Internet DRAFT - draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-lspdb-sync
draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-lspdb-sync
PCE Working Group U. Palle
Internet-Draft D. Dhody
Intended status: Experimental X. Zhang
Expires: July 24, 2015 Huawei Technologies
January 20, 2015
LSP-DB Synchronization between Stateful PCEs
draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-lspdb-sync-04
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.
[STATEFUL-PCE] specifies a set of extensions to 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 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 24, 2015.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 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
Palle, et al. Expires July 24, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LSPDB-SYNC January 2015
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Motivation and Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Functions to Support LSP-DB Synchronization . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Architectural Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. LSP-DB Synchronization between Primary and Backup
Stateful PCEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.2. LSP-DB Synchronization between Load-Balanced Stateful
PCEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.3. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. PCEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. The PCRpt Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2. The PCUpd Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1. Stateful PCE Capability TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.2. PCE Redundancy Group Identifier TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.3. PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
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 . . . . . . . . . . . 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
12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Palle, et al. Expires July 24, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LSPDB-SYNC January 2015
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).
[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.
When multiple stateful PCEs are operating in the network, they could
be either Primary/Backup or Loadbalanced. In a scenario where the
network operator has deployed backup stateful PCE(s) with only
purpose to be used in the event of failure of the primary PCE, it
makes sense that in such a deployment, PCE should have as latest LSP
states as possible. The rationale is that if the operator has made
investments for a Backup PCE which is sitting idle and used in case
of a Primary PCE failure, we should try to provide the backup PCE
with the latest LSP state rather than the rely on the network (PCCs)
(which has synchronization issues as described in [RFC7399]).
Further as stateful PCE make changes to the delegated LSPs, these
changes (pending LSPs and sticky resources) needs to be synchronized
to other PCEs as soon as possible.
This document specifies the mechanisms of LSP-DB synchronization
between stateful PCEs (in the same domain) to be able to get the
latest LSP state.
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 [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.
Palle, et al. Expires July 24, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LSPDB-SYNC January 2015
3. Motivation and Use
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. The
backup PCE should have the same view of LSP-DB as primary stateful
PCE. The LSP-DB of a backup PCE can be synchronized via the
primary stateful PCE or collected from multiple network nodes
(PCC). In case of latter only, the backup PCE may face
synchronization issues as described in [RFC7399]. Thus it is
suggested that backup PCE can be synchronized via the primary
stateful PCE, this mechanism is described in Section 5.1. Note
that backup PCE MAY use synchronization from network as a
mechanism to cross-check the LSP-DB.
Load-Balanced 'Backup' PCE: Load-Balanced PCEs share the computation
load all the time 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. It is suggested that in this case each load-
balanced stateful PCE should build their LSP-DB independently from
the network (PCCs) (via mechanism described in [STATEFUL-PCE])
during initial LSP state synchronization and not from other
stateful PCEs. But it is important that these load-balanced
stateful PCEs needs to be synchronized to have a similar view of
pending LSPs and sticky resources, this mechanism is described in
Section 5.2.
4. Functions to Support LSP-DB Synchronization
[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)
Palle, et al. Expires July 24, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LSPDB-SYNC January 2015
o LSP state report (C-E)
o LSP control delegation (C-E,E-C)
o Stateful PCE discovery via [STATEFUL-PCE-DISC]
This document extends some of these functions to support LSP-DB
synchronization. Some are initiated either from a PCE towards
another PCE (E-E) or specifically from primary to backup PCE (PE-BE).
Capability negotiation (E-E): both the PCEs must announce during
PCEP session establishment that they support PCEP Stateful PCE
extensions defined in [STATEFUL-PCE]. It should also declare
whether it has primary or backup stateful PCE capability. This is
done via Open message.
LSP state synchronization (PE-BE): after the session between the
stateful PCEs is initialized, the backup PCE must learn the state
of LSPs from the primary PCE. 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 primary or backup
capability via IGP.
5. Architectural Overview
LSP-DB synchronization function is defined in section 5.4 of
[STATEFUL-PCE] between PCC and PCEs. This document extends the LSP
state synchronization between stateful PCEs.
5.1. LSP-DB Synchronization between Primary and Backup Stateful PCEs
As shown in Figure 1, PCE1 is the primary stateful PCE and PCE2 is
the backup stateful PCE. PCC1 and PCC2 synchronize the LSP-DB with
the primary stateful PCE1 after session initialization phase. And
primary stateful PCE1 synchronizes LSP-DB with its backup stateful
PCE2 after session initialization phase. This is LSP state
synchronization as described in Section 4 and uses PCRpt message.
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.
Palle, et al. Expires July 24, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LSPDB-SYNC January 2015
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 ----+------------------>|
|---- 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: LSP-DB synchronization between primary and backup stateful
PCEs
In this case LSP state synchronization is done via primary stateful
PCE. The backup PCE MAY choose to cross-check the LSP-DB with the
state learned from the network (PCCs).
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 case of multiple backup PCEs, a selection mechanism
(e.g. least IP address among backup PCEs) may be used. When PCE1
recovers from failure, the acting primary PCE (PCE2) should backup
using the mechanism as described in this section and restart all its
PCEP sessions, thus making sure all PCEP speakers now considers PCE1
as primary.
[STATEFUL-LSPSYNC-OPT] describes LSP state synchronization
optimizations - PCE triggered synchronization, state synchronization
Palle, et al. Expires July 24, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LSPDB-SYNC January 2015
avoidance, and incremental state synchronization. A Backup PCE
should trigger the state synchronization with primary PCE first in
order to get the full LSP-DB, likewise when the original primary PCE
gets up, it can trigger the state synchronization with the current
stateful PCE first. Further state synchronization avoidance and
incremental state synchronization can optimize the state
synchronization process making sure that the PCEs have the latest
LSP-DB as quickly as possible.
5.2. LSP-DB Synchronization between Load-Balanced Stateful PCEs
As shown 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 and PCC2 synchronize their LSP-DB with both PCEs after
session initialization phase as per [STATEFUL-PCE]. In this case,
state synchronization does not happen between PCE1 and PCE2 as they
synchronize the LSP-DB with the network (PCCs).
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 [STATEFUL-PCE], indicating the LSP's status.
Note that the PCUpd message are exchanged between load-balanced PCEs
for pending LSP changes and sticky resources. And the status of the
LSPs are received from the network (PCC) via PCRpt message as
described in [STATEFUL-PCE] as well as from the PCE.
Palle, et al. Expires July 24, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LSPDB-SYNC January 2015
+----+ +----+ +----+ +----+
|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,lsp1,up--|
| | | |
Figure 2: 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. When PCE1 recovers from failure, the
load can be redistributed again among the PCEs.
5.3. Other Considerations
o This document does not tackle the issue about TED synchronization
which is described in detail in [RFC7399].
o The computation mechanism and how PCE chooses to handle the sticky
resources during computation is out of scope of this document.
6. PCEP Messages
6.1. The PCRpt Message
The format of PCRpt message is defined in [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
Palle, et al. Expires July 24, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft LSPDB-SYNC January 2015
primary and backup stateful PCEs for LSP synchronization as described
in Section 5.1.
6.2. The PCUpd Message
The format of PCUpd Message is defined in [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 LSP synchronization of pending LSPs
and sticky resources as described in Section 5.2. Whenever there is
a PCUpd message sent from PCE to PCC, PCE should also send it to
other PCEs (backup or load-balanced).
7. TLVs
7.1. Stateful PCE Capability TLV
As per [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 [STATEFUL-PCE]. A new flag
is added -
B (BACKUP - 1 bit): if set to 1 by PCE, the PCE should act as a
backup. It MAY become an 'acting primary PCE' only in case of
failure or unavailability of primary PCE. In case of PCC, this
bit has no meaning and is simply ignored.
7.2. PCE Redundancy Group Identifier TLV
[STATEFUL-PCE] defines a PREDUNDANCY-GROUP-ID TLV which is an unique
identifier of a PCC and carried in OPEN object, [STATEFUL-PCE] also
specifies PLSP-ID in LSP object and SYMBOLIC-PATH-NAME TLV which is
used to identify the originating PCC.
To uniquely identify LSP across stateful PCEs, PREDUNDANCY-GROUP-ID
TLV MUST be encoded along with LSP object when PCRpt message is sent
from primary to backup stateful PCE. This way the backup stateful
PCE will also learn the unique identifier for the PCC that does not
change.
The existing PREDUNDANCY-GROUP-ID TLV MAYBE encoded in LSP object's
optional TLV to identify the originating PCC.
Palle, et al. Expires July 24, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft LSPDB-SYNC January 2015
7.3. 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. [STATEFUL-PCE-DISC] further
enhances the optional PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV used to advertise PCE
stateful capabilities.
Further a new bit is added -
Bit Capabilities
TBD Backup Stateful PCE
If this bit is set to 1, the PCE should act as a backup. It MAY
become an 'acting primary PCE' only in case of failure or
unavailability of primary PCE.
8. Other Considerations
[STATEFUL-PCE-INTERDOMAIN] describes general considerations for the
deployment of stateful PCE(s) in inter-domain scenarios including
inter-area and inter-AS. It further mentions an alternative approach
for state synchronisation of inter-domain LSP to transit and egress
domain PCE, where each PCE may synchronise the state with other PCEs
in other domain. A mechanism similar to LSP-DB backup described in
this document may be utilized for this purpose.
9. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce any new security concerns besides
those in [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.
10.2. Information and Data Models
[RFC7420] describes the PCEP MIB, there are no new MIB Objects for
this document.
Palle, et al. Expires July 24, 2015 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft LSPDB-SYNC January 2015
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 BACKUP [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
TBD BACKUP [This I.D.]
Palle, et al. Expires July 24, 2015 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft LSPDB-SYNC January 2015
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, March 1997.
13.2. Informative References
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006.
[RFC5088] Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., Ikejiri, Y., and R. Zhang,
"OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element
(PCE) Discovery", RFC 5088, January 2008.
[RFC5089] Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., Ikejiri, Y., and R. Zhang,
"IS-IS Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element
(PCE) Discovery", RFC 5089, January 2008.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP. and JL. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element
(PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, March
2009.
[RFC7399] Farrel, A. and D. King, "Unanswered Questions in the Path
Computation Element Architecture", RFC 7399, October 2014.
[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, December 2014.
[STATEFUL-PCE]
Crabbe, E., Medved, J., Minei, I., and R. Varga,, "PCEP
Extensions for Stateful PCE (draft-ietf-pce-stateful-
pce)", October 2014.
[STATEFUL-PCE-DISC]
Sivabalan, S., Medved, J., and X. Zhang, "IGP Extensions
for Stateful PCE Discovery (draft-sivabalan-pce-disco-
stateful)", January 2014.
Palle, et al. Expires July 24, 2015 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft LSPDB-SYNC January 2015
[STATEFUL-LSPSYNC-OPT]
Crabbe, E., Medved, J., Minei, I., 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)", January 2015.
[STATEFUL-PCE-INTERDOMAIN]
Dhody, D. and X. Zhang, "Stateful Path Computation Element
(PCE) Inter-domain Considerations", draft-dhody-pce-
stateful-pce-interdomain-00 (work in progress), January
2015.
Palle, et al. Expires July 24, 2015 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft LSPDB-SYNC January 2015
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses
Young Lee
Huawei
1700 Alma Drive, Suite 100
Plano, TX 75075
US
Phone: +1 972 509 5599 x2240
Fax: +1 469 229 5397
EMail: leeyoung@huawei.com
Authors' Addresses
Udayasree Palle
Huawei Technologies
Divyasree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560037
India
EMail: udayasree.palle@huawei.com
Dhruv Dhody
Huawei Technologies
Divyasree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560037
India
EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
Xian Zhang
Huawei Technologies
Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen 518129
P.R.China
EMail: zhang.xian@huawei.com
Palle, et al. Expires July 24, 2015 [Page 14]
