Hierarchical Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE).
draft-dhodylee-pce-stateful-hpce-00
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 | Dhruv Dhody , Young Lee , Daniele Ceccarelli , Jongyoon Shin , Daniel King | ||
| Last updated | 2016-02-16 | ||
| Replaced by | draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce, draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce, RFC 8751 | ||
| 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-dhodylee-pce-stateful-hpce-00
PCE Working Group D. Dhody
Internet-Draft Y. Lee
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies
Expires: August 16, 2016 D. Ceccarelli
Ericsson
J. Shin
SK Telecom
D. King
Lancaster University
February 16, 2016
Hierarchical Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE).
draft-dhodylee-pce-stateful-hpce-00
Abstract
A Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) maintains information on
the current network state, including: computed Label Switched Path
(LSPs), reserved resources within the network, and pending path
computation requests. This information may then be considered when
computing new traffic engineered LSPs, and for associated
and dependent LSPs, received from Path Computation Clients (PCCs).
The Hierarchical Path Computation Element (H-PCE) architecture,
provides an architecture to allow the optimum sequence of
inter-connected domains to be selected, and network policy to be
applied if applicable, via the use of a hierarchical relationship
between PCEs.
Combining the capabilities of Stateful PCE and the Hierarchical PCE
would be advantageous. This document describes general
considerations and use cases for the deployment of Stateful PCE(s)
using the Hierarchical PCE architecture.
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 August 16, 2016.
Dhody, et al. Expires August 16, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft STATEFUL-HPCE February 2016
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Hierarchical Stateful PCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Passive Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Active Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. PCE Initiation Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3.1. Per Domain Stitched LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1. Applicability to Inter-Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. Applicability to ACTN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Dhody, et al. Expires August 16, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft STATEFUL-HPCE February 2016
1. Introduction
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.
A stateful PCE is capable of considering, for the purposes of
path computation, not only the network state in terms of links and
nodes (referred to as the Traffic Engineering Database or TED) but
also the status of active services (previously computed paths,
and currently reserved resources, stored in the Label Switched
Paths Database (LSPDB).
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app] describes general considerations for
a stateful PCE deployment and examines its applicability and
benefits, as well as its challenges and limitations through a number
of use cases.
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] describes a set of extensions to PCEP to
provide stateful control. A stateful PCE has access to not only the
information carried by the network's Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP),
but also the set of active paths and their reserved resources for its
computations. The additional state allows the PCE to compute
constrained paths while considering individual LSPs and their
interactions. [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] describes the setup,
maintenance and teardown of PCE-initiated LSPs under the stateful PCE
model.
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] also describes the active stateful PCE.
The active PCE functionality allows a PCE to reroute an existing
LSP or make changes to the attributes of an existing LSP, or delegate
control of specific LSPs to a new PCE.
The ability to compute shortest constrained TE LSPs in Multiprotocol
Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks across
multiple domains has been identified as a key motivation for PCE
development. [RFC6805] describes a Hierarchical PCE (H-PCE)
architecture which can be used for computing end-to-end paths for
inter-domain MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE) and GMPLS Label Switched
Paths (LSPs). Within the Hierarchical PCE (H-PCE) architecture
[RFC6805], the Parent PCE (P-PCE) is used to compute a multi-domain
path based on the domain connectivity information. A Child PCE
(C-PCE) may be responsible for a single domain or multiple domains,
it is used to compute the intra-domain path based on its domain
topology information.
This document presents general considerations for stateful PCE(s) in
hierarchical PCE architecture. In particular, the behavior changes
and additions to the existing stateful PCE mechanisms (including PCE-
initiated LSP setup and active PCE usage) in the context of
networks using the H-PCE architecture.
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 [RFC4655], [RFC5440], [RFC6805], and
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce].
Dhody, et al. Expires August 16, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft STATEFUL-HPCE February 2016
3. Hierarchical Stateful PCE
As described in [RFC6805], in the hierarchical PCE architecture, a
P-PCE maintains a domain topology map that contains the child
domains (seen as vertices in the topology) and their interconnections
(links in the topology). The P-PCE has no information about the
content of the child domains. Each child domain has at least one PCE
capable of computing paths across the domain. These PCEs are known
as C-PCEs and have a direct relationship with the P-PCE. The P-PCE
builds the domain topology map either via direct configuration
(allowing network policy to also be applied) or from learned
information received from each C-PCE.
[I-D.ietf-pce-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).
This document extends these functions to support H-PCE Architecture
from a C-PCE towards a P-PCE (CE-PE) or from a P-PCE
towards a C-PCE (PE-CE). All PCE types herein (i.e., PE or CE)
are assumed to be 'stateful PCE'.
A number of interactions are expected in the Hierarchical Stateful
PCE architecture, these include:
LSP State Report (CE-PE): a child stateful PCE sends an LSP state
report to a Parent Stateful PCE whenever the state of a LSP
changes.
LSP State Synchronization (CE-PE): after the session between the
Child and Parent stateful PCEs is initialized, the P-PCE must
learn the state of C-PCE's TE LSPs.
LSP Control Delegation (CE-PE,PE-CE): a C-PCE grants to the
P-PCE the right to update LSP attributes on one or more LSPs;
the C-PCE may withdraw the delegation or the P-PCE may
give up the delegation at any time.
LSP Update Request (PE-CE): a stateful P-PCE requests
modification of attributes on a C-PCE's TE LSP.
PCE LSP Initiation Request (PE-CE): a stateful P-PCE requests
C-PCE to initiate a TE LSP.
3.1. Passive Operations
Procedures as described in [RFC6805] are applied, where the ingress
C-PCE sends a request to the P-PCE. The P-PCE selects
a set of candidate domain paths based on the domain topology and the
state of the inter-domain links. It then sends computation requests
to the C-PCEs responsible for each of the domains on the
Dhody, et al. Expires August 16, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft STATEFUL-HPCE February 2016
candidate domain paths. Each C-PCE computes a set of candidate
path segments across its domain and sends the results to the P-PCE.
The P-PCE uses this information to select path segments
and concatenate them to derive the optimal end-to-end inter-domain
path. The end-to-end path is then sent to the C-PCE that
received the initial path request, and this C-PCE passes the path
on to the PCC that issued the original request.
As per [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce], PCC sends an LSP State Report
carried on a PCRpt message to the C-PCE, indicating the LSP's
status. The C-PCE MAY further propagate the State Report to the
P-PCE. A local policy at C-PCE MAY dictate which LSPs to be
reported to the P-PCE. The PCRpt message is sent from C-PCE
to P-PCE.
State synchronization mechanism as described in
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] and
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations] are applicable to PCEP
session between C-PCE and P-PCE as well.
Taking the sample hierarchical domain topology example from [RFC6805]
as the reference topology for the entirety of this document.
Dhody, et al. Expires August 16, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft STATEFUL-HPCE February 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Domain 5 |
| ----- |
| |PCE 5| |
| ----- |
| |
| ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- |
| | Domain 1 | | Domain 2 | | Domain 3 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | ----- | | ----- | | ----- | |
| | |PCE 1| | | |PCE 2| | | |PCE 3| | |
| | ----- | | ----- | | ----- | |
| | | | | | | |
| | ----| |---- ----| |---- | |
| | |BN11+---+BN21| |BN23+---+BN31| | |
| | - ----| |---- ----| |---- - | |
| | |S| | | | | |D| | |
| | - ----| |---- ----| |---- - | |
| | |BN12+---+BN22| |BN24+---+BN32| | |
| | ----| |---- ----| |---- | |
| | | | | | | |
| | ---- | | | | ---- | |
| | |BN13| | | | | |BN33| | |
| -----------+---- ---------------- ----+----------- |
| \ / |
| \ ---------------- / |
| \ | | / |
| \ |---- ----| / |
| ----+BN41| |BN42+---- |
| |---- ----| |
| | | |
| | ----- | |
| | |PCE 4| | |
| | ----- | |
| | | |
| | Domain 4 | |
| ---------------- |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 1: Sample Hierarchical Domain Topology
Steps 1 to 11 are exactly as described in section 4.6.2 (Hierarchical
PCE End-to-End Path Computation Procedure) of [RFC6805], the
following additional steps are added for stateful PCE:
(1) The Ingress LSR initiates the setup of the LSP as per the path
and reports to the PCE1 the LSP status ("GOING-UP").
(2) The PCE1 further reports the status of the LSP to the P-PCE
(PCE5).
Dhody, et al. Expires August 16, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft STATEFUL-HPCE February 2016
(3) The Ingress LSR notifies the LSP state to PCE1 when the state is
"UP".
(4) The PCE1 further reports the status of the LSP to the P-PCE
(PCE5).
3.2. Active Operations
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] describes the case of active stateful
PCE. The active PCE functionality uses two specific PCEP messages:
o Update Request (PCUpd)
o State Report (PCRpt)
The first is sent by the PCE to a Path Computation Client (PCC) for
modifying LSP attributes. The PCC sends back a PCRpt to acknowledge
the requested operation. PCRpt has the same structure of PCNtf
message.
As per [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce], Delegation is an operation to
grant a PCE, temporary rights to modify a subset of LSP parameters on
one or more PCC's LSPs. The C-PCE may further choose to delegate
to P-PCE based on a local policy. The PCRpt message with "D"
(delegate) flag is sent from C-PCE to P-PCE.
To update an LSP, a PCE send to the PCC, an LSP Update Request using
a PCUpd message. For LSP delegated to the P-PCE via the child
PCE, the P-PCE can use the same PCUpd message to request change
to the C-PCE (the Ingress domain PCE), the PCE further propagates
the update request to the PCC.
The P-PCE uses the same mechanism described in Section 3.1 to
compute the end to end path using PCReq and PCRep messages.
The following additional steps are also initially performed,
for active operations, again using the reference architecture
described in Figure 1 (Sample Hierarchical Domain Topology).
(1) The Ingress LSR delegates the LSP to the PCE1 via PCRpt message
with D flag set.
(2) The PCE1 further delegates the LSP to the P-PCE (PCE5).
Steps 4 to 10 of section 4.6.2 of [RFC6805] are executed to determine
the end to end path.
(3) The P-PCE (PCE5) sends the update request to the C-PCE
(PCE1) via PCUpd message.
(4) The PCE1 further updates the LSP to the Ingress LSR (PCC).
(5) The Ingress LSR initiates the setup of the LSP as per the path
and reports to the PCE1 the LSP status ("GOING-UP").
(6) The PCE1 further reports the status of the LSP to the P-PCE
(PCE5).
(7) The Ingress LSR notifies the LSP state to PCE1 when the state is
"UP".
Dhody, et al. Expires August 16, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft STATEFUL-HPCE February 2016
(8) The PCE1 further reports the status of the LSP to the P-PCE
(PCE5).
3.3. PCE Initiation Operation
[I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] describes the setup, maintenance and
teardown of PCE-initiated LSPs under the stateful PCE model, without
the need for local configuration on the PCC, thus allowing for a
dynamic network that is centrally controlled and deployed. To
instantiate or delete an LSP, the PCE sends the Path Computation LSP
Initiate Request (PCInitiate) message to the PCC. In case of inter-
domain LSP in Hierarchical PCE architecture, the initiation
operations can be carried out at the P-PCE. In which case after
P-PCE finishes the E2E path computation, it can send the
PCInitiate message to the C-PCE (the Ingress domain PCE), the PCE
further propagates the initiate request to the PCC.
The following additional steps are also initially performed,
for PCE initiated operations, again using the reference
architecture described in Figure 1 (Sample Hierarchical Domain
Topology):
(1) The P-PCE (PCE5) is requested to initiate a LSP.
Steps 4 to 10 of section 4.6.2 of [RFC6805] are executed to determine
the end to end path.
(2) The P-PCE (PCE5) sends the initiate request to the child
PCE (PCE1) via PCInitiate message.
(3) The PCE1 further propagates the initiate message to the Ingress
LSR (PCC).
(4) The Ingress LSR initiates the setup of the LSP as per the path
and reports to the PCE1 the LSP status ("GOING-UP").
(5) The PCE1 further reports the status of the LSP to the P-PCE
(PCE5).
(6) The Ingress LSR notifies the LSP state to PCE1 when the state is
"UP".
(7) The PCE1 further reports the status of the LSP to the P-PCE
(PCE5).
3.3.1. Per Domain Stitched LSP
The hierarchical PCE architecture as per [RFC6805] is primarily used
for E2E LSP. With PCE-Initiated capability, another mode of
operation is possible, where multiple intra-domain LSP are initiated
Dhody, et al. Expires August 16, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft STATEFUL-HPCE February 2016
in each domain which are further stitched to form an E2E LSP. The
P-PCE sends PCInitiate message to each C-PCE separately to
initiate individual LSP segments along the domain path. These
individual per domain LSP are stitched together by some mechanism,
which is out of scope of this document.
The following additional steps are also initially performed,
for the Per Domain stiched LSP operation, again using the reference
architecture described in Figure 1 (Sample Hierarchical Domain
Topology):
(1) The P-PCE (PCE5) is requested to initiate a LSP.
Steps 4 to 10 of section 4.6.2 of [RFC6805] are executed to determine
the end to end path, which are broken into per-domain LSPs say -
o S-BN41
o BN41-BN33
o BN33-D
It should be noted that the P-PCE MAY use other mechanisms to
determine the suitable per-domain LSPs (apart from [RFC6805]).
For LSP (BN33-D)
(2) The P-PCE (PCE5) sends the initiate request to the child
PCE (PCE3) via PCInitiate message for LSP (BN33-D).
(3) The PCE3 further propagates the initiate message to BN33.
(4) BN33 initiates the setup of the LSP as per the path and reports
to the PCE3 the LSP status ("GOING-UP").
(5) The PCE3 further reports the status of the LSP to the P-PCE
(PCE5).
(6) The node BN33 notifies the LSP state to PCE3 when the state is
"UP".
(7) The PCE3 further reports the status of the LSP to the P-PCE
(PCE5).
For LSP (BN41-BN33)
(8) The P-PCE (PCE5) sends the initiate request to the child
PCE (PCE4) via PCInitiate message for LSP (BN41-BN33).
(9) The PCE4 further propagates the initiate message to BN41.
Dhody, et al. Expires August 16, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft STATEFUL-HPCE February 2016
(10) BN41 initiates the setup of the LSP as per the path and reports
to the PCE4 the LSP status ("GOING-UP").
(11) The PCE4 further reports the status of the LSP to the P-PCE
(PCE5).
(l2) The node BN41 notifies the LSP state to PCE4 when the state is
"UP".
(13) The PCE4 further reports the status of the LSP to the P-PCE
(PCE5).
For LSP (S-BN41)
(14) The P-PCE (PCE5) sends the initiate request to the child
PCE (PCE1) via PCInitiate message for LSP (S-BN41).
(15) The PCE1 further propagates the initiate message to node S.
(16) S initiates the setup of the LSP as per the path and reports to
the PCE1 the LSP status ("GOING-UP").
(17) The PCE1 further reports the status of the LSP to the P-PCE
(PCE5).
(18) The node S notifies the LSP state to PCE1 when the state is
"UP".
(19) The PCE1 further reports the status of the LSP to the P-PCE
(PCE5).
Additionally:
(20) once P-PCE receives report of each per-domain LSP, it
should use some stitching mechanism, which is out of scope of
this document.
4. Other Considerations
4.1. Applicability to Inter-Layer
[RFC5623] describes a framework for applying the PCE-based
architecture to inter-layer (G)MPLS traffic engineering. The H-PCE
Stateful architecture with stateful P-PCE coordinating with the
stateful C-PCEs of higher and lower layer is shown in the figure
below.
Dhody, et al. Expires August 16, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft STATEFUL-HPCE February 2016
+----------+
/| Parent |
/ | PCE |
/ +----------+
/ / Stateful
/ /
/ /
/ /
Stateful +---+/ /
Child + PCE + /
PCE Hi + Hi + /
+---+ /
+---+ +---+ / +---+ +---+
+ LSR +--+ LSR +........................+ LSR +--+ LSR +
+ H1 + + H2 + / + H3 + + H4 +
+---+ +---+\ +---+/ /+---+ +---+
\ + PCE + /
\ + Lo + /
Stateful \ +---+ /
C-PCE \ /
Lo \+---+ +---+/
+ LSR +--+ LSR +
+ L1 + + L2 +
+---+ +---+
All procedures described in Section 3 are applicable to inter-layer
path setup as well.
4.2. Applicability to ACTN
[I-D.ceccarelli-teas-actn-framework] describes framework for
Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN), where each Physical
Network Controller (PNC) is equivalent to C-PCE and P-PCE is
the Multi-Domain Service Coordinator (MDSC). The Per domain stitched
LSP as per the Hierarchical PCE architecture described in
Section 3.3.1 and Section 4.1 is well suited for ACTN.
In ACTN framework, Customer Network Controller (CNC) can request the
MDSC to check if there is a possibility to meet Virtual Network (VN)
requirements (before requesting for VN provision). The H-PCE
architecture as described in [RFC6805] can supports via the use of
PCReq and PCRep messages between the P-PCE and C-PCEs.
Dhody, et al. Expires August 16, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft STATEFUL-HPCE February 2016
5. Security Considerations
6. Manageability Considerations
6.1. Control of Function and Policy
TBD.
6.2. Information and Data Models
TBD.
6.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
TBD.
6.4. Verify Correct Operations
TBD.
6.5. Requirements On Other Protocols
TBD.
6.6. Impact On Network Operations
TBD.
7. IANA Considerations
8. Acknowledgments
9. References
9.1. 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>.
Dhody, et al. Expires August 16, 2016 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft STATEFUL-HPCE February 2016
[RFC6805] King, D., Ed. and A. Farrel, Ed., "The Application of the
Path Computation Element Architecture to the Determination
of a Sequence of Domains in MPLS and GMPLS", RFC 6805,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6805, November 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6805>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]
Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "PCEP
Extensions for Stateful PCE", draft-ietf-pce-stateful-
pce-13 (work in progress), December 2015.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]
Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "PCEP
Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
Model", draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-05 (work in
progress), October 2015.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[RFC5623] Oki, E., Takeda, T., Le Roux, JL., and A. Farrel,
"Framework for PCE-Based Inter-Layer MPLS and GMPLS
Traffic Engineering", RFC 5623, DOI 10.17487/RFC5623,
September 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5623>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app]
Zhang, X. and I. Minei, "Applicability of a Stateful Path
Computation Element (PCE)", draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-
app-05 (work in progress), October 2015.
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations]
Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., Varga, R., Zhang, X.,
and D. Dhody, "Optimizations of Label Switched Path State
Synchronization Procedures for a Stateful PCE", draft-
ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-04 (work in
progress), November 2015.
[I-D.ceccarelli-teas-actn-framework]
Ceccarelli, D. and Y. Lee, "Framework for Abstraction and
Control of Transport Networks", draft-ceccarelli-teas-
actn-framework-00 (work in progress), June 2015.
Dhody, et al. Expires August 16, 2016 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft STATEFUL-HPCE February 2016
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses
Avantika
Huawei Technologies
Leela Palace
Bangalore, Karnataka 560008
India
EMail: avantika.sushilkumar@huawei.com
Xian Zhang
Huawei Technologies
Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen, Guangdong 518129
P.R.China
EMail: zhang.xian@huawei.com
Authors' Addresses
Dhruv Dhody
Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560037
India
EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
Young Lee
Huawei Technologies
5340 Legacy Drive, Building 3
Plano, TX 75023
USA
EMail: leeyoung@huawei.com
Daniele Ceccarelli
Ericsson
Torshamnsgatan,48
Stockholm
Sweden
EMail: daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com
Dhody, et al. Expires August 16, 2016 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft STATEFUL-HPCE February 2016
Jongyoon Shin
SK Telecom
6 Hwangsaeul-ro, 258 beon-gil, Bundang-gu, Seongnam-si,
Gyeonggi-do 463-784
Republic of Korea
EMail: jongyoon.shin@sk.com
Dan King
EMail: d.king@lancaster.ac.uk
Dhody, et al. Expires August 13, 2016 [Page 15]