Internet DRAFT - draft-gandhi-spring-sr-mpls-pm
draft-gandhi-spring-sr-mpls-pm
SPRING Working Group R. Gandhi, Ed.
Internet-Draft C. Filsfils
Intended Status: Informational Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: March 18, 2019 D. Voyer
Bell Canada
S. Salsano
Universita di Roma "Tor Vergata"
P. L. Ventre
CNIT
M. Chen
Huawei
September 14, 2018
Performance Measurement in
Segment Routing Networks with MPLS Data Plane
draft-gandhi-spring-sr-mpls-pm-03
Abstract
RFC 6374 specifies protocol mechanisms to enable the efficient and
accurate measurement of packet loss, one-way and two-way delay, as
well as related metrics such as delay variation in MPLS networks
using probe messages. This document reviews how these mechanisms can
be used for Delay and Loss Performance Measurements (PM) in Segment
Routing (SR) networks with MPLS data plane (SR-MPLS), for both SR
links and end-to-end SR Policies. The performance measurements for
SR links are used to compute extended Traffic Engineering (TE)
metrics for delay and loss and are advertised in the network using
routing protocol extensions.
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."
Copyright Notice
Gandhi, et al. Expires March 18, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SR-MPLS Performance Measurement September 14, 2018
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Reference Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Probe Query and Response Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Probe Packet Header for SR-MPLS Policies . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Probe Packet Header for SR-MPLS Links . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Probe Response Message for SR-MPLS Links and Policies . . 6
3.3.1. One-way Measurement Probe Response Message . . . . . . 6
3.3.2. Two-way Measurement Probe Response Message . . . . . . 6
4. Performance Delay Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Delay Measurement Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Timestamps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Performance Loss Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Loss Measurement Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Performance Measurement for P2MP SR Policies . . . . . . . . . 10
7. SR Link Extended TE Metrics Advertisements . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Gandhi, et al. Expires March 18, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SR-MPLS Performance Measurement September 14, 2018
1. Introduction
Service provider's ability to satisfy Service Level Agreements (SLAs)
depend on the ability to measure and monitor performance metrics for
packet loss and one-way and two-way delay, as well as related metrics
such as delay variation. The ability to monitor these performance
metrics also provides operators with greater visibility into the
performance characteristics of their networks, thereby facilitating
planning, troubleshooting, and network performance evaluation.
[RFC6374] specifies protocol mechanisms to enable the efficient and
accurate measurement of performance metrics in MPLS networks using
probe messages. The One-Way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP)
defined in [RFC4656] and Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)
defined in [RFC5357] provide capabilities for the measurement of
various performance metrics in IP networks. However, mechanisms
defined in [RFC6374] are more suitable for Segment Routing (SR) when
using MPLS data plane (SR-MPLS). The [RFC6374] also supports IEEE
1588 timestamps [IEEE1588] and "direct mode" Loss Measurement (LM),
which are required in SR networks.
[RFC7876] specifies the procedures to be used when sending and
processing out-of-band performance measurement probe replies over an
UDP return path when receiving RFC 6374 based probe queries. These
procedures can be used to send out-of-band PM replies for both SR
links and SR Policies [I-D.spring-segment-routing-policy] for one-way
measurement.
This document reviews how probe based mechanisms defined in [RFC6374]
can be used for Delay and Loss Performance Measurements (PM) in SR
networks with MPLS data plane, for both SR links and end-to-end SR
Policies. The performance measurements for SR links are used to
compute extended Traffic Engineering (TE) metrics for delay and loss
and are advertised in the network using routing protocol extensions.
2. Conventions Used in This Document
2.1. Abbreviations
ACH: Associated Channel Header.
DFLag: Data Format Flag.
DM: Delay Measurement.
ECMP: Equal Cost Multi-Path.
Gandhi, et al. Expires March 18, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SR-MPLS Performance Measurement September 14, 2018
G-ACh: Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh).
GAL: Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) Label.
LM: Loss Measurement.
MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching.
NTP: Network Time Protocol.
PM: Performance Measurement.
PTP: Precision Time Protocol.
SID: Segment ID.
SL: Segment List.
SR: Segment Routing.
SR-MPLS: Segment Routing with MPLS data plane.
TC: Traffic Class.
TE: Traffic Engineering.
URO: UDP Return Object.
2.2. Reference Topology
In the reference topology shown in Figure 1, the querier node R1
initiates a performance measurement probe query and the responder
node R5 sends a probe response for the query message received. The
probe response is typically sent to the querier node R1. The nodes
R1 and R5 may be directly connected via a link enabled with Segment
Routing or there exists a Point-to-Point (P2P) SR Policy
[I-D.spring-segment-routing-policy] on node R1 with destination to
node R5. In case of Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP), SR Policy
originating from source node R1 may terminate on multiple destination
leaf nodes [I-D.spring-sr-p2mp-policy].
+-------+ Query +-------+
| | - - - - - - - - - ->| |
| R1 |---------------------| R5 |
| |<- - - - - - - - - - | |
+-------+ Response +-------+
Gandhi, et al. Expires March 18, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SR-MPLS Performance Measurement September 14, 2018
Figure 1: Reference Topology
Both delay and loss performance measurement is performed in-band for
the traffic traversing between node R1 and node R5. One-way delay
and two-way delay measurements are defined in Section 2.4 of
[RFC6374]. Transmit and Receive packet loss measurements are defined
in Section 2.2 and Section 2.6 of [RFC6374]. One-way loss
measurement provides receive packet loss whereas two-way loss
measurement provides both transmit and receive packet loss.
3. Probe Query and Response Packets
3.1. Probe Packet Header for SR-MPLS Policies
As described in Section 2.9.1 of [RFC6374], MPLS PM probe query and
response messages flow over the MPLS Generic Associated Channel (G-
ACh). A probe packet for an end-to-end measurement for SR Policy
contains SR-MPLS label stack [I-D.spring-segment-routing-policy],
with the G-ACh Label (GAL) at the bottom of the stack. The GAL is
followed by an Associated Channel Header (ACH), which identifies the
message type and the message payload following the ACH as shown in
Figure 2.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label(0) | EXP |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label(n) | EXP |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| GAL | EXP |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0 1|Version| Reserved | GAL Channel Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Probe Packet Header for an End-to-end SR-MPLS Policy
The SR-MPLS label stack can be empty to indicate Implicit NULL label
case.
3.2. Probe Packet Header for SR-MPLS Links
As described in Section 2.9.1 of [RFC6374], MPLS PM probe query and
Gandhi, et al. Expires March 18, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SR-MPLS Performance Measurement September 14, 2018
response messages flow over the MPLS Generic Associated Channel
(G-ACh). A probe packet for SR-MPLS links contains G-ACh Label
(GAL). The GAL is followed by an Associated Channel Header (ACH),
which identifies the message type, and the message payload following
the ACH as shown in Figure 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| GAL | EXP |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0 1|Version| Reserved | GAL Channel Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Probe Packet Header for an SR-MPLS Link
3.3. Probe Response Message for SR-MPLS Links and Policies
3.3.1. One-way Measurement Probe Response Message
For one-way performance measurement [RFC7679], the PM querier node
can receive "out-of-band" probe replies by properly setting the UDP
Return Object (URO) TLV in the probe query message. The URO TLV
(Type=131) is defined in [RFC7876] and includes the
UDP-Destination-Port and IP Address. In particular, if the querier
sets its own IP address in the URO TLV, the probe response is sent
back by the responder node to the querier node. In addition, the
"control code" in the probe query message is set to "out-of-band
response requested". The "Source Address" TLV (Type 130), and
"Return Address" TLV (Type 1), if present in the probe query message,
are not used to send probe response message.
3.3.2. Two-way Measurement Probe Response Message
For two-way performance measurement [RFC6374], when using a
bidirectional channel, the probe response message is sent back to the
querier node in-band on the reverse direction SR Link or SR Policy
using a message with format similar to their probe query message. In
this case, the "control code" in the probe query message is set to
"in-band response requested".
A path segment identifier [I-D.spring-mpls-path-segment]
[I-D.pce-sr-path-segment] of the forward SR Policy can be used to
find the reverse SR Policy to send the probe response message.
4. Performance Delay Measurement
Gandhi, et al. Expires March 18, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft SR-MPLS Performance Measurement September 14, 2018
4.1. Delay Measurement Message Format
As defined in [RFC6374], MPLS DM probe query and response messages
use Associated Channel Header (ACH) (value 0x000C for delay
measurement) [RFC6374], which identifies the message type, and the
message payload following the ACH. For both SR links and end-to-end
measurement for SR Policies, the same MPLS DM ACH value is used.
The DM message payload as defined in [RFC6374] is used for SR-MPLS
delay measurement, for both SR links and end-to-end SR Policies. The
DM message payload format is defined as following in [RFC6374]:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Version| Flags | Control Code | Message Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| QTF | RTF | RPTF | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Session Identifier | DS |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Timestamp 1 |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Timestamp 4 |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ TLV Block ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Delay Measurement Message Payload Format
The meanings of the fields are summarized in the following table, see
[RFC6374] for details.
Field Meaning
------------------- ----------------------------------------------
Version Protocol version
Flags Message control flags
Control Code Code identifying the query or response type
QTF Querier timestamp format
Gandhi, et al. Expires March 18, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft SR-MPLS Performance Measurement September 14, 2018
(see Section 3.4 of [RFC6374])
RTF Responder timestamp format
(see Section 3.4 of [RFC6374])
RPTF Responder's preferred timestamp format
Reserved Reserved for future specification
Session Identifier Set arbitrarily by the querier
Differentiated Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP)
Services (DS) Field being measured
Timestamp 1-4 64-bit timestamp values
(see Section 3.4 of [RFC6374])
TLV Block Optional block of Type-Length-Value fields
4.2. Timestamps
The Section 3.4 of [RFC6374] defines timestamp format that can be
used for delay measurement. The IEEE 1588 Precision Time Protocol
(PTP) timestamp format [IEEE1588] is used by default as described in
Appendix A of [RFC6374], but it may require hardware support. As an
alternative, Network Time Protocol (NTP) timestamp format can also be
used [RFC6374].
Note that for one-way delay measurement, clock synchronization
between the querier and responder nodes using the methods detailed in
[RFC6374] is required. The two-way delay measurement does not
require clock synchronization between the querier and responder
nodes.
5. Performance Loss Measurement
The LM protocol can perform two distinct kinds of loss measurement as
described in Section 2.9.8 of [RFC6374].
o In inferred mode, LM will measure the loss of specially generated
test messages in order to infer the approximate data plane loss
level. Inferred mode LM provides only approximate loss
accounting.
o In direct mode, LM will directly measure data plane packet loss.
Direct mode LM provides perfect loss accounting, but may require
Gandhi, et al. Expires March 18, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft SR-MPLS Performance Measurement September 14, 2018
hardware support.
For both of these modes of LM, path segment identifier
[I-D.spring-mpls-path-segment] [I-D.pce-sr-path-segment] is required
for accounting received traffic on the egress node of the SR-MPLS
Policy.
5.1. Loss Measurement Message Format
As defined in [RFC6374], MPLS LM probe query and response messages
use Associated Channel Header (ACH) (value 0x000A for direct loss
measurement or value 0x000B for inferred loss measurement), which
identifies the message type, and the message payload following the
ACH. For both SR links and end-to-end measurement for SR Policies,
the same MPLS LM ACH value is used.
The LM message payload as defined in [RFC6374] is used for SR-MPLS
loss measurement, for both SR links and end-to-end SR Policies. The
LM message payload format is defined as following in [RFC6374]:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Version| Flags | Control Code | Message Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| DFlags| OTF | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Session Identifier | DS |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Origin Timestamp |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Counter 1 |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Counter 4 |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ TLV Block ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: Loss Measurement Message Payload Format
The meanings of the fields are summarized in the following table, see
Gandhi, et al. Expires March 18, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft SR-MPLS Performance Measurement September 14, 2018
[RFC6374] for details.
Field Meaning
-------------------- ----------------------------------------------
Version Protocol version
Flags Message control flags
Control Code Code identifying the query or response type
Message Length Total length of this message in bytes
Data Format Flags Flags specifying the format of message data
(DFlags)
Origin Timestamp Format of the Origin Timestamp field
Format (OTF)
Reserved Reserved for future specification
Session Identifier Set arbitrarily by the querier
Differentiated Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP)
Services (DS) Field being measured
Origin Timestamp 64-bit field for query message transmission
timestamp
Counter 1-4 64-bit fields for LM counter values
TLV Block Optional block of Type-Length-Value fields
6. Performance Measurement for P2MP SR Policies
The procedures for delay and loss measurement described in this
document for Point-to-Point (P2P) SR-MPLS Policies are also equally
applicable to the Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) SR Policies.
The responder node may add the "Source Address" TLV (Type 130)
[RFC6374] in the probe response message. This TLV allows the querier
node to identify the responder node for the SR Policy.
7. SR Link Extended TE Metrics Advertisements
The extended TE metrics for SR link delay and loss computed using the
performance measurement procedures reviewed in this document can be
Gandhi, et al. Expires March 18, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft SR-MPLS Performance Measurement September 14, 2018
advertised in the routing domain as follows:
o For OSPF, ISIS, and BGP-LS, protocol extensions defined in
[RFC7471], [RFC7810] [I-D.lsr-isis-rfc7810bis], and
[I-D.idr-te-pm-bgp] are used, respectively for advertising the
extended TE link metrics in the network.
o The extended TE link delay metrics advertised are minimum-delay,
maximum-delay, average-delay, and delay-variance for one-way.
o The delay-variance metric is computed as specified in Section 4.2
of [RFC5481].
o The one-way delay metrics can be computed using two-way
measurement by dividing the measured delay values by 2.
o The extended TE link loss metric advertised is one-way percentage
packet loss.
8. Security Considerations
This document reviews the procedures for performance delay and loss
measurement for SR-MPLS networks, for both links and end-to-end SR
Policies using the mechanisms defined in [RFC6374]. This document
does not introduce any additional security considerations other than
those covered in [RFC6374], [RFC7471], [RFC7810], and [RFC7876].
9. IANA Considerations
This document does not require any IANA actions.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC6374] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay
Measurement for MPLS networks', RFC 6374, September 2011.
[RFC7876] Bryant, S., Sivabalan, S., and Soni, S., "UDP Return Path
for Packet Loss and Delay Measurement for MPLS Networks",
RFC 7876, July 2016.
10.2. Informative References
[IEEE1588] IEEE, "1588-2008 IEEE Standard for a Precision Clock
Gandhi, et al. Expires March 18, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft SR-MPLS Performance Measurement September 14, 2018
Synchronization Protocol for Networked Measurement and
Control Systems", March 2008.
[RFC4656] Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J., and M.
Zekauskas, "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol
(OWAMP)", RFC 4656, September 2006.
[RFC5357] Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J.
Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)",
RFC 5357, October 2008.
[RFC5481] Morton, A. and B. Claise, "Packet Delay Variation
Applicability Statement", RFC 5481, March 2009.
[RFC7679] Almes, G., et al., "A One-Way Delay Metric for IP
Performance Metrics (IPPM)', RFC 7679, January 2016.
[RFC7471] Giacalone, S., et al., "OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE)
Metric Extensions", RFC 7471, March 2015.
[RFC7810] Previdi, S., et al., "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE)
Metric Extensions", RFC 7810, May 2016.
[I-D.lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] Ginsberg, L., et al., "IS-IS Traffic
Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions",
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis, work in progress.
[I-D.idr-te-pm-bgp] Ginsberg, L. Ed., et al., "BGP-LS Advertisement
of IGP Traffic Engineering Performance Metric Extensions",
draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp, work in progress.
[I-D.spring-segment-routing-policy] Filsfils, C., et al., "Segment
Routing Policy Architecture",
draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy, work in
progress.
[I-D.spring-sr-p2mp-policy] Voyer, D. Ed., et al., "SR Replication
Policy for P2MP Service Delivery",
draft-voyer-spring-sr-p2mp-policy, work in progress.
[I-D.spring-mpls-path-segment] Cheng, W., et al., "Path Segment in
MPLS Based Segment Routing Network",
draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment, work in progress.
[I-D.pce-sr-path-segment] Li, C., et al., "Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extension for Path
Identification in Segment Routing (SR)",
draft-li-pce-sr-path-segment, work in progress.
Gandhi, et al. Expires March 18, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft SR-MPLS Performance Measurement September 14, 2018
Acknowledgments
To be added.
Contributors
Sagar Soni
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: sagsoni@cisco.com
Patrick Khordoc
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: pkhordoc@cisco.com
Zafar Ali
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: zali@cisco.com
Daniel Bernier
Bell Canada
Email: daniel.bernier@bell.ca
Authors' Addresses
Rakesh Gandhi (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Canada
Email: rgandhi@cisco.com
Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com
Daniel Voyer
Bell Canada
Email: daniel.voyer@bell.ca
Stefano Salsano
Universita di Roma "Tor Vergata"
Italy
Gandhi, et al. Expires March 18, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft SR-MPLS Performance Measurement September 14, 2018
Email: stefano.salsano@uniroma2.it
Pier Luigi Ventre
CNIT
Italy
Email: pierluigi.ventre@cnit.it
Mach(Guoyi) Chen
Huawei
Email: mach.chen@huawei.com
Gandhi, et al. Expires March 18, 2019 [Page 14]
