IGP Extensions for Segment Routing based Enhanced VPN
draft-dong-lsr-sr-enhanced-vpn-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Jie Dong , Stewart Bryant | ||
| Last updated | 2018-06-20 | ||
| Stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | plain text htmlized pdfized bibtex | ||
| 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-dong-lsr-sr-enhanced-vpn-00
LSR Working Group J. Dong
Internet-Draft S. Bryant
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies
Expires: December 22, 2018 June 20, 2018
IGP Extensions for Segment Routing based Enhanced VPN
draft-dong-lsr-sr-enhanced-vpn-00
Abstract
Enhanced VPN (VPN+) is an enhancement to VPN services to support the
needs of new applications, particularly including the applications
that are associated with 5G services. These applications require
better isolation and have more stringent performance requirements
than that can be provided with traditional overlay VPNs. An enhanced
VPN may form the underpin of 5G transport network slicing, and will
also be of use in its own right. This document describes how Multi-
Topology Routing (MTR) as described in RFC 5120 and RFC 4915, can be
extended to signal the resources allocated in the underlay network to
construct the virtual networks for enhanced VPN services, together
with the Segment Routing Identifiers (SIDs) used to identify and
access the network resources allocated for the virtual networks in
the data plane.
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 December 22, 2018.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Dong & Bryant Expires December 22, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IGP Extensions for VPN+ June 2018
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Specification of Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Overview of Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. SR Virtual Topology with Resource Guarantee . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Topology specific Link Resource Allocation and
Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. Topology specific Node Resource Allocation and
Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Multiple Services in SR Virtual Topology . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Common Service Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1.1. Best Effort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1.2. Assured Bandwidth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1.3. Deterministic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Topology and Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. SRv6 Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Fast Repair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. LAN interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction
The framework for an enhanced virtual private network (VPN+) is
described in [I-D.bryant-rtgwg-enhanced-vpn].
Driven largely by needs arising from the 5G mobile network design,
the concept of network slicing has gained traction. There is a need
to create a VPN service with enhanced isolation and performance
characteristics. Specifically, there is a need for a transport
network to support a set of virtual networks, each of which provides
the client with some dedicated (private) network resources drawn from
Dong & Bryant Expires December 22, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IGP Extensions for VPN+ June 2018
a shared pool. The tenant of such a virtual network can require a
degree of isolation and performance that previously could only be
satisfied by dedicated networks. Additionally the tenant may ask for
some level of control of their virtual networks e.g. to customize the
service paths in their network slices.
These properties cannot be met with pure overlay networks, as they
require tighter coordination and integration between the underlay and
the overlay network. [I-D.bryant-rtgwg-enhanced-vpn] provides the
framework of enhanced VPN and describes the candidate component
technologies. [I-D.dong-spring-sr-for-enhanced-vpn] describes how
segment routing (SR) [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] is used to
construct the required virtual networks with the network resources
allocated for enhanced VPN services.
This document describes how Multi-Topology Routing (MTR), as
described in [RFC5120] [RFC4915] , is extended to signal the
resources allocated in the underlay to construct the virtual networks
for enhanced VPN services, together with the segment routing
identifiers used to identify and access the resource allocated for
different virtual networks in the data plane.
2. Specification of Requirements
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].
3. Overview of Approach
To meet the requirement of enhance VPN services, a number of virtual
networks can be created, each representing a subset of the underlay
network topology and resources to be used by a specific customer. In
a 5G context, each virtual network is considered as a network slice
which serves one slice tenant. Depending on the service
requirements, differernt virtual networks can either share the same
physical links or nodes, or use separate links or nodes in the
network, while the required level of isolation and performance SHOULD
be guaranteed in both cases.
IGP multi-topology routing can be seen as a candidate mechanism to
create multiple network topologies in one network. Different from
the traditional multi-topology mechanism which only provides logical
topological isolation, in the proposed mechanism network resources
can be partitioned and allocated to different virtual network
topologies to meet the isolation and performance requirements of
enhanced VPN. Service in one virtual topology can be instructed to
be processed using the network resources allocated to this virtual
Dong & Bryant Expires December 22, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IGP Extensions for VPN+ June 2018
topology. This is achieved by using multi-topology together with
segment routing, and extending the SR paradigm to use Segment
Identfiers (SIDs) to identify different set of resources allocated
from a particular network element (e.g. link or node). Different set
of SIDs are associated with different virtual topologies, and are
used to create the SID lists in different topologies. In some cases
it is also possible for several virtual network topologies to share
some network resources, this can be achieved by using the same SR
SIDs between those topologies. The detailed mechanism of resource
sharing will be described in a future version.
Within one SR virtual network, one or more type of services can be
deployed using the resources allocated to that topology, some of
which may have different characteristics and require dedicated
resources or special treatment. This is similar to the DS-TE model
of the RSVP-TE based mechanism. The concept is similar to the DS-TE
model [RFC4124] of RSVP-TE based mechanism, while in this case the SR
paradigm is applied, which avoids the introduction of per-path state
into the network.
In general this approach applies to both IS-IS and OSPF, while the
specific protocol extensions and encodings are different. In the
current version of this document, the required IS-IS extensions are
described. The required OSPF extensions will be described in a
future version.
4. SR Virtual Topology with Resource Guarantee
As described in [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions], the IS-IS
TLV-222 (MT-ISN) and TLV-223 (MT IS Neighbor Attribute) have been
enhanced to carry the Adj-SID sub-TLV, and TLV-235 (Multitopology
IPv4 Reachability) and TLV-237 (Multitopology IPv6 IP Reachability)
have been enhanced to carry the Prefix-SID sub-TLV. With these
enhancements, dedicated Segment Identifiers (SIDs) can be assigned
for each SR virtual network topology.
This section specifies the necessary extensions to enable the
deployment of resource guaranteed SR virtual topologies. Each
virtual topology can be allocated with a particular partition of
network resources from the underlay network, the SIDs associated with
each SR virtual topology are used to identify the set of resources
allocated from the network elements.
4.1. Topology specific Link Resource Allocation and Identification
A network link can participate in one or multiple SR virtual
topologies, each virtual topology is assigned with a dedicated adj-
SID. In order to describe the amount of link resource allocated to a
Dong & Bryant Expires December 22, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IGP Extensions for VPN+ June 2018
particular SR virtual topology, a new IS-IS sub-TLV called "SR
Bandwidth" sub-TLV is defined:
The SR-Bandwidth sub-TLV is an optional sub-TLV carrying the
aggregated bandwidth allocated to a particular SR adj-SID, which is
associated witha particular virtual topology. In the data plane, the
allocated bandwidth and the associated functional components are
identified by the adj-SID of the virtual topology. This sub-TLV may
be advertised as a sub-TLV of the following TLVs:
TLV-22 (Extended IS reachability) [RFC5305]
TLV-23 (IS Neighbor Attribute) [RFC5311]
TLV-141 (inter-AS reachability information) [RFC5316]
TLV-222 (Multitopology IS)[RFC5120]
TLV-223 (Multitopology IS Neighbor Attribute) [RFC5311]
The SR bandwidth sub-TLV can appear at most once for a particular
topology. Multiple SR Bandwidth sub-TLVs MAY be associated with a
single IS neighbor.
The following format is defined for the SR Bandwidth sub-TLV:
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 | Bandwidth
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Bandwidth Cont |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
SR Bandwidth sub-TLV
where:
Type: TBD, to be assigned by IANA.
Length: variable.
The SR bandwidth is encoded in 32 bits in IEEE floating
point format. The units are bytes (not bits!) per second.
[I-D.ietf-teas-sr-rsvp-coexistence-rec] describes several options for
traffic engineering in networks where RSVP-TE and SR LSPs coexist.
Note that section 3.1 of [I-D.ietf-teas-sr-rsvp-coexistence-rec]
proposes to partition the network bandwidth between RSVP-TE and SR.
Dong & Bryant Expires December 22, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IGP Extensions for VPN+ June 2018
The can be considered as a special case of creating one default SR
virtual topology with dedicated bandwidth allocated, so that the
network resources and operation of SR are isolated from the RSVP-TE
based LSPs.
4.2. Topology specific Node Resource Allocation and Identification
A network node can participate in one or multiple SR virtual
topologies, each virtual topology is assigned with a dedicated node-
SID. In SR loose path forwarding, the topology specific node-SIDs
can be used by transit network nodes to identify the virtual topology
the packet belongs to, so as to steer the packet through the set of
link resources allocated for the identified virtual topology. A
prefix-SID sub-TLV describing the dedicated node-SID for each virtual
topology is needed, this is supported in
[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions].
In addition, similar to the allocation of link resource to virtual
topologies, it is possible to allocate a subset of nodal resources
for a particular virtual topology to ensure end-to-end service
delivery. The nodal resources can be identified by the topology
specific node-SIDs, so that in data plane the node SIDs can be used
to steer a packet through the set of nodal resources allocated to
this topology. Optional sub-TLVs describing the allocated resources
at the node level for a particular virtual topology may be defined in
future. The specification of nodal resources is for further study.
5. Multiple Services in SR Virtual Topology
Within one SR virtual topology, one or more types of service can be
deployed using the resources allocated to this virtual topology.
Each service type can have specific resource constraints and
characteristics. The concept is similar to the DS-TE model [RFC4124]
of RSVP-TE based mechanism, while in this case the SR paradigm is
applied, which avoids the introduction of per-flow state into the
network.
Some mechanism is needed to identify different service types and
specify the different service characteristics within one virtual
topology. The detailed protocol extensions will be provided in a
future version.
5.1. Common Service Types
A service type is fundamentally the sum of the properties of a group
of services. The authors considered specifically creating a number
of specific service types within the protocol but concluded that this
Dong & Bryant Expires December 22, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IGP Extensions for VPN+ June 2018
was meaningless. The following sections show how a number of well
known service types can be constructed.
5.1.1. Best Effort
Best effort service can be the only service type in a particular
virtual topology. In this case, all of the resources allocated to
this virtual topology instance are available to the best effort
services.
Where there are multiple service types being carried in a virtual
topology, best effort service will be transmitted over the links and
nodes when there is an opportunity. The maximum resources which can
be used by best effort service may be constrained to a subset of the
topology resource. The Traffic Class (TC) of the best effort service
SHOULD be set to lower than any other service types.
In the data plane, the SID and the Traffic Class value in the packet
can be used to identify the service type and steer the best effor
packets into the correct forwarding resources, such as queues.
Best effort services may or may not be protected at the discretion of
the network operator.
5.1.2. Assured Bandwidth
An Assured Bandwidth service is one in which the bandwidth is assured
but the latency is not. Thus, some bandwidth can be allocated to the
assured bandwidth service, and traffic up to that bandwidth will be
transmitted over the service, but the traffic may be delayed by other
traffic.
It is likely that the assured bandwidth service will be carried in a
virtual topology together with other service types, such as the best
effort service. The maximum resources which can be used by assured
bandwidth service SHOULD be constrained to a subset of the topology
resource.
There will frequently be more than one assured bandwidth service
running on a topology, and the Traffic Class (TC) could be used to
determine how the various services compete for access to the link.
Whilst the bandwidth is assured over the long term, over the short
term it is not and such services will interact with similar and lower
service classes in such a way that packet delay and jitter is not
assured.
In the data plane, the SID and the Traffic Class value in the packet
can be used to identify the service type and priority and steer the
Dong & Bryant Expires December 22, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IGP Extensions for VPN+ June 2018
assured bandwidth service packets into the correct forwarding
resources, such as queues.
5.1.3. Deterministic
A Deterministic service is a service that may have controlled delay/
jitter characteristics and/or an enhanced packet delivery assurance.
Delay/Jitter may be addressable through the provision of sufficient
bandwidth or it may require some form of packet scheduling. Enhanced
delivery assurance may require the use of packet replication and
elimination mechanism. The design of a deterministic network is
discussed in [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture]. Note that delay
protection and delivery protection are orthogonal characteristics and
a service may provide just one of the characteristics or it may
provide both.
The details of a deterministic service will be provided in a future
version. Such a service may be specified using the TLVs defined in
[I-D.geng-detnet-info-distribution]
6. Topology and Algorithm
In the proposed mechanism, SR is used with IGP multi-topology to
create one or more SR virtual topologies, each associated with a set
of network resources allocated for the virtual topology. The service
paths used between nodes in one virtual topology are not constrained
to be shorted path by IGP metric, and can be any non-looping path
that best suits the needs of the service. These paths may be imposed
by the network controller, or calculated using a distributed method.
For example, different SR algorithms as defined in
[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions] can be used within one
virtual topology. The flex-algo mechanism defined in
[I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo] may also be used in one virtual topology to
meet different service requirements.
7. SRv6 Considerations
The mechanisms to create virtual network topologies with allocated
resources using an SRv6 data-plane are similar to SR with an MPLS
data plane, although there are some differences to be considered.
This section specifies the necessary protocol extensions to enable
SRv6 with multi-topology and the mechanisms defined in this document.
Detailed method of operating enhanced VPN over an SRv6 data-plane
will be described in a future version.
In [I-D.bashandy-isis-srv6-extensions], the SRv6 node SID TLV is
defined as a top-level TLV, which cannot be carried under the MT IPv6
IP Reach TLV (type 237). In order to specify the association between
Dong & Bryant Expires December 22, 2018 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IGP Extensions for VPN+ June 2018
SRv6 node SIDs and differernt virtual topologies, a new sub-TLV
called "MT-ID sub-TLV" under the SRv6 node SID TLV is introduced.
The format of the sub-TLV 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 | Length |R|R|R|R| MT-ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
MT-ID sub-TLV
In addition, in order to advertise multiple algorithms used for
calculating reachability to nodes within a particular topology, a new
sub-TLV called "SR algorithm sub-TLV" under the SRv6 node SID TLV is
introduced. The format of the sub-TLV 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 | Length | Flags | Algorithm |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
SR Algorithm sub-TLV
In order to advertise the SRv6 adj-SIDs associated with different
topologies the network node participates in, the SRv6 Adjacency SID
sub-TLV as defined in [I-D.bashandy-isis-srv6-extensions] MUST be
carried in the MT Intermediate Systems TLV (type 222). The SR
bandwidth sub-TLV as defined in this document SHOULD also be carried
in the MT Intermediate Systems TLV.
8. Fast Repair
In some instances it is desirable to provide some form of fast repair
for a failed link or node. The methods available fall into two
categories, end-to-end, for example 1+1, and IP fast reroute. Which
ever of these is used it is desirable that the repair path provides
the same level of service to the tenant as the tenant's normal
service. This would mean that the repair path needs to be
constrained to the tenant's topology, or to some repair topology
reserved exclusively for that tenant for the duration of the repair.
The normal way that IPFRR operates is that the point of local repair
(PLR) calculates the repair path based on the information flooded by
the routing protocol. How the PLR can maintain the level of service
through the repair is for further study.
Dong & Bryant Expires December 22, 2018 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IGP Extensions for VPN+ June 2018
9. LAN interface
The use of multi-point to multi-point (MP2MP) interfaces is currently
out of scope for this design.
A LAN interface MUST be used in point to point mode.
Note support for MP2MP may be needed in the future, and this is for
further study.
10. Security Considerations
This document introduces no additional security vulnerabilities to
IS-IS and OSPF.
The mechanism proposed in this document is subject to the same
vulnerabilities as any other protocol that relies on IGPs.
11. IANA Considerations
This document requests IANA to allocate a sub-TLV type as defined in
Section 4 from "Sub-TLVs for TLVs 22, 23, 25, 141, 222 and 223"
registry.
Value Description Reference
----- -------------------- -------------
TBA1 SR bandwidth sub-TLV This document
Per TLV information where SR bandwidth sub-TLV can be part of:
TLV 22 23 25 141 222 223
--- --------------------
y y n y y y
This document requests IANA to allocate 2 sub-TLVs type as defined in
Section 7 from the "Sub-TLVs for TLVs 27, 135, 235, 236 and 237"
registry.
Value Description Reference
----- -------------------- -------------
TBA2 MT-ID sub-TLV This document
TBA3 SR Algorithm sub-TLV This document
Per TLV information where the sub-TLVs can be part of:
Dong & Bryant Expires December 22, 2018 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IGP Extensions for VPN+ June 2018
TLV 27 135 235 236 237
--- --------------------
TBA2 y n n n n
TBA3 y n n n n
12. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Mach Chen and Robin Li for the review
and discussion of this document.
13. References
13.1. Normative References
[I-D.dong-spring-sr-for-enhanced-vpn]
Dong, J., Bryant, S., Li, Z., and T. Miyasaka, "Segment
Routing for Enhanced VPN Service", draft-dong-spring-sr-
for-enhanced-vpn-00 (work in progress), March 2018.
[RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.
[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>.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
December 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.
[RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
Encoding", RFC 3032, DOI 10.17487/RFC3032, January 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032>.
[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>.
Dong & Bryant Expires December 22, 2018 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IGP Extensions for VPN+ June 2018
[RFC5311] McPherson, D., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and M.
Shand, "Simplified Extension of Link State PDU (LSP) Space
for IS-IS", RFC 5311, DOI 10.17487/RFC5311, February 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5311>.
[RFC7810] Previdi, S., Ed., Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., and
Q. Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions",
RFC 7810, DOI 10.17487/RFC7810, May 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7810>.
13.2. Informative References
[I-D.bashandy-isis-srv6-extensions]
Ginsberg, L., Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., and B. Decraene,
"IS-IS Extensions to Support Routing over IPv6 Dataplane",
draft-bashandy-isis-srv6-extensions-01 (work in progress),
September 2017.
[I-D.bryant-rtgwg-enhanced-vpn]
Bryant, S. and J. Dong, "Enhanced Virtual Private Networks
(VPN+)", draft-bryant-rtgwg-enhanced-vpn-01 (work in
progress), October 2017.
[I-D.geng-detnet-info-distribution]
Geng, X. and M. Chen, "IGP-TE Extensions for DetNet
Information Distribution", draft-geng-detnet-info-
distribution-01 (work in progress), September 2017.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture]
Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas,
"Deterministic Networking Architecture", draft-ietf-
detnet-architecture-04 (work in progress), October 2017.
[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]
Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A.,
Gredler, H., Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., and J. Tantsura,
"IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis-
segment-routing-extensions-15 (work in progress), December
2017.
[I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo]
Psenak, P., Hegde, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., and
A. Gulko, "IGP Flexible Algorithm", draft-ietf-lsr-flex-
algo-00 (work in progress), May 2018.
Dong & Bryant Expires December 22, 2018 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IGP Extensions for VPN+ June 2018
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing
Architecture", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-15 (work
in progress), January 2018.
[I-D.ietf-teas-sr-rsvp-coexistence-rec]
Sitaraman, H., Beeram, V., Minei, I., and S. Sivabalan,
"Recommendations for RSVP-TE and Segment Routing LSP co-
existence", draft-ietf-teas-sr-rsvp-coexistence-rec-04
(work in progress), May 2018.
[RFC4124] Le Faucheur, F., Ed., "Protocol Extensions for Support of
Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC 4124,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4124, June 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4124>.
Authors' Addresses
Jie Dong
Huawei Technologies
Email: jie.dong@huawei.com
Stewart Bryant
Huawei Technologies
Email: stewart.bryant@gmail.com
Dong & Bryant Expires December 22, 2018 [Page 13]