Internet DRAFT - draft-xiong-pce-detnet-bounded-latency
draft-xiong-pce-detnet-bounded-latency
PCE Q. Xiong, Ed.
Internet-Draft ZTE Corporation
Intended status: Standards Track P. Liu
Expires: 31 August 2024 China Mobile
R. Gandhi
Cisco Systems, Inc.
28 February 2024
PCEP Extension for Bounded Latency
draft-xiong-pce-detnet-bounded-latency-04
Abstract
In certain networks, such as Deterministic Networking (DetNet), it is
required to consider the bounded latency for path selection. This
document describes the extensions for Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCEP) to carry deterministic latency
constraints and distribute deterministic paths for end-to-end path
computation in deterministic services.
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
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 31 August 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 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
Xiong, et al. Expires 31 August 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Bounded Latency February 2024
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. PCEP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. METRIC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.1. End-to-End Bounded Delay Metric . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.2. End-to-End Bounded Jitter Metric . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. LSP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Deterministic Path ERO Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3.1. Deadline Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3.2. Cycle Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3.3. Timeslot Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. New Metric Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. New LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG Flag Registry . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.3. New ERO Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction
[RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP)
which is used between a Path Computation Element (PCE) and a Path
Computation Client (PCC) (or other PCE) to enable computation of
Multi-protocol Label Switching (MPLS) for Traffic Engineering Label
Switched Path (TE LSP). PCEP Extensions for the Stateful PCE Model
[RFC8231] describes a set of extensions to PCEP to enable active
control of MPLS-TE and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) tunnels. As depicted
in [RFC4655], a PCE MUST be able to compute the path of a TE LSP by
operating on the TED and considering bandwidth and other constraints
applicable to the TE LSP service request. The constraint parameters
are provided such as metric, bandwidth, delay, affinity, etc.
However these parameters can't meet the DetNet requirements.
According to [RFC8655], Deterministic Networking (DetNet) operates at
the IP layer and delivers service which provides extremely low data
loss rates and bounded latency within a network domain. The bounded
latency indicates the minimum and maximum end-to-end latency from
source to destination and bounded jitter (packet delay variation).
Xiong, et al. Expires 31 August 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Bounded Latency February 2024
[I-D.ietf-detnet-scaling-requirements]has described the enhanced
requirements for DetNet enhanced data plane including the
deterministic latency guarantees and information used by functions
ensuring deterministic latency should be supported. A common data
fields can be defined as per [I-D.xiong-detnet-data-fields-edp] and a
Deterministic Latency Action (DLA) option has been proposed to carry
queuing-based metadata. The computing method of end-to-end delay
bounds is defined in [RFC9320]. It is the sum of the 6 delays in
DetNet bounded latency model. And these delays should be measured
and collected by IGP, but the related mechanisms are out of this
document. The end-to-end delay bounds can also be computed as the
sum of non queuing delay bound and queuing delay bound along the
path. The upper bounds of non queuing delay are constant and depend
on the specific network and the value of queuing delay bound depends
on the queuing mechanisms deployed along the path.
As per [I-D.ietf-detnet-controller-plane-framework], explicit path
should be calculated and established in control plane to guarantee
the deterministic transmission. The corresponding IS-IS and OSPF
extensions are specified in
[I-D.peng-lsr-deterministic-traffic-engineering]. When the PCE is
deployed, the path computation should be applicable for deterministic
networks. It is required that bounded latency including minimum and
maximum end-to-end latency and bounded delay variation are considered
during the deterministic path selection for PCE. The bounded latency
constraints should be extended for PCEP. Moreover, the information
along the deterministic path should be provided to the PCC after the
path computation such as queuing parameters.
This document describes the extensions for PCEP to carry
deterministic latency constraints and distribute deterministic paths
for end-to-end path computation in deterministic services.
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. Terminology
The terminology is defined as [RFC8655] and [RFC5440].
3. PCEP Extensions
Xiong, et al. Expires 31 August 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Bounded Latency February 2024
3.1. METRIC Object
The METRIC object is defined in Section 7.8 of [RFC5440], comprising
metric-value and metric-type (T field), and a flags field, comprising
a number of bit flags (B bit and C bit). This document defines two
types for the METRIC object.
3.1.1. End-to-End Bounded Delay Metric
[RFC8233] has proposed the Path Delay metric type of the METRIC
object to represent the sum of the Link Delay metric of all links
along a P2P path. This document proposes the End-to-End Bounded
Delay metric in PCEP to represent the sum of Output delay, Link
delay, Frame preemption delay, Processing delay, Regulation delay and
Queuing delay as defined in [RFC9320] along a deterministic path. Or
the End-to-End Bounded Delay metric can be encoded as the sum of non
queuing delay bound and queuing delay bound along the deterministic
path. The extensions for End-to-End Bounded Delay Metric are as
following shown:
* T=TBD1: End-to-End Bounded Delay Metric.
* The value of End-to-End Bounded Delay Metric is the encoding in
units of microseconds with 32 bits.
* The B bit MUST be set to suggest a maximum bound for the end-to-
end delay of deterministic path. The end-to-end delay must be
less than or equal to the value.
A PCC MAY use the End-to-End Bounded Latency metric in a Path
Computation Request (PCReq) message to request a deterministic path
meeting the end-to-end latency requirement. A PCE MAY use the End-
to-End Bounded Latency metric in a Path Computation Reply (PCRep)
message along with a NO-PATH object in the case where the PCE cannot
compute a path meeting this constraint. A PCE can also use this
metric to send the computed end-to-end bounded latency to the PCC.
3.1.2. End-to-End Bounded Jitter Metric
[RFC8233] has proposed the Path Delay Variation metric type of the
METRIC object to represent the sum of the Link Delay Variation metric
of all links along the path. This document proposes the End-to-End
Bounded Jitter metric in PCEP to represent the difference between the
end-to-end upper bounded latency and the end-to-end lower bounded
latency along a deterministic path. The extensions for End-to-End
Bounded Jitter Metric are as following shown:
* T=TBD2: End-to-End Bounded Jitter Metric.
Xiong, et al. Expires 31 August 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Bounded Latency February 2024
* The value of End-to-End Bounded Jitter Metric is the encoding in
units of microseconds with 32 bits.
* The B bit MUST be set to suggest a maximum bound for the end-to-
end jitter of deterministic path. The end-to-end jitter must be
less than or equal to the value.
A PCC MAY use the End-to-End Bounded Jitter metric in a PCReq message
to request a deterministic path meeting the end-to-end delay
variation requirement. A PCE MAY use the End-to-End Bounded Jitter
metric in a PCRep message along with a NO-PATH object in the case
where the PCE cannot compute a path meeting this constraint. A PCE
can also use this metric to send the computed end-to-end bounded
Jitter to the PCC.
3.2. LSP Object
The LSP Object is defined in Section 7.3 of [RFC8231]. This document
defines a new flag (D-flag) to present the deterministic path for the
LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV carried in LSP Object as defined in [RFC9357].
D (Request for Deterministic Path) : If the bit is set to 1, it
indicates that the PCC requests PCE to compute the deterministic
path. A PCE would also set this bit to 1 to indicate that the
deterministic path is included by PCE and encoded in the PCRep, PCUpd
or PCInitiate message.
3.3. Deterministic Path ERO Subobject
As defined in [RFC9320], the end-to-end delay bounds can be presented
as the sum of non queuing delay bound and queuing delay bound along
the path. The upper bounds of non queuing delay are constant and
depend on the specific network, but the value of queuing delay bound
depends on the queuing mechanisms deployed along the deterministic
path. [I-D.xiong-detnet-data-fields-edp] and a Deterministic Latency
Action (DLA) option has been proposed to carry the queuing
information. So to meet the requirements of the end-to-end delay,
the PCE should select a path with a specific queuing mechanism and
configure the related parameters to the PCC. And the PCC may insert
the queuing-based information into the packet headers.
The ERO specified in [RFC5440] can be used to carry deterministic
path information. In order to carry deterministic latency Action
Information such as queuing information, this document defines a new
ERO subobject referred to as the Deterministic Path ERO subobject
(DP-ERO). An ERO carrying a deterministic path consists of one or
more ERO subobjects, and it MUST carry DP-ERO subobjects.
Xiong, et al. Expires 31 August 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Bounded Latency February 2024
An DP-ERO subobject is formatted as shown in the following figure.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type=TBD3 | Length | Class | DLA Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// DLA Information(variable, optional) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: DP-ERO Subobject Format
L (1bit): The L bit is an attribute of the subobject. The L bit is
set if the subobject represents a loose hop in the explicit route.
If the bit is not set, the subobject represents a strict hop in the
explicit route.
Type (8bits): Set to TBD3.
Length (8bits): Contains the total length of the subobject in octets.
The Length MUST be at least 8 and MUST be a multiple of 4.
Class (8bits): indicates the deterministic forwarding class.
DLA Type (8bits): indicates the type of DLA information.
DLA Information (variable): indicates the corresponding Deterministic
Latency Action parameters. The format depends on the value in the
DLA type and the following sections shows the examples of the DLA
information.
3.3.1. Deadline Information
When the DLA Type is deadline-based queuing mechanisms, it should
carry deadline information for the DP-ERO subobject. For example,
the deadline-based queuing mechanism has been proposed in
[I-D.stein-srtsn] and [I-D.peng-detnet-deadline-based-forwarding].
The deadlines parameters along the path should be computed at PCE and
configured to the PCC, and then inserted into the packet headers.
The format of the deadline information is shown as following figure.
Xiong, et al. Expires 31 August 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Bounded Latency February 2024
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Deadline |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Deadline Information
Deadline (32bits): indicates the deadline or budget delay for a node
to forward a flow.
3.3.2. Cycle Information
When the DLA Type is cyclic-based queuing mechanisms, it should carry
Cycle information for the DP-ERO subobject. For example, the cyclic-
based queuing mechanism has been proposed in [IEEE802.1Qch] and
improved in [I-D.chen-detnet-sr-based-bounded-latency]. The cycle
parameters along the path should be computed at PCE and configured to
the PCC, and then inserted into the packet headers. The format of
the cycle information is shown as following figure.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Cycle Profile ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Cycle ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Cycle Information
Cycle Profile ID (32bits): indicates the profile number which the
cyclic queue applied at a node.
Cycle ID (32bits): indicates the clycle number for a node to forward
a flow.
Xiong, et al. Expires 31 August 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Bounded Latency February 2024
3.3.3. Timeslot Information
When the DLA Type is timeslot-based queuing mechanisms, it should
carry timeslot information for the DP-ERO subobject. For example,
the timeslot-based queuing mechanism has been proposed in
[I-D.peng-detnet-packet-timeslot-mechanism]. The timeslot parameters
along the path should be computed at PCE and configured to the PCC,
and then inserted into the packet headers. The format of the
timeslot information is shown as following figure.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Timeslot ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Timeslot Information
Timeslot ID (32bits): indicates the timeslot number for a node to
forward a flow.
4. Security Considerations
TBA
5. IANA Considerations
5.1. New Metric Types
This document defines two new metric type for the PCEP. IANA is
requested to allocate the following codepoint in the PCEP "METRIC
Object T Field" registry:
Value Description Reference
------ ------------------------------- -------------
TBD1 End-to-End Bounded Delay Metric This document
TBD2 End-to-End Bounded Jitter Metric This document
5.2. New LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG Flag Registry
[RFC9357] defines the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV. IANA is requested to
make allocations from the Flag field registry, as follows:
Xiong, et al. Expires 31 August 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Bounded Latency February 2024
Bit Description Reference
------ ------------------------------ -------------
D flag Request for Deterministic Path This document
5.3. New ERO Subobject
This document defines a new subobject type for the PCEP explicit
route object (ERO). The code points for subobject types of these
objects is maintained in the RSVP parameters registry, under the
EXPLICIT_ROUTE objects. IANA is requested to confirm the following
allocations in the RSVP Parameters registry for each of the new
subobject types defined in this document.
Object Subobject Subobject Type
-------------- --------------------- ---------------
EXPLICIT_ROUTE DP-ERO (PCEP-specific) TBD3
6. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dhruv Dhody, Andrew Stone, Lou
Berger, Janos Farkas for their review, suggestions and comments to
this document.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[I-D.chen-detnet-sr-based-bounded-latency]
Chen, M., Geng, X., Li, Z., Joung, J., and J. Ryoo,
"Segment Routing (SR) Based Bounded Latency", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-chen-detnet-sr-based-
bounded-latency-03, 7 July 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-chen-detnet-
sr-based-bounded-latency-03>.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-controller-plane-framework]
Malis, A. G., Geng, X., Chen, M., Qin, F., Varga, B., and
C. J. Bernardos, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet)
Controller Plane Framework", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-detnet-controller-plane-framework-05, 26
September 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-detnet-controller-plane-framework-05>.
Xiong, et al. Expires 31 August 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Bounded Latency February 2024
[I-D.ietf-detnet-scaling-requirements]
Liu, P., Li, Y., Eckert, T. T., Xiong, Q., Ryoo, J.,
zhushiyin, and X. Geng, "Requirements for Scaling
Deterministic Networks", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-detnet-scaling-requirements-05, 20 November
2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-
detnet-scaling-requirements-05>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6]
Li, C., Kaladharan, P., Sivabalan, S., Koldychev, M., and
Y. Zhu, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
(PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing leveraging the IPv6
dataplane", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
pce-segment-routing-ipv6-22, 15 February 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-
segment-routing-ipv6-22>.
[I-D.joung-detnet-asynch-detnet-framework]
Joung, J., Ryoo, J., Cheung, T., Li, Y., and P. Liu,
"Asynchronous Deterministic Networking Framework for
Large-Scale Networks", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-joung-detnet-asynch-detnet-framework-03, 19
September 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-joung-detnet-asynch-detnet-framework-03>.
[I-D.peng-6man-deadline-option]
Peng, S., Tan, B., and P. Liu, "Deadline Option", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-peng-6man-deadline-option-
01, 11 July 2022, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-peng-6man-deadline-option-01>.
[I-D.peng-detnet-deadline-based-forwarding]
Peng, S., Du, Z., Basu, K., cheng, Yang, D., and C. Liu,
"Deadline Based Deterministic Forwarding", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-peng-detnet-deadline-
based-forwarding-08, 14 December 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-peng-detnet-
deadline-based-forwarding-08>.
[I-D.peng-detnet-packet-timeslot-mechanism]
Peng, S., Liu, P., Basu, K., Liu, A., Yang, D., and G.
Peng, "Timeslot Queueing and Forwarding Mechanism", Work
in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-peng-detnet-packet-
timeslot-mechanism-05, 14 December 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-peng-detnet-
packet-timeslot-mechanism-05>.
Xiong, et al. Expires 31 August 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Bounded Latency February 2024
[I-D.peng-lsr-deterministic-traffic-engineering]
Peng, S., "IGP Extensions for Deterministic Traffic
Engineering", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
peng-lsr-deterministic-traffic-engineering-01, 4 July
2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-peng-
lsr-deterministic-traffic-engineering-01>.
[I-D.stein-srtsn]
Stein, Y. J., "Segment Routed Time Sensitive Networking",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-stein-srtsn-01, 29
August 2021, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
stein-srtsn-01>.
[I-D.xiong-detnet-data-fields-edp]
Xiong, Q., Liu, A., Gandhi, R., and D. Yang, "Data Fields
for DetNet Enhanced Data Plane", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-xiong-detnet-data-fields-edp-01, 10
July 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
xiong-detnet-data-fields-edp-01>.
[I-D.xiong-detnet-large-scale-enhancements]
Xiong, Q., Du, Z., Zhao, J., and D. Yang, "Enhanced DetNet
Data Plane Framework for Scaling Deterministic Networks",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-xiong-detnet-
large-scale-enhancements-04, 26 February 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xiong-detnet-
large-scale-enhancements-04>.
[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>.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., 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>.
[RFC4915] Psenak, P., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Nguyen, L., and P.
Pillay-Esnault, "Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF",
RFC 4915, DOI 10.17487/RFC4915, June 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4915>.
[RFC5120] Przygienda, T., Shen, N., and N. Sheth, "M-ISIS: Multi
Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to
Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)", RFC 5120,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5120, February 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5120>.
Xiong, et al. Expires 31 August 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Bounded Latency February 2024
[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>.
[RFC6549] Lindem, A., Roy, A., and S. Mirtorabi, "OSPFv2 Multi-
Instance Extensions", RFC 6549, DOI 10.17487/RFC6549,
March 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6549>.
[RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
[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>.
[RFC8233] Dhody, D., Wu, Q., Manral, V., Ali, Z., and K. Kumaki,
"Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) to Compute Service-Aware Label Switched
Paths (LSPs)", RFC 8233, DOI 10.17487/RFC8233, September
2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8233>.
[RFC8655] Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas,
"Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8655, October 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8655>.
[RFC8664] Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,
and J. Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8664,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8664, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8664>.
[RFC9320] Finn, N., Le Boudec, J.-Y., Mohammadpour, E., Zhang, J.,
and B. Varga, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Bounded
Latency", RFC 9320, DOI 10.17487/RFC9320, November 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9320>.
Xiong, et al. Expires 31 August 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Bounded Latency February 2024
[RFC9357] Xiong, Q., "Label Switched Path (LSP) Object Flag
Extension for Stateful PCE", RFC 9357,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9357, February 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9357>.
Authors' Addresses
Quan Xiong (editor)
ZTE Corporation
China
Email: xiong.quan@zte.com.cn
Peng Liu
China Mobile
Beijing
China
Email: liupengyjy@chinamobile.com
Rakesh Gandhi
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Canada
Email: rgandhi@cisco.com
Xiong, et al. Expires 31 August 2024 [Page 13]
