Internet DRAFT - draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-initiated-p2mp-lsp
draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-initiated-p2mp-lsp
PCE Working Group U. Palle
Internet-Draft D. Dhody
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies
Expires: July 13, 2016 Y. Tanaka
NTT Communications
Z. Ali
Cisco Systems
V. Beeram
Juniper Networks
January 10, 2016
PCEP Extensions for PCE-initiated Point-to-Multipoint LSP Setup in a
Stateful PCE Model
draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-initiated-p2mp-lsp-07
Abstract
The Path Computation Element (PCE) has been identified as an
appropriate technology for the determination of the paths of point-
to-multipoint (P2MP) TE LSPs. This document provides extensions
required for Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP)
so as to enable the usage of a stateful PCE initiation capability in
recommending P2MP TE LSP instantiation.
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 13, 2016.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Palle, et al. Expires July 13, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft INITIATED-P2MP January 2016
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
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Architectural Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Operation Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Support of PCE Initiated P2MP TE LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. IGP Extensions for PCE-Initiation for P2MP Capabilities
Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. PCE-initiated P2MP TE LSP Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.1. The PCInitiate message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.2. P2MP TE LSP Instantiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.3. P2MP TE LSP Deletion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.4. Adding and Pruning Leaves for the P2MP TE LSP . . . . . . 8
6.5. P2MP TE LSP Delegation and Cleanup . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. PCIntiate Message Fragmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1. PCIntiate Fragmentation Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Non-Support of P2MP TE LSP Instantiation for Stateful PCE . . 9
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11.1. PCE Capabilities in IGP Advertisements . . . . . . . . . 11
11.2. STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11.3. Extension of PCEP-Error Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
13. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Palle, et al. Expires July 13, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft INITIATED-P2MP January 2016
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction
As per [RFC4655], the Path Computation Element (PCE) is an entity
that is capable of computing a network path or route based on a
network graph, and applying computational constraints. A Path
Computation Client (PCC) may make requests to a PCE for paths to be
computed.
[RFC4857]describes how to set up point-to-multipoint (P2MP) Traffic
Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) for use in Multiprotocol
Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks. The
PCE has been identified as a suitable application for the computation
of paths for P2MP TE LSPs ( [RFC5671]).
The PCEP is designed as a communication protocol between PCCs and
PCEs for point-to-point (P2P) path computations and is defined in
[RFC5440]. The extensions of PCEP to request path computation for
P2MP TE LSPs are described in [RFC6006].
Stateful PCEs are shown to be helpful in many application scenarios,
in both MPLS and GMPLS networks, as illustrated in
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app]. These scenarios apply equally to
P2P and P2MP TE LSPs. [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] provides the
fundamental extensions needed for stateful PCE to support general
functionality for P2P TE LSP. Further
[I-D.palle-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp] focuses on the extensions that are
necessary in order for the deployment of stateful PCEs to support
P2MP TE LSPs. It includes mechanisms to effect P2MP LSP state
synchronization between PCCs and PCEs, delegation of control of P2MP
LSPs to PCEs, and PCE control of timing and sequence of P2MP path
computations within and across PCEP sessions and focuses on a model
where P2MP LSPs are configured on the PCC and control over them is
delegated to the PCE.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] provides the fundamental extensions
needed for stateful PCE-initiated P2P TE LSP recommended
instantiation.
This document describes the setup, maintenance and teardown of PCE-
initiated P2MP LSPs under the stateful PCE model, without the need
for local configuration on the PCC, thus allowing for a dynamic
network that is centrally controlled and deployed.
Palle, et al. Expires July 13, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft INITIATED-P2MP January 2016
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
Terminology used in this document is same as terminology used in
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce], [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] and
[RFC6006].
3. Architectural Overview
3.1. Motivation
[I-D.palle-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp] provides stateful control over P2MP
TE LSPs that are locally configured on the PCC. This model relies on
the Ingress taking an active role in delegating locally configured
P2MP TE LSPs to the PCE, and is well suited in environments where the
P2MP TE LSP placement is fairly static. However, in environments
where the P2MP TE LSP placement needs to change in response to
application demands, it is useful to support dynamic creation and
tear down of P2MP TE LSPs. The ability for a PCE to trigger the
creation of P2MP TE LSPs on demand can be seamlessly integrated into
a controller-based network architecture, where intelligence in the
controller can determine when and where to set up paths.
Section 3 of [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] further describes the
motivation behind the PCE-Initiation capability, which are equally
applicable for P2MP TE LSPs.
3.2. Operation Overview
A PCC or PCE indicates its ability to support PCE provisioned dynamic
P2MP LSPs during the PCEP Initialization Phase via mechanism
described in Section 4.
As per section 5.1 of [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp], the PCE sends
a Path Computation LSP Initiate Request (PCInitiate) message to the
PCC to suggest instantiation or deletion of a P2P TE LSP. This
document extends the PCInitiate message to support P2MP TE LSP (see
details in Section 6.1).
P2MP TE LSP suggested instantiation and deletion operations are same
as P2P LSP as described in section 5.3 and 5.4 of
[I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]. This document focuses on
Palle, et al. Expires July 13, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft INITIATED-P2MP January 2016
extensions needed for further handling of P2MP TE LSP (see details in
Section 6.2).
4. Support of PCE Initiated P2MP TE LSPs
During PCEP Initialization Phase, as per Section 7.1.1 of
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce], PCEP speakers advertises Stateful
capability via Stateful PCE Capability TLV in open message. A new
flag is defined for the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV defined in
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] and updated in
[I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp],
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations], and
[I-D.palle-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp].
A new bit P (P2MP-LSP-INSTANTIATION-CAPABILITY) is added in this
document:
P (P2MP-LSP-INSTANTIATION-CAPABILITY - 1 bit): If set to 1 by a PCC,
the P Flag indicates that the PCC allows suggested instantiation
of an P2MP LSP by a PCE. If set to 1 by a PCE, the P flag
indicates that the PCE will suggest P2MP LSP instantiation. The
P2MP-LSP-INSTANTIATION-CAPABILITY flag must be set by both PCC and
PCE in order to support PCE-initiated P2MP LSP instantiation.
A PCEP speaker should continue to advertise the basic P2MP capability
via mechanisms as described in [RFC6006].
5. IGP Extensions for PCE-Initiation for P2MP Capabilities
Advertisement
When PCCs are LSRs participating in the IGP (OSPF or IS-IS), and PCEs
are either LSRs or servers also participating in the IGP, an
effective mechanism for PCE discovery within an IGP routing domain
consists of utilizing IGP advertisements. Extensions for the
advertisement of PCE Discovery Information are defined for OSPF and
for IS-IS in [RFC5088] and [RFC5089] respectively.
The PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV, defined in [RFC5089], is an optional sub-
TLV used to advertise PCE capabilities. It MAY be present within the
PCED sub-TLV carried by OSPF or IS-IS. [RFC5088] and [RFC5089]
provide the description and processing rules for this sub-TLV when
carried within OSPF and IS-IS, respectively.
The format of the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV is included below for easy
reference:
Type: 5
Palle, et al. Expires July 13, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft INITIATED-P2MP January 2016
Length: Multiple of 4.
Value: This contains an array of units of 32 bit flags with the most
significant bit as 0. Each bit represents one PCE capability.
PCE capability bits are defined in [RFC5088]. This document defines
a new capability bit for the PCE-Initiation with P2MP as follows:
Bit Capability
TBD PCE-Initiation with P2MP
Note that while PCE-Initiation for P2MP capability may be advertised
during discovery, PCEP Speakers that wish to use stateful PCEP MUST
negotiate stateful PCE-Initiation capabilities during PCEP session
setup, as specified in the current document.
6. PCE-initiated P2MP TE LSP Operations
6.1. The PCInitiate message
As defined in section 5.1 of [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp], PCE
sends a PCInitiate message to a PCC to recommend instantiation of a
P2P TE LSP, this document extends the format of PCInitiate message
for the creation of P2MP TE LSPs but the creation and deletion
operations of P2MP TE LSP are same to the P2P TE LSP.
The format of PCInitiate message is as follows:
Palle, et al. Expires July 13, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft INITIATED-P2MP January 2016
<PCInitiate Message> ::= <Common Header>
<PCE-initiated-lsp-list>
Where:
<PCE-initiated-lsp-list> ::= <PCE-initiated-lsp-request>
[<PCE-initiated-lsp-list>]
<PCE-initiated-lsp-request> ::=
(<PCE-initiated-lsp-instantiation>|<PCE-initiated-lsp-deletion>)
<PCE-initiated-lsp-instantiation> ::= <SRP>
<LSP>
<end-point-path-pair-list>
[<attribute-list>]
<PCE-initiated-lsp-deletion> ::= <SRP>
<LSP>
Where:
<end-point-path-pair-list>::=
[<END-POINTS>]
<path>
[<end-point-path-pair-list>]
<path> ::= (<ERO>|<SERO>)
[<path>]
<attribute-list> is defined in [RFC5440] and extended
by PCEP extensions.
The PCInitiate message with an LSP object with N bit (P2MP) set is
used to convey operation on a P2MP TE LSP. The SRP object is used to
correlate between initiation requests sent by the PCE and the error
reports and state reports sent by the PCC as described in
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce].
The END-POINTS object MUST be carried in PCInitiate message when N
bit is set in LSP object for P2MP TE LSP. If the END-POINTS object
is missing, the receiving PCC MUST send a PCErr message with Error-
type=6 (Mandatory Object missing) and Error-value=3 (END-POINTS
object missing) (defined in [RFC5440].
Palle, et al. Expires July 13, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft INITIATED-P2MP January 2016
6.2. P2MP TE LSP Instantiation
The Instantiation operation of P2MP TE LSP is same as defined in
section 5.3 of [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] including handling of
PLSP-ID, SYMBOLIC-PATH-NAME TLV etc. Rules of processing and error
codes remains unchanged. Further, as defined in section 6.1 of
[I-D.palle-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp], N bit MUST be set in LSP object in
PCInitiate message by PCE to specify the instantiation is for P2MP TE
LSP and the PCC or PCE MUST follow the mechanism defined in
[I-D.palle-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp] for delegation and updation of P2MP
TE LSPs.
Though N bit is set in the LSP object, P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIER TLV
defined in section 6.2 of [I-D.palle-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp] MUST NOT
be included in the LSP object in PCIntiitate message as it SHOULD be
generated by PCC and carried in PCRpt message.
6.3. P2MP TE LSP Deletion
The deletion operation of P2MP TE LSP is same as defined in section
5.4 of [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] by sending an LSP Initiate
Message with an LSP object carrying the PLSP-ID of the LSP to be
removed and an SRP object with the R flag set (LSP-REMOVE as per
section 5.2 of [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]). Rules of
processing and error codes remains unchanged.
6.4. Adding and Pruning Leaves for the P2MP TE LSP
Adding of new leaves and Pruning of old Leaves for the PCE initiated
P2MP TE LSP MUST be carried in PCUpd message and SHOULD refer
[I-D.palle-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp] for P2MP TE LSP extensions. As
defined in [RFC6006], leaf type = 1 for adding of new leaves, leaf
type = 2 for pruning of old leaves of P2MP END-POINTS Object are used
in PCUpd message.
PCC MAY use the Incremental State Update mechanims as described in
[RFC4875] to signal adding and pruning of leaves.
6.5. P2MP TE LSP Delegation and Cleanup
P2MP TE LSP delegation and cleanup operations are same as defined in
section 6 of [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]. Rules of processing
and error codes remains unchanged.
Palle, et al. Expires July 13, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft INITIATED-P2MP January 2016
7. PCIntiate Message Fragmentation
The total PCEP message length, including the common header, is 16
bytes. In certain scenarios the P2MP LSP Initiate may not fit into a
single PCEP message (e.g. initial PCInitiate message). The F-bit is
used in the LSP object to signal that the initial PCInitiate was too
large to fit into a single message and will be fragmented into
multiple messages.
Fragmentation procedure described below for PCInitiate message is
similar to [RFC6006] which describes request and response message
fragmentation.
7.1. PCIntiate Fragmentation Procedure
Once the PCE initiates to set up the P2MP TE LSP, a PCInitiate
message is sent to the PCC. If the PCInitiate is too large to fit
into a single PCInitiate message, the PCE will split the PCInitiate
over multiple messages. Each PCInitiate message sent by the PCE,
except the last one, will have the F-bit set in the LSP object to
signify that the PCInitiate has been fragmented into multiple
messages. In order to identify that a series of PCInitiate messages
represents a single Initiate, each message will use the same PLSP-ID
(in this case 0) and SRP-ID-number.
To indicate P2MP message fragmentation errors associated with a P2MP
PCInitiate, a Error-Type (18) and a new error-value TBD is used if a
PCC has not received the last piece of the fragmented message, it
should send an error message to the PCE to signal that it has
received an incomplete message (i.e., "Fragmented Instantiation
failure").
8. Non-Support of P2MP TE LSP Instantiation for Stateful PCE
The PCEP protocol extensions described in this document for PCC or
PCE with instantiation capability for P2MP TE LSPs MUST NOT be used
if PCC or PCE has not advertised its stateful capability with
Instantiation and P2MP capability as per Section 4. If the PCEP
Speaker on the PCC supports the extensions of this draft (understands
the P (P2MP-LSP-INSTANTIATION-CAPABILITY) flag in the LSP object) but
did not advertise this capability, then upon receipt of PCInitiate
message from the PCE, it SHOULD generate a PCErr with error-type 19
(Invalid Operation), error-value TBD (Attempted LSP Instantiation
Request for P2MP if stateful PCE instantiation capability for P2MP
was not advertised).
Palle, et al. Expires July 13, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft INITIATED-P2MP January 2016
9. Security Considerations
The stateful operations on P2MP TE LSP are more CPU-intensive and
also utilize more link bandwidth. In the event of an unauthorized
stateful P2MP operations, or a denial of service attack, the
subsequent PCEP operations may be disruptive to the network.
Consequently, it is important that implementations conform to the
relevant security requirements of [RFC5440], [RFC6006],
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] and [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp].
10. Manageability Considerations
All manageability requirements and considerations listed in
[RFC5440], [RFC6006], [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] and
[I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] apply to PCEP protocol extensions
defined in this document. In addition, requirements and
considerations listed in this section apply.
10.1. Control of Function and Policy
A PCE or PCC implementation MUST allow configuring the stateful
Initiation capability for P2MP LSPs.
10.2. Information and Data Models
The PCEP MIB module SHOULD be extended to include advertised P2MP
stateful PCE-Initiation capability etc.
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], [RFC6006] and [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce].
10.5. Requirements On Other Protocols
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new requirements
on other protocols.
Palle, et al. Expires July 13, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft INITIATED-P2MP January 2016
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],
[RFC6006] and [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce].
11. IANA Considerations
This document requests IANA actions to allocate code points for the
protocol elements defined in this document. Values shown here are
suggested for use by IANA.
11.1. PCE Capabilities in IGP Advertisements
IANA is requested to allocate a new bit in "PCE Capability Flags"
registry for PCE-Initiation for P2MP capability as follows:
Bit Meaning Reference
TBD Stateful PCE [This I-D]
Initiation with P2MP
11.2. STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV
The following values are defined in this document for the Flags field
in the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY-TLV (defined in
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]) in the OPEN object:
Bit Description Reference
TBD P2MP-LSP- This.I-D
INSTANTIATION-
CAPABILITY
11.3. Extension of PCEP-Error Object
A error types 19 (recommended values) is defined in section 8.4 of
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]. The error-type 18 is deined in
[RFC6006]. This document extend the new Error-Values for the error
type for the following error conditions:
Palle, et al. Expires July 13, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft INITIATED-P2MP January 2016
Error-Type Meaning
18 P2MP Fragmentation Error
Error-value= TBD. Fragmented Instantiation
failure
19 Invalid Operation
Error-value= TBD. Attempted LSP Instantiation
Request for P2MP if stateful PCE
instantiation capability for P2MP was not
advertised
Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to make the
assignment of a new error value for the existing "PCEP-ERROR Object
Error Types and Values" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-error-object.
12. Security Considerations
The security considerations described in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]
and [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] apply to the extensions
described in this document. The stateful operations on P2MP TE LSP
are more CPU-intensive and also utilize more link bandwidth. In the
event of an unauthorized stateful P2MP operations, or a denial of
service attack, the subsequent PCEP operations may be disruptive to
the network. Consequently, it is important that implementations
conform to the relevant security requirements of [RFC5440],
[RFC6006], [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce], and
[I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp].
13. Acknowledgments
Thanks to Quintin Zhao, Avantika and Venugopal Reddy for his
comments.
14. References
14.1. 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>.
[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>.
Palle, et al. Expires July 13, 2016 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft INITIATED-P2MP January 2016
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC6006] Zhao, Q., Ed., King, D., Ed., Verhaeghe, F., Takeda, T.,
Ali, Z., and J. Meuric, "Extensions to the Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for
Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched
Paths", RFC 6006, DOI 10.17487/RFC6006, September 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6006>.
[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-13 (work in progress), December 2015.
[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-05 (work in
progress), October 2015.
[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-04 (work in
progress), November 2015.
[I-D.palle-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp]
Palle, U., Dhody, D., Tanaka, Y., Ali, Z., and V. Beeram,
"Path Computation Element (PCE) Protocol Extensions for
Stateful PCE usage for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic
Engineering Label Switched Paths", draft-palle-pce-
stateful-pce-p2mp-07 (work in progress), June 2015.
14.2. 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>.
Palle, et al. Expires July 13, 2016 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft INITIATED-P2MP January 2016
[RFC4857] Fogelstroem, E., Jonsson, A., and C. Perkins, "Mobile IPv4
Regional Registration", RFC 4857, DOI 10.17487/RFC4857,
June 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4857>.
[RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Ed., and S.
Yasukawa, Ed., "Extensions to Resource Reservation
Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-
Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4875, May 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4875>.
[RFC5671] Yasukawa, S. and A. Farrel, Ed., "Applicability of the
Path Computation Element (PCE) to Point-to-Multipoint
(P2MP) MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 5671,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5671, October 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5671>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app]
Zhang, X. and I. Minei, "Applicability of a Stateful Path
Computation Element (PCE)", draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-
app-05 (work in progress), October 2015.
Palle, et al. Expires July 13, 2016 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft INITIATED-P2MP January 2016
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses
Yuji Kamite
NTT Communications Corporation
Granpark Tower
3-4-1 Shibaura, Minato-ku
Tokyo 108-8118
Japan
EMail: y.kamite@ntt.com
Authors' Addresses
Udayasree Palle
Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560037
India
EMail: udayasree.palle@huawei.com
Dhruv Dhody
Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560037
India
EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
Yosuke Tanaka
NTT Communications Corporation
Granpark Tower
3-4-1 Shibaura, Minato-ku
Tokyo 108-8118
Japan
EMail: yosuke.tanaka@ntt.com
Zafar Ali
Cisco Systems
EMail: zali@cisco.com
Palle, et al. Expires July 13, 2016 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft INITIATED-P2MP January 2016
Vishnu Pavan Beeram
Juniper Networks
EMail: vbeeram@juniper.net
Palle, et al. Expires July 13, 2016 [Page 16]
