PCEP Extensions for MPSL-TE LSP Path Protection with stateful PCE
draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protection-03
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Hariharan Ananthakrishnan , Siva Sivabalan , Colby Barth , Raveendra Torvi , Ina Minei , Edward Crabbe , Dhruv Dhody | ||
| Last updated | 2017-06-29 (Latest revision 2017-01-09) | ||
| Replaced by | draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection, RFC 8745 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protection-03
PCE Working Group H. Ananthakrishnan
Internet-Draft Packet Design
Intended status: Standards Track S. Sivabalan
Expires: December 31, 2017 Cisco
C. Barth
R. Torvi
Juniper Networks
I. Minei
Google, Inc
E. Crabbe
Individual Contributor
D. Dhody
Huawei Technologies
June 29, 2017
PCEP Extensions for MPSL-TE LSP Path Protection with stateful PCE
draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protection-03
Abstract
A stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) is capable of computing as
well as controlling via Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP)
Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering Label Switched
Paths (MPLS LSP). Furthermore, it is also possible for a stateful
PCE to create, maintain, and delete LSPs. This document describes
PCEP extension to associate two or more LSPs to provide end-to-end
path protection.
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 December 31, 2017.
Ananthakrishnan, et al. Expires December 31, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Stateful PCE LSP Path Protection June 2017
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. PCEP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Path Protection Association Type . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Path Protection Association TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. PCC Initiated LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. PCE Initiated LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. State Synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.4. Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Other considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1. Association Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2. PPAG TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.3. PCEP Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.2. Information References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Ananthakrishnan, et al. Expires December 31, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Stateful PCE LSP Path Protection June 2017
1. Introduction
[RFC5440] describes PCEP for communication between a Path Computation
Client (PCC) and a PCE or between one a pair of PCEs as per
[RFC4655]. A PCE computes paths for MPLS-TE LSPs based on various
constraints and optimization criteria.
Stateful pce [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] specifies a set of
extensions to PCEP to enable stateful control of paths such as MPLS
TE LSPs between and across PCEP sessions in compliance with
[RFC4657]. It includes mechanisms to effect LSP state
synchronization between PCCs and PCEs, delegation of control of LSPs
to PCEs, and PCE control of timing and sequence of path computations
within and across PCEP sessions and focuses on a model where LSPs are
configured on the PCC and control over them is delegated to the PCE.
Furthermore, a mechanism to dynamically instantiate LSPs on a PCC
based on the requests from a stateful PCE or a controller using
stateful PCE is specified in [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp].
Path protection refers to a paradigm in which the working LSP is
protected by one or more protection LSP(s). When the working LSP
fails, protection LSP(s) is/are activated. When the working LSPs are
computed and controlled by the PCE, there is benefit in a mode of
operation where protection LSPs are as well.
This document specifies a stateful PCEP extension to associate two or
more LSPs for the purpose of setting up path protection. The
proposed extension covers the following scenarios:
o A PCC initiates a protection LSP and retains the control of the
LSP. The PCC computes the path himself or make a request for path
computation to a PCE. After the path setup, it reports to the PCE
with the information and state of the path. This is the passive
stateful mode [RFC8051].
o A PCC initiates a protection LSP and delegates the control of the
LSP to a stateful PCE. The PCE may compute the path for the LSP
and update the PCC with the information about the path as long as
it controls the LSP. This is the active stateful mode [RFC8051].
o A protection LSP could be initiated by a stateful PCE, which
retains the control of the LSP. The PCE is responsible for
computing the path of the LSP and updating to the PCC with the
information about the path. This is the PCE Initiated mode
[I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp].
Note that protection LSP can be established prior to the failure (in
which case the LSP is said to me in standby mode) or post failure of
Ananthakrishnan, et al. Expires December 31, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Stateful PCE LSP Path Protection June 2017
the corresponding working LSP according to the operator choice/
policy.
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 following terminologies are used in this document:
ERO: Explicit Route Object.
LSP: Label Switched Path.
PCC: Path Computation Client.
PCE: Path Computation Element
PCEP: Path Computation Element Protocol.
PPAG: Path Protection Association Group.
TLV: Type, Length, and Value.
3. PCEP Extensions
3.1. Path Protection Association Type
LSPs are not associated by listing the other LSPs with which they
interact, but rather by making them belong to an association group
referred to as "Path Protection Association Group" (PPAG) in this
document. All LSPs join a PPAG individually. PPAG is based on the
generic Association object used to associate two or more LSPs
specified in [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]. A member of a PPAG
can take the role of working or protection LSP. This document
defines a new association type called "Path Protection Association
Type" of value TBD1. A PPAG can have one working LSP and/or one or
more protection LSPs. The source and destination of all LSPs within
a PPAG MUST be the same.
The format of the Association object used for PPAG is specified in
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] and replicated in this document for
easy reference in Figure 1 and Figure 2.
Ananthakrishnan, et al. Expires December 31, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Stateful PCE LSP Path Protection June 2017
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Flags |R|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Association type = TBD1 | Association |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Association Source |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Optional TLVs //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: PPAG IPv4 ASSOCIATION Object format
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Flags |R|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Association Type = TBD1 | Association |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| IPv6 Association Source |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Optional TLVs //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: PPAG IPv6 ASSOCIATION Object format
This document defines a new Association type, the Path Protection
Association type, value will be assigned by IANA (TBD1).
This Association-Type is dynamic in nature and created by the PCC or
PCE for the LSPs originating at the same head node and terminating at
the same destination. These associations are conveyed via PCEP
messages to the PCEP peer. Operator-configured Association Range
SHOULD NOT be set for this association-type and MUST be ignored.
3.2. Path Protection Association TLV
The Path Protection Association TLV is an optional TLV for use with
the Path Protection Association Object Type. The Path Protection
Association TLV MUST NOT be present more than once. If it appears
Ananthakrishnan, et al. Expires December 31, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Stateful PCE LSP Path Protection June 2017
more than once, only the first occurrence is processed and any others
MUST be ignored.
The Path Protection Association TLV follows the PCEP TLV format of
[RFC5440].
The type (16 bits) of the TLV is to be assigned by IANA. The length
field is 16 bit-long and has a fixed value of 4.
The value comprises a single field, the Path Protection Association
Flags (32 bits), where each bit represents a flag option.
The format of the Path Protection Association TLV (Figure 3) is as
follows:
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 = TBD2 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Path Protection Association Flags |S|P|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Path Protection Association TLV format
P (PROTECTION-LSP 1 bit) - Indicates whether the LSP associated with
the PPAG is working or protection LSP. If this flag is set, the LSP
is a protection LSP.
S (STANDBY 1 bit)- When the P flag is set, the S flag indicates
whether the protection LSP associated with the PPAG is in standby
mode. The S flag is ignored if the P flag is not set.
If the Path Protection Association TLV is missing, it means the LSP
is the working LSP.
4. Operation
4.1. PCC Initiated LSPs
A PCC can associate a set of LSPs under its control for path
protection purpose. Similarly, the PCC can remove on or more LSPs
under its control from the corresponding PPAG. In both cases, the
PCC must report the change in association to PCE(s) via PCRpt
message. A PCC can also delegate the working and protection LSPs to
a stateful PCE, where PCE would control and update the paths and
attributes of the LSPs in the association group.
Ananthakrishnan, et al. Expires December 31, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Stateful PCE LSP Path Protection June 2017
A stateless PCC can request protection to a PCE through PCReq
message.
4.2. PCE Initiated LSPs
A PCE can create/update working and protection LSPs independently.
As specified in [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group], Association Groups
can be created by both PCE and PCC.
A PCE can remove a protection LSP from a PPAG as specified in
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group].
4.3. State Synchronization
During state synchronization, a PCC MUST report all the existing path
protection association groups as well as any path protection flags to
PCE(s). Following the state synchronization, the PCE would remove
all stale information as per [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group].
4.4. Error Handling
All LSPs (working or protection) within a PPAG MUST have the same
source and destination. If a PCE attempts to add an LSP to a PPAG
and the source and/or destination of the LSP is/are different from
the LSP(s) in the PPAG, the PCC MUST send PCErr with Error-Type= TBD
(Association Error) [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] and Error-Value
= TBD3 (End points mismatch for Path Protection Association).
There MUST be only one working LSP within a PPAG. If a PCEP Speaker
attempts to add another working LSP, the PCEP peer MUST send PCErr
with Error-Type=TBD (Association Error)
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] and Error-Value = TBD4 (Attempt to
add another working LSP for Path Protection Association).
5. Other considerations
The diversity requirement for a group of LSPs is handled via another
association type called "Disjointness Association", as described in
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-diversity]. The diversity requirements for
the the protection LSP are also handled by including both ASSOCIATION
object for the group of LSPs.
6. IANA considerations
Ananthakrishnan, et al. Expires December 31, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Stateful PCE LSP Path Protection June 2017
6.1. Association Type
This document defines a new association type, originally defined in
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group], for path protection. IANA is
requested to make the assignment of a new value for the sub-registry
"ASSOCIATION Type Field" (request to be created in
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]), as follows:
+------------------------+------------------------+-----------------+
| Association Type Value | Association Name | Reference |
+------------------------+------------------------+-----------------+
| TBD1 (Suggested value | Path Protection | This |
| - 1) | Association | document |
+------------------------+------------------------+-----------------+
6.2. PPAG TLV
This document defines a new TLV for carrying additional information
of LSPs within a path protection association group. IANA is
requested to make the assignment of a new value for the existing
"PCEP TLV Type Indicators" registry as follows:
+-----------------------+-----------------------------+-------------+
| TLV Type Value | TLV Name | Reference |
+-----------------------+-----------------------------+-------------+
| TBD2 (suggested Value | Path Protection Association | This |
| - 29) | Group TLV | document |
+-----------------------+-----------------------------+-------------+
This document requests that a new sub-registry, named "Path
protection Association Group TLV Flag Field", is created within the
"Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry to manage
the Flag field in the Path Protection Association Group TLV. New
values are to be assigned by Standards Action [RFC8126]. Each bit
should be tracked with the following qualities:
Each bit should be tracked with the following qualities:
o Bit number (count from 0 as the most significant bit)
o Name flag
o Reference
Ananthakrishnan, et al. Expires December 31, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Stateful PCE LSP Path Protection June 2017
+------------+--------------------+----------------+
| Bit Number | Name | Reference |
+------------+--------------------+----------------+
| 31 | P - PROTECTION-LSP | This document |
| 30 | S - STANDBY | This document |
+------------+--------------------+----------------+
Table 1: PPAG TLV
6.3. PCEP Errors
This document defines new Error-Type and Error-Value related to path
protection association. IANA is requested to allocate new error
values within the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" sub-
registry of the PCEP Numbers registry, as follows:
+------------+-------------------+----------------------------------+
| Error-Type | Meaning | Reference |
+------------+-------------------+----------------------------------+
| TBD | Association error | [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] |
| | Error-value=TBD3: | This document |
| | End points | |
| | mismatch for Path | |
| | Protection | |
| | Association | |
| | Error-value=TBD4: | This document |
| | Attempt to add | |
| | another working | |
| | LSP for Path | |
| | Protection | |
| | Association | |
+------------+-------------------+----------------------------------+
7. Security Considerations
The security considerations described in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce],
[I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp], and [RFC5440] apply to the
extensions described in this document as well. Additional
considerations related to associations where a malicious PCEP speaker
could be spoofed and could be used as an attack vector by creating
associations is described in [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]. Thus
securing the PCEP session using Transport Layer Security (TLS)
[I-D.ietf-pce-pceps], as per the recommendations and best current
practices in [RFC7525], is RECOMMENDED.
Ananthakrishnan, et al. Expires December 31, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Stateful PCE LSP Path Protection June 2017
8. Manageability Considerations
8.1. Control of Function and Policy
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any control or
policy requirements in addition to those already listed in [RFC5440],
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce], and [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp].
8.2. Information and Data Models
[RFC7420] describes the PCEP MIB, there are no new MIB Objects for
this document.
The PCEP YANG module [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] supports associations.
8.3. 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], [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce], and
[I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp].
8.4. Verify Correct Operations
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new operation
verification requirements in addition to those already listed in
[RFC5440], [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce], and
[I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp].
8.5. Requirements On Other Protocols
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new requirements
on other protocols.
8.6. 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],
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce], and [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp].
9. Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Jeff Tantsura and Xian Zhang for their
contributions to this document.
Ananthakrishnan, et al. Expires December 31, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Stateful PCE LSP Path Protection June 2017
10. References
10.1. 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>.
[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>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[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-21 (work in progress), June 2017.
[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-10 (work in
progress), June 2017.
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]
Minei, I., Crabbe, E., Sivabalan, S., Ananthakrishnan, H.,
Dhody, D., and Y. Tanaka, "PCEP Extensions for
Establishing Relationships Between Sets of LSPs", draft-
ietf-pce-association-group-03 (work in progress), June
2017.
10.2. Information 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>.
[RFC4657] Ash, J., Ed. and J. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic
Requirements", RFC 4657, DOI 10.17487/RFC4657, September
2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4657>.
Ananthakrishnan, et al. Expires December 31, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Stateful PCE LSP Path Protection June 2017
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC7420, December 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7420>.
[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, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7525>.
[RFC8051] Zhang, X., Ed. and I. Minei, Ed., "Applicability of a
Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)", RFC 8051,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8051, January 2017,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8051>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pceps]
Lopez, D., Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody, "Secure
Transport for PCEP", draft-ietf-pce-pceps-14 (work in
progress), May 2017.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]
Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V., and j.
jefftant@gmail.com, "A YANG Data Model for Path
Computation Element Communications Protocol (PCEP)",
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-03 (work in progress), June 2017.
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-diversity]
Litkowski, S., Sivabalan, S., Barth, C., and D. Dhody,
"Path Computation Element communication Protocol extension
for signaling LSP diversity constraint", draft-ietf-pce-
association-diversity-01 (work in progress), March 2017.
Authors' Addresses
Hariharan Ananthakrishnan
Packet Design
1 South Almaden Blvd, #1150,
San Jose, CA, 95113
USA
EMail: hari@packetdesign.com
Ananthakrishnan, et al. Expires December 31, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Stateful PCE LSP Path Protection June 2017
Siva Sivabalan
Cisco
2000 Innovation Drive
Kananta, Ontaria K2K 3E8
Cananda
EMail: msiva@cisco.com
Colby Barth
Juniper Networks
1194 N Mathilda Ave,
Sunnyvale, CA, 94086
USA
EMail: cbarth@juniper.net
Raveendra Torvi
Juniper Networks
1194 N Mathilda Ave,
Sunnyvale, CA, 94086
USA
EMail: rtorvi@juniper.net
Ina Minei
Google, Inc
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA, 94043
USA
EMail: inaminei@google.com
Edward Crabbe
Individual Contributor
EMail: edward.crabbe@gmail.com
Ananthakrishnan, et al. Expires December 31, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Stateful PCE LSP Path Protection June 2017
Dhruv Dhody
Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
India
EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
Ananthakrishnan, et al. Expires December 31, 2017 [Page 14]