Internet DRAFT - draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-lspdb-realtime-sync
draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-lspdb-realtime-sync
PCE Working Group D. Dhody
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Standards Track December 28, 2016
Expires: July 1, 2017
Realtime Synchronization between Redundant Stateful PCEs.
draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-lspdb-realtime-sync-01
Abstract
The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides
mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path
computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests.
The stateful PCE further extentds PCEP to enable stateful control of
MPLS-TE and GMPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs) via PCEP and
maintaining of these LSPs at the stateful PCE. This document
describes the mechanisms of realtime LSP Database (LSP-DB)
synchronization between stateful PCEs.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 1, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
Dhody Expires July 1, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft REALTIME-SYNC December 2016
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Architectural Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Functions to Support LSP-DB Synchronization . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. Relatime LSP-DB Synchronization between redundant
Stateful PCEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.2. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. PCEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. The PCRpt Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2. The PCUpd Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.1. Stateful PCE Capability TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.2. Speaker Entity Identifier TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.3. REALTIME-SYNC TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.4. PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.1. PCE Initiated LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11.1. STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11.2. PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11.3. REALTIME-SYNC TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11.4. PCEP-Error Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Dhody Expires July 1, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft REALTIME-SYNC December 2016
1. Introduction
[RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) as
the communication between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a Path
Computation Element (PCE), or between PCEs, enabling computation of
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) for Traffic Engineering Label
Switched Paths (TE LSPs).
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] specifies a set of extensions to PCEP to
enable stateful control of LSPs in compliance with [RFC4655]. It
includes mechanisms for LSP state synchronization between a PCC and a
PCE, i.e., all stateful PCEs synchronize their LSP states from the
network. It further describe the handling of redundant stateful
PCEs, where all PCEs receive the state from the network (PCCs). When
the primary PCE fails, another PCE can take over.
Apart from the synchronization from the network, it is also useful if
there is realtime synchronization mechanism between the stateful
PCEs. As stateful PCE make changes to its delegated LSPs, these
changes (pending LSPs and the sticky resources) can be synchronized
immediately to the other PCEs. Further PCE may also synchronize any
status change of its delegated LSPs to other PCEs. Note that some
synchronization issues are identified in [RFC7399].
It should be noted that in some deployments the PCE function is part
of the central controller architecture with multiple instances of PCE
for load balancing and backup which uses proprietary mechanics to
maintain consistent state between these PCE instance. In such
deployment PCEP MAY not used as a database synchronization mechanism.
This document specifies the mechanisms of realtime LSP-DB
synchronization between redundant stateful PCEs via PCEP.
1.1. 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].
2. Terminology
The terminology is as per [RFC5440] and [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce].
LSP-DB: A database of LSPs that are active in the network as
maintained by a stateful PCE.
Sticky Resources: The temporarily assigned resources that are
allocated to a pending LSP and are provisionally blocked.
Dhody Expires July 1, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft REALTIME-SYNC December 2016
3. Architectural Considerations
Distributed computation model ([RFC4655]) refers to a domain or
network that may include multiple PCEs where computation of paths is
shared among the PCEs, this is further clarified in [RFC7399].
When multiple stateful PCEs are operating in the network, they could
be either -
Primary or Backup PCE: A backup PCE exists to perform functions in
the network, only in the event of a failure of the primary PCE.
In this case, all LSPs to be delegated are under primary stateful
PCE control while other PCEs in the domain act as backup.
Load-Balanced 'Backup' PCE: Load-Balanced PCEs share the computation
load at all times, as well as act backup to each other. One PCE
MAY serve a set of PCCs as the primary computation server, and
only addresses requests from other PCCs in the event of the
failure of some other PCE. Delegated LSPs are thus distributed
among stateful PCEs.
In either case it is beneficial for the PCE to synchronize changes of
its delegated LSPs to the other PCEs in realtime. This should
include -
o Any update made by the PCE to its delegated LSP.
o Any status change learned from the network.
Note that the state synchronization as per
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] and
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations]remains unchanged. This
include initial state synchronization as well as LSP state reports.
The mechanism described in this document are in addition to those
already present in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce].
4. Functions to Support LSP-DB Synchronization
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] specifies new functions to support a
stateful PCE. It also specifies that a function can be initiated
either from a PCC towards a PCE (C-E) or from a PCE towards a PCC
(E-C).
o Capability negotiation (E-C,C-E)
o LSP state synchronization (C-E)
o LSP update request (E-C)
Dhody Expires July 1, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft REALTIME-SYNC December 2016
o LSP state report (C-E)
o LSP control delegation (C-E,E-C)
o Stateful PCE discovery
This document extends some of these functions to support realtime
LSP-DB synchronization. These are initiated from a PCE towards
another PCE (E-E).
Capability negotiation (E-E): both the PCEs must announce during
PCEP session establishment that they support PCEP Stateful PCE
extensions defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]. It should also
declare whether it has realtime synchronization capability between
PCEs. This is done via Open message.
LSP state report (E-E): a PCE sends an LSP state report to a PCE
whenever the state of an delegated LSP changes. This is usually
triggered on receiving the state report from the PCC. This is
done via PCRpt message.
LSP update request (E-E): When a PCE requests modification of
attributes of a delegated LSP, this information should also be
sent to other PCEs. This is done via PCUpd message. This is
needed to synchronize the pending LSPs and sticky resources.
Stateful PCE discovery: PCE can advertise its realtime
synchronization capability between PCEs via IGP.
5. Operations
5.1. Relatime LSP-DB Synchronization between redundant Stateful PCEs
PCE (including redundant stateful PCEs) learn LSP state from the
PCCs. Apart from that, for each LSP delegated to a stateful PCE -
o When it sends an LSP Update (PCUpd message) to the PCC for the
delegated LSP, it also sends an LSP update to other stateful PCEs.
o When it receives an LSP report (LSRpt message) from the PCC for
the delegated LSP, it also sends an LSP report to other stateful
PCEs.
Thus a PCE may learn LSP state from both the PCC as well as the PCE
to which LSP is delegated.
In Figure 1, PCE1 is the primary stateful PCE and PCE2 is the backup
stateful PCE (all LSPs are delegated to PCE1). PCC1 and PCC2
Dhody Expires July 1, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft REALTIME-SYNC December 2016
synchronize the LSP-DB with PCE1 and PCE2 after session
initialization phase.
PCC1 and PCC2 delegates LSP1 and LSP2 to the primary PCE1. Whenever
there is an update in LSP, PCE1 sends a PCUpd message to
corresponding PCC and also to backup PCE2. This is LSP update
request as described in Section 4 and uses PCUpd message. This makes
sure that the pending LSP changes and sticky resources are backed up.
The PCC sends a PCRpt message to the primary PCE, indicating the
LSP's status, the primary PCE further synchronizes the state with
backup PCEs via PCRpt message.
+----+ +----+ +----+ +----+
|PCC1| |PCC2| |PCE1| |PCE2|
+-+--+ +-+--+ +-+--+ +-+--+
| | | |
|---- LSP SYNC ---+----------------->| |
| |---- LSP SYNC --->| |
| | | |
| |---- LSP SYNC ----+------------------>|
|---- LSP SYNC ---+------------------+------------------>|
| | | |
|-- PCRpt,lsp1,D -+----------------->| |
|<----------------+----PCUpd,lsp1 ---| |
| | |--- PCUpd,lsp1 --->|
|-- PCRpt,lsp1,up-+----------------->| |
|-- PCRpt,lsp1,up-+------------------+------------------>|
| | |----PCRpt,lsp1,up->|
| | | |
| |-- PCRpt,lsp2,D ->| |
| |<---PCUpd,lsp2 ---| |
| | |--- PCUpd,lsp2---->|
| |-- PCRpt,lsp2,up->| |
| |-- PCRpt,lsp2,up--+------------------>|
| | |----PCRpt,lsp2,up->|
| | | |
Figure 1: Relatime LSP-DB synchronization between primary and backup
stateful PCEs
The backup PCE is used only in case the primary PCE fails. At the
time of failure of primary PCE (PCE1), the backup PCE (PCE2) act as a
primary.
In Figure 2, PCE1 and PCE2 are load-balanced stateful PCEs and share
the computation load as well as act as backup to each other. PCC1
Dhody Expires July 1, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft REALTIME-SYNC December 2016
and PCC2 synchronize their LSP-DB with both PCEs after session
initialization phase as per [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce].
PCC1 delegates LSP1 to PCE1. Whenever there is an update in LSP1,
PCE1 sends the PCUpd message to PCC1 and other stateful PCEs (PCE2).
Similarly, PCC2 delegates LSP2 to PCE2. Whenever there is an update
in LSP2, PCE2 sends the PCUpd message to PCC2 and other stateful PCEs
(PCE1). This is LSP update request as described in Section 4 and it
makes sure that the pending LSP changes and sticky resources are
synchronized. The PCC sends an PCRpt message to the all load-
balanced PCEs as per [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce], indicating the
LSP's status. The PCE to which LSP is delegated, also sends report
message to other PCEs.
+----+ +----+ +----+ +----+
|PCC1| |PCC2| |PCE1| |PCE2|
+-+--+ +-+--+ +-+--+ +-+--+
| | | |
|---- LSP SYNC ---+----------------->| |
|---- LSP SYNC ---+------------------+------------------>|
| |---- LSP SYNC --->| |
| |---- LSP SYNC ----+------------------>|
| | | |
|-- PCRpt,lsp1,D -+----------------->| |
| |-- PCRpt,lsp2,D --+------------------>|
| | | |
| | | |
|<----------------+----PCUpd, lsp1---| |
| | |--- PCUpd, lsp1--->|
|-- PCRpt,lsp1,up-+----------------->| |
|-- PCRpt,lsp1,up-+------------------+------------------>|
| | |----PCRpt,lsp1,up->|
| | | |
| | | |
| |<---PCUpd, lsp2---|-------------------|
| | |<--- PCUpd, lsp2 --|
| |-- PCRpt,lsp2,up--+------------------>|
| | |<---PCRpt,lsp1,up--|
| |-- PCRpt,lsp2,up->| |
| | | |
Figure 2: Relatime LSP-DB synchronization between load-balanced
stateful PCEs
At the time of failure of one of the PCEs (say PCE1), the other PCE
(PCE2) may take up the load.
Dhody Expires July 1, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft REALTIME-SYNC December 2016
5.2. Other Considerations
o The computation mechanism and how PCE chooses to handle the sticky
resources during computation is out of scope of this document.
o This document does not tackle the issue about TED synchronization
which is described in detail in [RFC7399].
6. PCEP Messages
[Editor's Note: There are ongoing discussions to come up with a
singular extention for inter-stateful-PCE communications. This
section will be updated based on the outcome of the discussion.]
6.1. The PCRpt Message
The format of PCRpt message is defined in
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]. It specifies the PCRpt message is sent
from PCC to PCE in reporting the LSP state. This document extends
the usage of PCRpt message between redundant stateful PCEs for
realtime LSP synchronization as described in Section 5.1. A unique
PLSP-ID needs to be generated at the PCE and should also carry the
PCC generated PLSP-ID along in a REALTIME-SYNC TLV in the LSP object.
6.2. The PCUpd Message
The format of PCUpd Message is defined in
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]. It specifies the PCUpd message is sent
from PCE to PCC to request changes in LSP attributes. This document
extends the usage of PCUpd message between stateful PCEs for realtime
LSP synchronization as described in Section 5.1. Whenever there is a
PCUpd message sent from PCE to PCC, PCE should also send it to other
PCEs along with the PCC generated PLSP-ID in a REALTIME-SYNC TLV in
the LSP object.
7. TLVs
7.1. Stateful PCE Capability TLV
As per [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce], STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV can
be used in the OPEN object for stateful PCE capability negotiation.
A stateful PCE must announce during PCEP session establishment that
they support PCEP stateful PCE extensions defined in
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]. A new flag is added -
R (REALTIME-SYNC-PCE - 1 bit): if set to 1 by PCE, the PCE has the
capability for realtime synchronization between PCEs. In case of
PCC, this bit has no meaning and is simply ignored.
Dhody Expires July 1, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft REALTIME-SYNC December 2016
7.2. Speaker Entity Identifier TLV
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations] describes 'Speaker Entity
Identifier TLV' to be included in OPEN object. This document uses
the same TLV in the LSP object for realtime sync between redundant
stateful PCEs.
For a PCE that supports realtime sync (REALTIME-SYNC-PCE R flag in
Stateful PCE Capability TLV), the PCC MUST include 'Speaker Entity
Identifier TLV' in the OPEN message. Note a PCC may have to bring
down the current session and include the TLV in the subsequent open
message.
Any realtime state synchronization (PCRpt or PCUpd message between
PCEs) MUST include 'Speaker Entity Identifier TLV' in LSP object with
the PCC's speaker identity. If the TLV is missing, the PCE will
generate an error with error-type 6 (mandatory object missing) and
error-value TBD1 (Speaker Entity Identifier TLV missing) and close
the session.
The format of Speaker Entity Identifier is defined in
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations].
7.3. REALTIME-SYNC TLV
PCC uses the PLSP-ID in LSP object to uniquely identify an LSP. For
PCE to PCE realtime sync, another unique PLSP-ID needs to be
generated at the PCE and should also carry the PCC's generated PLSP-
ID in the REALTIME-SYNC TLV. This way redundant PCE can correlate
the LSP from the state received from the PCCs.
This TLV MUST be encoded in the PCRpt and PCUpd message between
redundant stateful PCEs. If the TLV is missing, the PCE will
generate an error with error-type 6 (mandatory object missing) and
error-value TBD2 (REALTIME-SYNC TLV missing) and close the session.
The format of the REALTIME-SYNC TLV is shown in the following figure:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type=TBD3 | Length=4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PCC's PLSP-ID | reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: REALTIME-SYNC TLV format
Dhody Expires July 1, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft REALTIME-SYNC December 2016
The type of the TLV is to be assigned by IANA and it has a fixed
length of 4 octets. The value contains the following fields:
PCC's PLSP-ID (20 bits): The PCC's original PLSP-ID as received in
the PCRpt message from the PCC. This along with Speaker Entity
Identifier TLV can be used to co-relate information received from
the network (PCCs).
7.4. PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV
[RFC5088] and [RFC5089] describe the mechanism to advertise the PCE
Discovery information via OSPF and IS-IS respectively along with
processing rules for the sub-TLVs. [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]
further enhances the optional PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV used to advertise
PCE stateful capabilities.
Further a new bit is added -
Bit Capabilities
TBD4 Realtime Sync between PCEs
If this bit is set to 1, the PCE has the capability for realtime
synchronization between PCEs.
8. Other Considerations
8.1. PCE Initiated LSP
[I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] describes the setup and teardown of
PCE-initiated LSPs under the active stateful PCE model. As the PCE
sends PCInitiate message to PCC to create or delete LSP, the PCE
should also send PCUpd message to other PCEs. For the initiation,
the PCUpd message should have PCC's PLSP-ID as zero. The rest of the
processing remains unchanged.
9. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce any new security concerns besides
those in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce].
10. Manageability Considerations
10.1. Control of Function and Policy
A PCE may be deployed to act only as a backup (Section 5.1), an
operator SHOULD be able to configure a PCE as backup.
Dhody Expires July 1, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft REALTIME-SYNC December 2016
10.2. Information and Data Models
[RFC7420] describes the PCEP MIB, there are no new MIB Objects for
this document.
10.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness
detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already
listed in [RFC5440].
10.4. Verify Correct Operations
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new operation
verification requirements in addition to those already listed in
[RFC5440].
10.5. Requirements On Other Protocols
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new requirements
on other protocols.
10.6. Impact On Network Operations
Mechanisms defined in this document do not have any impact on network
operations in addition to those already listed in [RFC5440].
11. IANA Considerations
11.1. STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV
As discussed in Section 7.1, a new STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV Flag
Field has been defined. IANA has made the following allocation from
the PCEP "STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV Flag Field" sub-registry:
Bit Description Reference
TBD REALTIME-SYNC-PCE [This I.D.]
11.2. PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV
As discussed in Section 7.1, a new bit is added, IANA is requested to
allocate a new bit in "PCE Capability Flags" registry for backup
stateful PCE capability as follows:
Bit Description Reference
TBD4 Realtime Sync between PCEs [This I.D.]
Dhody Expires July 1, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft REALTIME-SYNC December 2016
11.3. REALTIME-SYNC TLV
This document defines the following new PCEP TLV:
Value Meaning Reference
TBD3 REALTIME-SYNC TLV This document
11.4. PCEP-Error Object
IANA is requested to make the following allocation in the "PCEP-ERROR
Object Error Types and Values" registry.
Error-Type Meaning Reference
6 Mandatory Object missing [RFC5440]
Error-Value= TBD2 This document
Speaker Entity Identifier TLV
missing
Error-Value= TBD3 This document
REALTIME-SYNC TLV missing
12. Acknowledgments
Thanks to Adrian Farrel and Daniel King for writing [RFC7399].
We would like to thank Avantika Kumar for her useful comments and
suggestions.
13. References
13.1. 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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]
Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "PCEP
Extensions for Stateful PCE", draft-ietf-pce-stateful-
pce-18 (work in progress), December 2016.
Dhody Expires July 1, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft REALTIME-SYNC December 2016
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations]
Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., Varga, R., Zhang, X.,
and D. Dhody, "Optimizations of Label Switched Path State
Synchronization Procedures for a Stateful PCE", draft-
ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-07 (work in
progress), December 2016.
13.2. Informative References
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[RFC5088] Le Roux, JL., Ed., Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R.
Zhang, "OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path Computation
Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5088, DOI 10.17487/RFC5088,
January 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5088>.
[RFC5089] Le Roux, JL., Ed., Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R.
Zhang, "IS-IS Protocol Extensions for Path Computation
Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5089, DOI 10.17487/RFC5089,
January 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5089>.
[RFC7399] Farrel, A. and D. King, "Unanswered Questions in the Path
Computation Element Architecture", RFC 7399,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7399, October 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7399>.
[RFC7420] Koushik, A., Stephan, E., Zhao, Q., King, D., and J.
Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
(PCEP) Management Information Base (MIB) Module",
RFC 7420, DOI 10.17487/RFC7420, December 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7420>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]
Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "PCEP
Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
Model", draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-07 (work in
progress), July 2016.
Dhody Expires July 1, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft REALTIME-SYNC December 2016
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses
Udayasree Palle
Huawei Technologies
Divyasree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
India
EMail: udayasree.palle@huawei.com
Xian Zhang
Huawei Technologies
Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen 518129
P.R.China
EMail: zhang.xian@huawei.com
Venugopal Reddy Kondreddy
Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
India
EMail: venugopalreddyk@huawei.com
Author's Address
Dhruv Dhody
Huawei Technologies
Divyasree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
India
EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
Dhody Expires July 1, 2017 [Page 14]
