Internet DRAFT - draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid
draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid
PCE Working Group S. Sivabalan
Internet-Draft C. Filsfils
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: January 9, 2020 J. Tantsura
Apstra, Inc.
J. Hardwick
Metaswitch Networks
S. Previdi
C. Li
Huawei Technologies
July 8, 2019
Carrying Binding Label/Segment-ID in PCE-based Networks.
draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid-07
Abstract
In order to provide greater scalability, network opacity, and service
independence, SR utilizes a Binding Segment Identifier (BSID). It is
possible to associate a BSID to RSVP-TE signaled Traffic Engineering
Label Switching Path or binding Segment-ID (SID) to Segment Routed
(SR) Traffic Engineering path. Such a binding label/SID can be used
by an upstream node for steering traffic into the appropriate TE path
to enforce SR policies. This document proposes an approach for
reporting binding label/SID to Path Computation Element (PCE) for
supporting PCE-based Traffic Engineering policies.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
Sivabalan, et al. Expires January 9, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID July 2019
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 January 9, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include 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. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Path Binding TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Binding SID in SR-ERO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Binding SID in SRv6-ERO/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.1. Huawei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.1.1. TE-PATH-BINDING TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.2. PCEP Error Type and Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Sivabalan, et al. Expires January 9, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID July 2019
1. Introduction
A PCE can compute Traffic Engineering paths (TE paths) through a
network that are subject to various constraints. Currently, TE paths
are either set up using the RSVP-TE signaling protocol or Segment
Routing (SR). We refer to such paths as RSVP-TE paths and SR-TE
paths respectively in this document.
As per [RFC8402] SR allows a headend node to steer a packet flow
along any path. The headend node is said to steer a flow into an
Segment Routing Policy (SR Policy). Further, as per
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy], an SR Policy is a framework
that enables instantiation of an ordered list of segments on a node
for implementing a source routing policy with a specific intent for
traffic steering from that node.
As described in [RFC8402], Binding Segment Identifier (BSID) is bound
to an Segment Routed (SR) Policy, instantiation of which may involve
a list of SIDs. Any packets received with an active segment equal to
BSID are steered onto the bound SR Policy. A BSID may be either a
local (SRLB) or a global (SRGB) SID. As per Section 6.4 of
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] a BSID can also be
associated with any type of interfaces or tunnel to enable the use of
a non-SR interface or tunnels as segments in a SID-list.
[RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) for
communication between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a PCE or
between a pair of PCEs as per [RFC4655]. [RFC8231] specifies
extension to PCEP that allows a PCC to delegate its LSPs to a
stateful PCE. A stateful PCE can then update the state of LSPs
delegated to it. [RFC8281] specifies a mechanism allowing a PCE to
dynamically instantiate an LSP on a PCC by sending the path and
characteristics. The PCEP extension to setup and maintain SR-TE
paths is specified in [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing].
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] provides a mechanism for a network
controller (acting as a PCE) to instantiate candidate paths for an SR
Policy onto a head-end node (acting as a PCC) using PCEP. For more
information on the SR Policy Architecture, see
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].
Binding label/SID has local significance to the ingress node of the
corresponding TE path. When a stateful PCE is deployed for setting
up TE paths, it may be desirable to report the binding label or SID
to the stateful PCE for the purpose of enforcing end-to-end TE/SR
policy. A sample Data Center (DC) use-case is illustrated in the
following diagram. In the MPLS DC network, an SR LSP (without
traffic engineering) is established using a prefix SID advertised by
Sivabalan, et al. Expires January 9, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID July 2019
BGP (see [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid]). In IP/MPLS WAN, an SR-TE
LSP is setup using the PCE. The list of SIDs of the SR-TE LSP is {A,
B, C, D}. The gateway node 1 (which is the PCC) allocates a binding
SID X and reports it to the PCE. In order for the access node to
steer the traffic over the SR-TE LSP, the PCE passes the SID stack
{Y, X} where Y is the prefix SID of the gateway node-1 to the access
node. In the absence of the binding SID X, the PCE should pass the
SID stack {Y, A, B, C, D} to the access node. This example also
illustrates the additional benefit of using the binding SID to reduce
the number of SIDs imposed on the access nodes with a limited
forwarding capacity.
SID stack
{Y, X} +-----+
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _| PCE |
| +-----+
| ^
| | Binding
| .-----. | SID (X) .-----.
| ( ) | ( )
V .--( )--. | .--( )--.
+------+ ( ) +-------+ ( ) +-------+
|Access|_( MPLS DC Network )_|Gateway|_( IP/MPLS WAN )_|Gateway|
| Node | ( ==============> ) |Node-1 | ( ================> ) |Node-2 |
+------+ ( SR path ) +-------+ ( SR-TE path ) +-------+
'--( )--' Prefix '--( )--'
( ) SID of ( )
'-----' Node-1 '-----'
is Y SIDs for SR-TE LSP:
{A, B, C, D}
Figure 1: A sample Use-case of Binding SID
A PCC could report the binding label/SID allocated by it to the
stateful PCE via Path Computation State Report (PCRpt) message. It
is also possible for a stateful PCE to request a PCC to allocate a
specific binding label/SID by sending an Path Computation Update
Request (PCUpd) message. If the PCC can successfully allocate the
specified binding value, it reports the binding value to the PCE.
Otherwise, the PCC sends an error message to the PCE indicating the
cause of the failure. A local policy or configuration at the PCC
SHOULD dictate if the binding label/SID needs to be assigned.
In this document, we introduce a new OPTIONAL TLV that a PCC can use
in order to report the binding label/SID associated with a TE LSP, or
Sivabalan, et al. Expires January 9, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID July 2019
a PCE to request a PCC to allocate a specific binding label/SID
value. This TLV is intended for TE LSPs established using RSVP-TE,
SR, or any other future method. Also, in the case of SR-TE LSPs, the
TLV can carry a binding MPLS label (for SR-TE path with MPLS data-
plane) or a binding IPv6 SID (e.g., IPv6 address for SR-TE paths with
IPv6 data-plane). Binding value means either MPLS label or SID
throughout this document.
Additionally, to support the PCE based central controller [RFC8283]
operation where the PCE would take responsibility for managing some
part of the MPLS label space for each of the routers that it
controls, the PCE could directly make the binding label/SID
allocation and inform the PCC. See
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] for details.
2. Terminology
The following terminologies are used in this document:
BSID: Binding Segment Identifier.
LER: Label Edge Router.
LSP: Label Switched Path.
LSR: Label Switching Router.
PCC: Path Computation Client.
PCE: Path Computation Element
PCEP: Path Computation Element Protocol.
RSVP-TE: Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering.
SID: Segment Identifier.
SR: Segment Routing.
SRGB: Segment Routing Global Block.
SRLB: Segment Routing Local Block.
TLV: Type, Length, and Value.
Sivabalan, et al. Expires January 9, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID July 2019
3. Path Binding TLV
The new optional TLV is called "TE-PATH-BINDING TLV" whose format is
shown in the diagram below is defined to carry binding label or SID
for a TE path. This TLV is associated with the LSP object specified
in ([RFC8231]). The type of this TLV is to be allocated by IANA.
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 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| BT | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Binding Value (variable length) ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: TE-PATH-BINDING TLV
TE-PATH-BINDING TLV is a generic TLV such that it is able to carry
MPLS label binding as well as SRV6 Binding SID. It is formatted
according to the rules specified in [RFC5440].
Binding Type (BT): A one byte field identifies the type of binding
included in the TLV. This document specifies the following BT
values:
o BT = 0: The binding value is an MPLS label carried in the format
specified in [RFC5462] where only the label value is valid, and
other fields (TC, S, and TTL) fields MUST be considered invalid.
The Length MUST be set to 6.
o BT = 1: Similar to the case where BT is 0 except that all the
fields on the MPLS label entry are set on transmission. However,
the receiver MAY choose to override TC, S, and TTL values
according its local policy.
o BT = 2: The binding value is a SRv6 SID with a format of an 16
byte IPv6 address, representing the binding SID for SRv6.
Reserved: MUST be set to 0 while sending and ignored on receipt.
Binding Value: A variable length field, padded with trailing zeros to
a 4-byte boundary. For the BT as 0, the 20 bits represents the MPLS
label. For the BT as 1, the 32-bits represents the label stack entry
as per [RFC5462]. For the BT as 2, the 128-bits represent the SRv6
SID.
Sivabalan, et al. Expires January 9, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID July 2019
4. Operation
The binding value is allocated by the PCC and reported to a PCE via
PCRpt message. If a PCE does not recognize the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV,
it MUST ignore the TLV in accordance with ([RFC5440]). If a PCE
recognizes the TLV but does not support the TLV, it MUST send PCErr
with Error-Type = 2 (Capability not supported).
If a TE-PATH-BINDING TLV is absent in PCRpt message, PCE MUST assume
that the corresponding LSP does not have any binding. If there are
more than one TE-PATH-BINDING TLVs, only the first TLV MUST be
processed and the rest MUST be silently ignored. If a PCE recognizes
an invalid binding value (e.g., label value from the reserved label
space when MPLS label binding is used), it MUST send the PCErr
message with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and
Error Value = TBD ("Bad label value") as specified in
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing].
If a PCE requires a PCC to allocate a specific binding value, it may
do so by sending a PCUpd or PCInitiate message containing a TE-PATH-
BINDING TLV. If the value can be successfully allocated, the PCC
reports the binding value to the PCE. If the PCC considers the
binding value specified by the PCE invalid, it MUST send a PCErr
message with Error-Type = TBD ("Binding label/SID failure") and Error
Value = TBD ("Invalid SID"). If the binding value is valid, but the
PCC is unable to allocate the binding value, it MUST send a PCErr
message with Error-Type = TBD ("Binding label/SID failure") and Error
Value = TBD ("Unable to allocate the specified label/SID").
If a PCC receives TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in any message other than PCUpd
or PCInitiate, it MUST close the corresponding PCEP session with the
reason "Reception of a malformed PCEP message" (according to
[RFC5440]). Similarly, if a PCE receives a TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in
any message other than a PCRpt or if the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV is
associated with any object other than LSP object, the PCE MUST close
the corresponding PCEP session with the reason "Reception of a
malformed PCEP message" (according to [RFC5440]).
If a PCC wishes to withdraw or modify a previously reported binding
value, it MUST send a PCRpt message without any TE-PATH-BINDING TLV
or with the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV containing the new binding value
respectively.
If a PCE wishes to modify a previously requested binding value, it
MUST send a PCUpd message with TE-PATH-BINDING TLV containing the new
binding value. Absence of TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in PCUpd message means
that the PCE does not specify a binding value in which case the
binding value allocation is governed by the PCC's local policy.
Sivabalan, et al. Expires January 9, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID July 2019
If a PCC receives a valid binding value from a PCE which is different
than the current binding value, it MUST try to allocate the new
value. If the new binding value is successfully allocated, the PCC
MUST report the new value to the PCE. Otherwise, it MUST send a
PCErr message with Error-Type = TBD ("Binding label/SID failure") and
Error Value = TBD ("Unable to allocate the specified label/SID").
In some cases, a stateful PCE can request the PCC to allocate a
binding value. It may do so by sending a PCUpd message containing an
empty TE-PATH-BINDING TLV, i.e., no binding value is specified
(making the length field of the TLV as 2). A PCE can also make the
request PCC to allocate a binding at the time of initiation by
sending a PCInitiate message with an empty TE-PATH-BINDING TLV.
5. Binding SID in SR-ERO
In PCEP messages, LSP route information is carried in the Explicit
Route Object (ERO), which consists of a sequence of subobjects.
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] defines a new ERO subobject "SR-ERO
subobject" capable of carrying a SID as well as the identity of the
node/adjacency (NAI) represented by the SID. The NAI Type (NT) field
indicates the type and format of the NAI contained in the SR-ERO. In
case of binding SID, the NAI MUST NOT be included and NT MUST be set
to zero. So as per Section 5.2.1 of [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing],
for NT=0, the F bit MUST be 1, the S bit needs to be zero and the
Length MUST be 8. Further the M bit MUST be set. If these
conditions are not met, the entire ERO MUST be considered invalid and
a PCErr message is sent with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an
invalid object") and Error-Value = 11 ("Malformed object").
6. Binding SID in SRv6-ERO/
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] defines a new ERO subobject "SRv6-ERO
subobject" for SRv6 SID. The NAI MUST NOT be included and NT MUST be
set to zero. So as per Section 5.2.1 of
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing], for NT=0, the F bit MUST be 1, the S
bit needs to be zero and the Length MUST be 24. If these conditions
are not met, the entire ERO is considered invalid and a PCErr message
is sent with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and
Error-Value = 11 ("Malformed object") (as per
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing]).
7. Implementation Status
[Note to the RFC Editor - remove this section before publication, as
well as remove the reference to RFC 7942.]
Sivabalan, et al. Expires January 9, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID July 2019
This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942].
The description of implementations in this section is intended to
assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort
has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not
be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
exist.
According to [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and working groups
to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
they see fit".
7.1. Huawei
o Organization: Huawei
o Implementation: Huawei's Router and Controller
o Description: An experimental code-point is used and plan to
request early code-point allocation from IANA after WG adoption.
o Maturity Level: Production
o Coverage: Full
o Contact: mahendrasingh@huawei.com
8. Security Considerations
The security considerations described in [RFC5440], [RFC8231],
[RFC8281] and [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] are applicable to this
specification. No additional security measure is required.
As described [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing], SR allows a network
controller to instantiate and control paths in the network. A rouge
PCE can manipulate binding SID allocations to move traffic around for
some other LSPs that uses BSID in its SR-ERO.
Thus, as per [RFC8231], it is RECOMMENDED that these PCEP extensions
only be activated on authenticated and encrypted sessions across PCEs
Sivabalan, et al. Expires January 9, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID July 2019
and PCCs belonging to the same administrative authority, using
Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8253], as per the recommendations
and best current practices in [RFC7525] (unless explicitly set aside
in [RFC8253]).
9. Manageability Considerations
All manageability requirements and considerations listed in
[RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] apply to
PCEP protocol extensions defined in this document. In addition,
requirements and considerations listed in this section apply.
9.1. Control of Function and Policy
A PCC implementation SHOULD allow the operator to configure the
policy based on which PCC needs to allocates the binding label/SID.
9.2. Information and Data Models
The PCEP YANG module [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] could be extended to
include policy configuration for binding label/SID allocation.
9.3. 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].
9.4. Verify Correct Operations
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new operation
verification requirements in addition to those already listed in
[RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing].
9.5. Requirements On Other Protocols
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new requirements
on other protocols.
9.6. Impact On Network Operations
Mechanisms defined in [RFC5440], [RFC8231], and
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] also apply to PCEP extensions defined
in this document. Further, the mechanism described in this document
can help the operator to request control of the LSPs at a particular
PCE.
Sivabalan, et al. Expires January 9, 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID July 2019
10. IANA Considerations
10.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators
This document defines a new PCEP TLV; IANA is requested to make the
following allocations from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" sub-
registry of the PCEP Numbers registry, as follows:
Value Name Reference
TBD TE-PATH-BINDING This document
10.1.1. TE-PATH-BINDING TLV
IANA is requested to create a sub-registry to manage the value of the
Binding Type field in the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV.
Value Description Reference
0 MPLS Label This document
1 MPLS Label Stack This document
Entry
2 SRv6 SID This document
10.2. PCEP Error Type and Value
This document defines a new Error-type and Error-Values for the PCErr
message. IANA is requested to allocate new error-type and error-
values within the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values"
subregistry of the PCEP Numbers registry, as follows:
Error-Type Meaning
---------- -------
TBD Binding label/SID failure:
Error-value = TBD: Invalid SID
Error-value = TBD: Unable to allocate
the specified
label/SID
11. Acknowledgements
We like to thank Milos Fabian for his valuable comments.
Sivabalan, et al. Expires January 9, 2020 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID July 2019
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
[RFC5462] Andersson, L. and R. Asati, "Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic
Class" Field", RFC 5462, DOI 10.17487/RFC5462, February
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5462>.
[RFC7525] Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre,
"Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer
Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
(DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 7525, DOI 10.17487/RFC7525, May
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7525>.
[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>.
[RFC8253] Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody,
"PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)",
RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253>.
Sivabalan, et al. Expires January 9, 2020 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID July 2019
[RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281>.
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing]
Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,
and J. Hardwick, "PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing",
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-16 (work in progress),
March 2019.
12.2. 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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[RFC8283] Farrel, A., Ed., Zhao, Q., Ed., Li, Z., and C. Zhou, "An
Architecture for Use of PCE and the PCE Communication
Protocol (PCEP) in a Network with Central Control",
RFC 8283, DOI 10.17487/RFC8283, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8283>.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
Filsfils, C., Sivabalan, S., daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d.,
bogdanov@google.com, b., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing
Policy Architecture", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-
policy-03 (work in progress), May 2019.
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid]
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Lindem, A., Sreekantiah, A.,
and H. Gredler, "Segment Routing Prefix SID extensions for
BGP", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-27 (work in progress),
June 2018.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller]
Zhao, Q., Li, Z., Negi, M., and C. Zhou, "PCEP Procedures
and Protocol Extensions for Using PCE as a Central
Controller (PCECC) of LSPs", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-
extension-for-pce-controller-01 (work in progress),
February 2019.
Sivabalan, et al. Expires January 9, 2020 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID July 2019
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]
Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V., and J. Tantsura, "A
YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element
Communications Protocol (PCEP)", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-
yang-12 (work in progress), July 2019.
Sivabalan, et al. Expires January 9, 2020 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID July 2019
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses
Dhruv Dhody
Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
India
EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
Mahendra Singh Negi
Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
India
EMail: mahendrasingh@huawei.com
Authors' Addresses
Siva Sivabalan
Cisco Systems, Inc.
2000 Innovation Drive
Kanata, Ontario K2K 3E8
Canada
EMail: msiva@cisco.com
Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Pegasus Parc
De kleetlaan 6a, DIEGEM BRABANT 1831
BELGIUM
EMail: cfilsfil@cisco.com
Jeff Tantsura
Apstra, Inc.
EMail: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com
Sivabalan, et al. Expires January 9, 2020 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID July 2019
Jonathan Hardwick
Metaswitch Networks
100 Church Street
Enfield, Middlesex
UK
EMail: Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com
Stefano Previdi
Huawei Technologies
EMail: stefano@previdi.net
Cheng Li
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China
EMail: chengli13@huawei.com
Sivabalan, et al. Expires January 9, 2020 [Page 16]
