ]
/ | \ / | \ / | \ / | \
/ | \ / | \ / | \ / | \
[CE1]------[A] | X | X | X | [C]-----[CE2]
\ | / \ | / \ | / \ | /
\ | / \ | / \ | / \ | /
[ P2 ]-----[ P4 ]-----[ N1 ]-----[ Q2 ]
Path 1:A->P1->N->Q1->C, indicated at A by {SID-P1,SID-N,SID-Q1,SID-C}
Path 2:A->P1->N->Q1->C, indicated at A by {SID-P1,SID-N,BSID-N} and
BSID-N associated with SID list {SID-Q1,SID-C}
Chen, et al. Expires 20 April 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SRMPLS FRR Extension October 2023
Figure 1: Example Topology with SR-MPLS Paths
SR-MPLS Path 1: A->P1->N->Q1->C is indicated at node A by node SID of
P1 (SID-P1), node SID of N (SID-N), node SID of Q1 (SID-Q1) and node
SID of C (SID-C). SR-MPLS Path 2 is indicated at node A by {SID-
P1,SID-N,BSID-N}, where BSID-N (binding SID of N) is associated with
SID list {SID-Q1,SID-C}.
2.1. SR-MPLS Path with no BSID
2.1.1. Without any Failure
Figure 2 shows the result of executing procedure on each related node
of SR-MPLS path 1 without any failure.
1.{SID-P1,SID-N,SID-Q1,SID-C}Pkt
| 2.{SID-N,SID-Q1,SID-C}Pkt
| | 3.{SID-N,SID-Q1,SID-C}Pkt
| | | 4.{SID-Q1,SID-C}Pkt
| | | |
| v v v
| [ P1 ]-----[ P3 ]-----[ N ]-----[ Q1 ]
v / | \ / | \ / | \ / | \5.{SID-C}Pkt
Pkt / | \ / | \ / | \ / | \
[CE1]------[A] | X | X | X | [C]-----[CE2]
\ | / \ | / \ | / \ | / 6.Pkt
\ | / \ | / \ | / \ | /
[ P2 ]-----[ P4 ]-----[ N1 ]-----[ Q2 ]
Path 1:A->P1->N->Q1->C, indicated at A by {SID-P1,SID-N,SID-Q1,SID-C}
Figure 2: No BSID Without any Failure
The results from nodes A, P1, P3, N, Q1 and C are as follows.
1. Node A as the ingress of the path adds SID-P1, SID-N, SID-Q1, and
SID-C into a packet (Pkt) received from CE1 and sends the packet
with the SIDs to node P1. The packet sent to P1 is represented
by "1.{SID-P1,SID-N,SID-Q1,SID-C}Pkt".
2. Node P1 pops its SID-P1 from the packet received, sends the
packet with top SID (SID-N) to P3 along the IGP shortest path to
N according to its FIB entry for SID-N. The packet sent to P3 is
represented by "2.{SID-N,SID-Q1,SID-C}Pkt".
3. Node P3 sends the packet with top SID (SID-N) to N along the IGP
shortest path to N. The packet sent to N is represented by
"3.{SID-N,SID-Q1,SID-C}Pkt".
Chen, et al. Expires 20 April 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SRMPLS FRR Extension October 2023
4. Node N pops its SID-N from the packet received, sends the packet
with top SID (SID-Q1) to Q1 along the IGP shortest path to Q1
according to its FIB entry for SID-Q1. The packet sent to Q1 is
represented by "4.{SID-Q1,SID-C}Pkt".
5. Node Q1 pops its SID-Q1 from the packet received, sends the
packet with top SID (SID-C) to C along the IGP shortest path to
C. The packet sent to C is represented by "5.{SID-C}Pkt".
6. Node C pops its SID-C and gets the packet without any SIDs, which
is represented by "6.Pkt".
2.1.2. Before IGP Converges on Failure
Figure 3 shows the result of executing procedure on each related node
of SR-MPLS path 1 with no BSID when node N failed and before the IGP
converges on the failure.
1.{SID-P1,SID-N,SID-Q1,SID-C}Pkt
|
| 2.{SID-N,SID-Q1,SID-C}Pkt
| |
| v
| [ P1 ]-----[ P3 ] [ N ] [ Q1 ]
v / | \ / | \3.{SID-Q1, / | \5.{SID-C}Pkt
Pkt / | \ / | \ SID-C}Pkt / | \
[CE1]------[A] | X | X | X | [C]-----[CE2]
\ | / \ | / \ | / \ | / 6.Pkt
\ | / \ | / \ | /4.{SID-Q1,SID-C}Pkt
[ P2 ]-----[ P4 ]-----[ N1 ]-----[ Q2 ]
Path 1:A->P1->N->Q1->C, indicated at A by {SID-P1,SID-N,SID-Q1,SID-C}
Figure 3: Path with no BSID when N failed and before IGP converges
The results from nodes A, P1, Q1 and C are the same as those
described in Section 2.1.1. The results from neighbor upstream node
P3 of N and node N1 are as follows.
3. After detecting the failure of N, the neighbor upstream node P3
of N pops SID-N from the packet received, re-routes the packet to
node Q1 via node N1 without going through failed N. The packet
sent to N1 is represented by "3.{SID-Q1,SID-C}Pkt".
4. Node N1 sends the packet to Q1 according to the top SID (SID-Q1)
in the packet. The packet sent to Q1 is represented by "4.{SID-
Q1,SID-C}Pkt".
Chen, et al. Expires 20 April 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SRMPLS FRR Extension October 2023
2.1.3. After IGP Converges on Failure
Figure 4 shows the result of executing procedure on each related node
on SR-MPLS path 1 with no BSID when node N failed and after the IGP
converges on the failure.
1.{SID-P1,SID-N,SID-Q1,SID-C}Pkt
|
| [ P1 ]-----[ P3 ] [ N ] [ Q1 ]
v / | \2.{SID-Q1,SID-C}Pkt / | \5.{SID-C}Pkt
Pkt / | \ / | \ / | \
[CE1]------[A] | X | \ / | [C]-----[CE2]
\ | / \ | \ / | / 6.Pkt
\ | / \ | \ /4.{SID-Q1,SID-C}Pkt
[ P2 ]-----[ P4 ]-----[ N1 ]-----[ Q2 ]
^
|
3.{SID-Q1,SID-C}Pkt
Path 1:A->P1->N->Q1->C, indicated at A by {SID-P1,SID-N,SID-Q1,SID-C}
Figure 4: Path with no BSID when N failed and after IGP converges
The results from nodes A, N1, Q1 and C are the same as those
described above in Section 2.1.2. The results from nodes P1 and P4
are as follows.
2. Since SID-N is a failed node SID, non-neighbor upstream node P1
pops SID-N from the packet, and sends the packet to P4 according
to the top SID (SID-Q1) in the packet along the IGP shortest path
to Q1. The packet sent to P4 is represented by "2.{SID-Q1,SID-
C}Pkt".
3. Node P4 sends the packet to N1 according to the top SID (SID-Q1)
in the packet received. The packet sent to N1 is represented by
"3.{SID-Q1,SID-C}Pkt".
The non-neighbor upstream node P1 may determines whether a SID is a
failed SID in the following way:
IF there is a RIB/FIB entry for the SID (e.g., SID-N) and
then the entry for the SID is to be removed after a SPF
THEN the SID is a failed SID.
2.2. SR-MPLS Path with BSID
Chen, et al. Expires 20 April 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft SRMPLS FRR Extension October 2023
2.2.1. Without any Failure
Figure 5 shows the result of executing procedure on each related node
of SR-MPLS path 2 with BSID-N without any failure.
1.{SID-P1,SID-N,BSID-N}Pkt
| 2.{SID-N,BSID-N}Pkt
| | 3.{SID-N,BSID-N}Pkt
| | | 4.{SID-Q1,SID-C}Pkt
| | | |
| v v v
| [ P1 ]-----[ P3 ]-----[ N ]-----[ Q1 ]
v / | \ / | \ / | \ / | \5.{SID-C}Pkt
Pkt / | \ / | \ / | \ / | \
[CE1]------[A] | X | X | X | [C]-----[CE2]
\ | / \ | / \ | / \ | / 6.Pkt
\ | / \ | / \ | / \ | /
[ P2 ]-----[ P4 ]-----[ N1 ]-----[ Q2 ]
Path 2:A->P1->N->Q1->C, indicated at A by {SID-P1,SID-N,BSID-N} and
BSID-N associated with SID list {SID-Q1,SID-C}
Figure 5: Path with BSID Without any Failure
The results from nodes A, P1, P3, and N are as follows.
1. Node A as the ingress of the path adds SID-P1, SID-N, and BSID-N
into a packet (Pkt) received from CE1 and sends the packet with
the SIDs to node P1. The packet sent to P1 is represented by
"1.{SID-P1,SID-N,BSID-N}Pkt".
2. Node P1 pops its SID-P1 from the packet received, sends the
packet with top SID (SID-N) to P3 along the IGP shortest path to
N according to its FIB entry for SID-N. The packet sent to P3 is
represented by "2.{SID-N,BSID-N}Pkt".
3. Node P3 sends the packet with top SID (SID-N) to N along the IGP
shortest path to N. The packet sent to N is represented by
"3.{SID-N,BSID-N}Pkt".
4. Node N pops its SID-N from the packet received, replaces its
BSID-N with SID list {SID-Q1,SID-C}, and sends the packet with
top SID (SID-Q1) to Q1 along the IGP shortest path to Q1
according to its FIB entry for SID-Q1. The packet sent to Q1 is
represented by "4.{SID-Q1,SID-C}Pkt".
The results from nodes Q1 and C are the same as those described in
Section 2.1.1.
Chen, et al. Expires 20 April 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft SRMPLS FRR Extension October 2023
2.2.2. Before IGP Converges on Failure
Figure 6 shows the result of executing procedure on each related node
of SR-MPLS path 2 with BSID-N when node N failed and before the IGP
converges on the failure.
1.{SID-P1,SID-N,BSID-N}Pkt
|
| 2.{SID-N,BSID-N}Pkt
| |
| v
| [ P1 ]-----[ P3 ] [ N ] [ Q1 ]
v / | \ / | \3.{SID-Q1, / | \5.{SID-C}Pkt
Pkt / | \ / | \ SID-C}Pkt / | \
[CE1]------[A] | X | X | X | [C]-----[CE2]
\ | / \ | / \ | / \ | / 6.Pkt
\ | / \ | / \ | /4.{SID-Q1,SID-C}Pkt
[ P2 ]-----[ P4 ]-----[ N1 ]-----[ Q2 ]
Path 2:A->P1->N->Q1->C, indicated at A by {SID-P1,SID-N,BSID-N} and
BSID-N associated with SID list {SID-Q1,SID-C}
Figure 6: Path with BSID-N when N failed and before IGP converges
The results from nodes A, P1, Q1 and C are the same as those
described in Section 2.2.1. The results from neighbor upstream node
P3 of N and node N1 are as follows.
3. After detecting the failure of N, the neighbor upstream node P3
of N pops SID-N from the packet received, replaces BSID-N in the
packet with SID list {SID-Q1,SID-C}, and re-routes the packet to
node Q1 via node N1 without going through failed N. The packet
sent to N1 is represented by "3.{SID-Q1,SID-C}Pkt".
4. Node N1 sends the packet to Q1 according to the top SID (SID-Q1)
in the packet. The packet sent to Q1 is represented by "4.{SID-
Q1,SID-C}Pkt".
2.2.3. After IGP Converges on Failure
Figure 7 shows the result of executing procedure on each related node
on SR-MPLS path 2 with BSID-N when node N failed and after the IGP
converges on the failure.
Chen, et al. Expires 20 April 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft SRMPLS FRR Extension October 2023
1.{SID-P1,SID-N,BSID-N}Pkt
|
| [ P1 ]-----[ P3 ] [ N ] [ Q1 ]
v / | \2.{SID-Q1,SID-C}Pkt / | \5.{SID-C}Pkt
Pkt / | \ / | \ / | \
[CE1]------[A] | X | \ / | [C]-----[CE2]
\ | / \ | \ / | / 6.Pkt
\ | / \ | \ /4.{SID-Q1,SID-C}Pkt
[ P2 ]-----[ P4 ]-----[ N1 ]-----[ Q2 ]
^
|
3.{SID-Q1,SID-C}Pkt
Path 2:A->P1->N->Q1->C, indicated at A by {SID-P1,SID-N,BSID-N} and
BSID-N associated with SID list {SID-Q1,SID-C}
Figure 7: Path with BSID-N when N failed and after IGP converges
The results from nodes A, Q1 and C are the same as those described
above in Section 2.2.2. The results from nodes P4 and N1 are the
same as those described above in Section 2.1.3. The result from node
P1 is as follows.
2. Since SID-N is a failed node SID, non-neighbor upstream node P1
pops SID-N from the packet, replaces BSID-N in the packet with
SID list {SID-Q1,SID-C} and sends the packet to P4 according to
the top SID (SID-Q1) in the packet along the IGP shortest path to
Q1. The packet sent to P4 is represented by "2.{SID-Q1,SID-
C}Pkt".
3. Procedures
This section presents the procedures on a neighbor upstream node and
a non-neighbor upstream node of node N on an SR MPLS path.
3.1. Procedure on Non-neighbor Upstream Node
For an SR-MPLS path with the node SID of node N (SID-N), suppose that
node X is an non-neighbor upstream node of node N along the path,
wherein SID-N follows the node SID of node X (SID-X) or the adjacency
SID to node X in the packet to be transported by the path. For
example, SR-MPLS Path 1 and Path 2 in Figure 1 are from A to P1 to N
to Q1 to C. Node P1 is the non-neighbor upstream node of N. At
ingress node A of the path, node A adds the SIDs in the SID list into
the packet to be transported by the path.
Chen, et al. Expires 20 April 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft SRMPLS FRR Extension October 2023
Without any failure or from the failure of node N to IGP convergence
on the failure, the non-neighbor upstream node (such as P1) of node N
pops its SID from the packet if any and sends the packet to the next
hop node toward node N along the IGP shortest path to N.
After node N failed and from the IGP convergence on the failure to
global reroute, the non-neighbor upstream node (such as P1) of node N
pops its SID (such as SID-P1) from the packet if any, pops SID-N from
the packet and does one of the following:
a. If the current top SID in the packet is a node SID of a node
named Nx, sends the packet toward Nx along the IGP shortest path
to Nx.
b. If the current top SID in the packet is an adjacency SID of node
N, obtains the remote node of the adjacency from the adjacency
SID, replaces the adjacency SID with the node SID of the remote
node, and sends the packet toward the remote node along the IGP
shortest path to the remote node.
c. If the current top SID in the packet is a Binding SID (BSID) of
node N, replaces the BSID in the packet with the SID list
associated with the BSID, and does a. or b. according to the
current top SID in the packet (i.e., does a. if it is a node SID;
does b. if it is an adjacency SID of N). Note: Distributing the
information about the BSID of N (including the BSID, the SID
list, the ID of N) to upstream nodes of N is out of scope of this
document, but described in [I-D.chen-pce-mbinding] and
[I-D.chen-idr-mbinding].
3.2. Procedure on Neighbor Upstream Node
Suppose that node Y is the neighbor upstream node of node N on an SR-
MPLS path. Without any failure, node Y sends the packet received
from the path to node N according to the top SID in the packet. For
example, SR-MPLS Path 1 and Path 2 in Figure 1 are from A to P1 to N
to Q1 to C. Node P3 is the neighbor upstream node of N suppose that
the shortest path from P1 to N is from P1 to P3 to N. When node Y
detects the failure of node N, node Y pops SID-N from the packet if
SID-N is the top SID of the packet, and does one of the following
steps (where steps a and b are TI-LFA in
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa]):
a. If the current top SID in the packet is node SID of node Nx,
sends the packet toward node Nx without going through failed N
(i.e., {SID-Nx,...} in the packet would be {RL(Q),SID-Nx,...},
where RL(Q) is the repair list redirecting the packet to node Q,
whose path to SID-Nx is not affected by the failure).
Chen, et al. Expires 20 April 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft SRMPLS FRR Extension October 2023
b. If the current top SID in the packet is an adjacency SID of N,
gets remote node R of the adjacency from the adjacency SID,
replaces the top SID in the packet with node SID of R, and sends
the packet to node R according to the top SID in the packet
without going through failed N (i.e., {adj(N-R),...} in the
packet would be {RL(Q),SID-R,...}, where RL(Q) is the repair list
redirecting the packet to node Q, whose path to SID-R is not
affected by the failure).
c. If the current top SID in the packet is a BSID of N, replaces the
BSID with the SID list associated with the BSID, and does a. or
b. according to the current top SID in the packet (i.e., does a.
if it is a node SID; does b. if it is an adjacency SID of N).
4. Security Considerations
TBD.
5. IANA Considerations
No requirements for IANA.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
6.2. Informative References
[I-D.chen-idr-mbinding]
Chen, H., Decraene, B., Mishra, G. S., Fan, Y., Wang, A.,
and X. Liu, "BGP for Mirror Binding", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-chen-idr-mbinding-02, 10 May 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-chen-idr-
mbinding-02>.
Chen, et al. Expires 20 April 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft SRMPLS FRR Extension October 2023
[I-D.chen-pce-mbinding]
Chen, H., Decraene, B., Mishra, G. S., Wang, A., Liu, X.,
and L. Liu, "PCE for Mirror Binding", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-chen-pce-mbinding-02, 8 October
2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-chen-
pce-mbinding-02>.
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa]
Litkowski, S., Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Francois, P.,
Decraene, B., and D. Voyer, "Topology Independent Fast
Reroute using Segment Routing", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-
11, 30 June 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-11>.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-protection-sr-te-paths]
Hegde, S., Bowers, C., Litkowski, S., Xu, X., and F. Xu,
"Segment Protection for SR-TE Paths", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-spring-segment-protection-sr-
te-paths-05, 27 September 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-
segment-protection-sr-te-paths-05>.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Joel Halpern, Andrew Stone, Yao Liu,
and Jeff Tantsura for their comments to this work.
Authors' Addresses
Huaimo Chen
Futurewei
Boston, MA,
United States of America
Email: Huaimo.chen@futurewei.com
Zhibo Hu
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing
100095
China
Email: huzhibo@huawei.com
Chen, et al. Expires 20 April 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft SRMPLS FRR Extension October 2023
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
Beiqijia Town, Changping District
Beijing
102209
China
Email: wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn
Yisong
China Mobile
510000
China
Email: liuyisong@chinamobile.com
Gyan S. Mishra
Verizon Inc.
13101 Columbia Pike
Silver Spring, MD 20904
United States of America
Phone: 301 502-1347
Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com
Chen, et al. Expires 20 April 2024 [Page 13]
