Carrying Binding Label/Segment Identifier (SID) in PCE-based Networks.
draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-15
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (pce WG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Siva Sivabalan , Clarence Filsfils , Jeff Tantsura , Stefano Previdi , Cheng Li | ||
| Last updated | 2022-03-31 (Latest revision 2022-03-20) | ||
| Replaces | draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | Proposed Standard | ||
| Formats | plain text html xml htmlized pdfized bibtex | ||
| Reviews |
GENART Last Call review
(of
-11)
Ready with Issues
OPSDIR Last Call Review
Incomplete, due 2022-01-24
|
||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Julien Meuric | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2021-05-31 | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC Ed Queue | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | John Scudder | ||
| Send notices to | julien.meuric@orange.com | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | Version Changed - Review Needed | |
| IANA action state | RFC-Ed-Ack | ||
| RFC Editor | RFC Editor state | MISSREF | |
| Details |
draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-15
PCE Working Group S. Sivabalan
Internet-Draft Ciena Corporation
Intended status: Standards Track C. Filsfils
Expires: 21 September 2022 Cisco Systems, Inc.
J. Tantsura
Microsoft Corporation
S. Previdi
C. Li, Ed.
Huawei Technologies
20 March 2022
Carrying Binding Label/Segment Identifier (SID) in PCE-based Networks.
draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-15
Abstract
In order to provide greater scalability, network confidentiality, and
service independence, Segment Routing (SR) utilizes a Binding Segment
Identifier (SID) (called BSID) as described in RFC 8402. It is
possible to associate a BSID to an RSVP-TE-signaled Traffic
Engineering Label Switched Path or an SR Traffic Engineering path.
The BSID can be used by an upstream node for steering traffic into
the appropriate TE path to enforce SR policies. This document
specifies the concept of binding value, which can be either an MPLS
label or Segment Identifier. It further specifies an extension to
Path Computation Element (PCE) communication Protocol(PCEP) for
reporting the binding value by a Path Computation Client (PCC) to the
PCE to support PCE-based Traffic Engineering policies.
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 21 September 2022.
Sivabalan, et al. Expires 21 September 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID March 2022
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Motivation and Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Summary of the Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Path Binding TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure . . . . . . . . 8
5. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Binding SID in SR-ERO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Binding SID in SRv6-ERO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. PCE Allocation of Binding label/SID . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.1. Huawei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.2. Cisco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
12.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
12.1.1. TE-PATH-BINDING TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
12.2. LSP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
12.3. PCEP Error Type and Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
13. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Sivabalan, et al. Expires 21 September 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID March 2022
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1. Introduction
A Path Computation Element (PCE) can compute Traffic Engineering
paths (TE paths) through a network where those paths are subject to
various constraints. Currently, TE paths are set up using either the
RSVP-TE signaling protocol or Segment Routing (SR). We refer to such
paths as RSVP-TE paths and SR-TE paths respectively in this document.
As per [RFC8402] SR allows a head-end node to steer a packet flow
along a given path via a Segment Routing Policy (SR Policy). As per
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy], an SR Policy is a framework
that enables the instantiation of an ordered list of segments on a
node for implementing a source routing policy with a specific intent
for traffic steering from that node.
As described in [RFC8402], a Binding Segment Identifier (BSID) is
bound to a Segment Routing (SR) Policy, instantiation of which may
involve a list of Segment Identifiers (SIDs). Any packets received
with an active segment equal to a BSID are steered onto the bound SR
Policy. A BSID may be either a local (SR Local Block (SRLB)) or a
global (SR Global Block (SRGB)) SID. As per Section 6.4 of
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] a BSID can also be
associated with any type of interface or tunnel to enable the use of
a non-SR interface or tunnel as a segment in a SID list. In this
document, the term 'binding label/SID' is used to generalize the
allocation of binding value for both SR and non-SR paths.
[RFC5440] describes the PCEP for communication between a Path
Computation Client (PCC) and a PCE or between a pair of PCEs as per
[RFC4655]. [RFC8231] specifies extensions to PCEP that allow a PCC
to delegate its Label Switched Paths (LSPs) to a stateful PCE. A
stateful PCE can then update the state of LSPs delegated to it.
[RFC8281] specifies a mechanism allowing a PCE to dynamically
instantiate an LSP on a PCC by sending the path and characteristics.
This document specifies an extension to PCEP to manage the binding of
label/SID that can be applied to SR, RSVP-TE, and other path setup
types.
[RFC8664] provides a mechanism for a PCE (acting as a network
controller) to instantiate SR-TE paths (candidate paths) for an SR
Policy onto a head-end node (acting as a PCC) using PCEP. For more
information on the SR Policy Architecture, see
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].
Sivabalan, et al. Expires 21 September 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID March 2022
1.1. Motivation and Example
A binding label/SID has local significance to the ingress node of the
corresponding TE path. When a stateful PCE is deployed for setting
up TE paths, a binding label/SID reported from the PCC to the
stateful PCE is useful for the purpose of enforcing end-to-end TE/SR
policy. A sample Data Center (DC) and IP/MPLS WAN use-case is
illustrated in Figure 1 with a multi-domain PCE. In the IP/MPLS WAN,
an SR-TE LSP is set up using the PCE. The list of SIDs of the SR-TE
LSP is {A, B, C, D}. The gateway node 1 (which is the PCC) allocates
a binding SID X and reports it to the PCE. In the MPLS DC network,
an end-to-end SR-TE LSP is established. In order for the access node
to steer the traffic towards Node-1 and over the SR-TE path in WAN,
the PCE passes the SID stack {Y, X} where Y is the node SID of the
gateway node-1 to the access node and X is the BSID. In the absence
of the BSID X, the PCE would need to pass the SID stack {Y, A, B, C,
D} to the access node. This example also illustrates the additional
benefit of using the binding label/SID to reduce the number of SIDs
imposed by the access nodes with a limited forwarding capacity.
SID stack
{Y, X} +--------------+
| Multi-domain |
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _| PCE |
| +--------------+
| ^
| | Binding
| .-----. | SID (X) .-----.
| ( ) | ( )
V .--( )--. | .--( )--.
+------+ ( ) +-------+ ( ) +-------+
|Access|_( MPLS DC Network )_|Gateway|_( IP/MPLS WAN )_|Gateway|
| Node | ( ==============> ) |Node-1 | ( ================> ) |Node-2 |
+------+ ( SR-TE path ) +-------+ ( SR-TE path ) +-------+
'--( )--' Node '--( )--'
( ) SID of ( )
'-----' Node-1 '-----'
is Y SIDs for SR-TE LSP:
{A, B, C, D}
Figure 1: A Sample Use-case of Binding SID
Using the extension defined in this document, a PCC could report to
the stateful PCE the binding label/SID it allocated via a Path
Computation LSP State Report (PCRpt) message. It is also possible
for a stateful PCE to request a PCC to allocate a specific binding
label/SID by sending a Path Computation LSP Update Request (PCUpd)
message. If the PCC can successfully allocate the specified binding
Sivabalan, et al. Expires 21 September 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID March 2022
value, it reports the binding value to the PCE. Otherwise, the PCC
sends an error message to the PCE indicating the cause of the
failure. A local policy or configuration at the PCC SHOULD dictate
if the binding label/SID needs to be assigned.
1.2. Summary of the Extension
To implement the needed changes to PCEP, in this document, we
introduce a new OPTIONAL TLV that a PCC can use in order to report
the binding label/SID associated with a TE LSP, or a PCE to request a
PCC to allocate any or a specific binding label/SID value. This TLV
is intended for TE LSPs established using RSVP-TE, SR-TE, or any
other future method. In the case of SR-TE LSPs, the TLV can carry a
binding label (for SR-TE path with MPLS data-plane) or a binding IPv6
SID (e.g., IPv6 address for SR-TE paths with IPv6 data-plane).
Throughout this document, the term "binding value" means either an
MPLS label or a SID.
As another way to use the extension specified in this document, to
support the PCE-based central controller [RFC8283] operation where
the PCE would take responsibility for managing some part of the MPLS
label space for each of the routers that it controls, the PCE could
directly make the binding label/SID allocation and inform the PCC.
See Section 8 for details.
In addition to specifying a new TLV, this document specifies how and
when a PCC and PCE can use this TLV, how they can allocate a binding
label/SID, and associated error handling.
2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. Terminology
The following terminologies are used in this document:
BSID: Binding Segment Identifier.
binding label/SID: a generic term used for the binding segment for
both SR and non-SR paths.
binding value: a generic term used for the binding segment as it can
be encoded in various formats (as per the binding type(BT)).
Sivabalan, et al. Expires 21 September 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID March 2022
LSP: Label Switched Path.
PCC: Path Computation Client.
PCEP: Path Computation Element communication Protocol.
RSVP-TE: Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering.
SID: Segment Identifier.
SR: Segment Routing.
4. Path Binding TLV
The new optional TLV called "TE-PATH-BINDING TLV" (whose format is
shown in Figure 2) is defined to carry the binding label/SID for a TE
path. This TLV is associated with the LSP object specified in
[RFC8231]. This TLV can also be carried in the PCEP-ERROR object
[RFC5440] in case of error. Multiple instances of TE-PATH-BINDING
TLVs MAY be present in the LSP and PCEP-ERROR object. The type of
this TLV is 55 (early allocated by IANA). The length is variable.
[Note to RFC Editor: Please remove "(early allocated by IANA)" before
publication]
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 = 55 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| BT | Flags | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Binding Value (variable length) ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: TE-PATH-BINDING TLV
TE-PATH-BINDING TLV is a generic TLV such that it is able to carry
binding label/SID (i.e. MPLS label or SRv6 SID). It is formatted
according to the rules specified in [RFC5440]. The value portion of
the TLV comprises:
Binding Type (BT): A one-octet field that identifies the type of
binding included in the TLV. This document specifies the following
BT values:
Sivabalan, et al. Expires 21 September 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID March 2022
* BT = 0: The binding value is a 20-bit MPLS label value. The TLV
is padded to 4-bytes alignment. The Length MUST be set to 7 (the
padding is not included in the length, as per [RFC5440]
Section 7.1) and the first 20 bits are used to encode the MPLS
label value.
* BT = 1: The binding value is a 32-bit MPLS label stack entry as
per [RFC3032] with Label, TC [RFC5462], S, and TTL values encoded.
Note that the receiver MAY choose to override TC, S, and TTL
values according to its local policy. The Length MUST be set to
8.
* BT = 2: The binding value is an SRv6 SID with the format of a
16-octet IPv6 address, representing the binding SID for SRv6. The
Length MUST be set to 20.
* BT = 3: The binding value is a 24 octet field, defined in
Section 4.1, that contains the SRv6 SID as well as its Behavior
and Structure. The Length MUST be set to 28.
Section 12.1.1 defines the IANA registry used to maintain all these
binding types as well as any future ones. Note that multiple TE-
PATH-BINDING TLVs with same or different Binding Types MAY be present
for the same LSP. A PCEP speaker could allocate multiple TE-PATH-
BINDING TLVs (of the same BT), and use different binding values in
different domains or use-cases based on a local policy.
Flags: 1 octet of flags. The following flag is defined in the new
registry "TE-PATH-BINDING TLV Flag field" as described in
Section 12.1.1:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|R| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Flags
where:
* R (Removal - 1 bit): When set, the requesting PCEP peer requires
the removal of the binding value for the LSP. When unset, the
PCEP peer indicates that the binding value is added or retained
for the LSP. This flag is used in the PCRpt and PCUpd messages.
It is ignored in other PCEP messages.
Sivabalan, et al. Expires 21 September 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID March 2022
* The unassigned flags MUST be set to 0 while sending and ignored on
receipt.
Reserved: MUST be set to 0 while sending and ignored on receipt.
Binding Value: A variable-length field, padded with trailing zeros to
a 4-octet boundary. When the BT is 0, the 20 bits represent the MPLS
label. When the BT is 1, the 32 bits represent the MPLS label stack
entry as per [RFC3032]. When the BT is 2, the 128 bits represent the
SRv6 SID. When the BT is 3, the Binding Value also contains the SRv6
Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure, defined in Section 4.1. In this
document, the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV is considered to be empty if no
Binding Value is present. Note that the length of the TLV would be 4
in such a case.
4.1. SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure
This section specifies the format of the Binding Value in the TE-
PATH-BINDING TLV when the BT is set to 3 for the SRv6 Binding SIDs
[RFC8986]. The format is shown in Figure 4.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| SRv6 Binding SID (16 octets) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Endpoint Behavior |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LB Length | LN Length | Fun. Length | Arg. Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure
The Binding Value consists of:
* SRv6 Binding SID: 16 octets. The 128-bit IPv6 address,
representing the binding SID for SRv6.
* Reserved: 2 octets. It MUST be set to 0 on transmit and ignored
on receipt.
Sivabalan, et al. Expires 21 September 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID March 2022
* Endpoint Behavior: 2 octets. The Endpoint Behavior code point for
this SRv6 SID as per the IANA subregistry called "SRv6 Endpoint
Behaviors", created by [RFC8986]. When the field is set with the
value 0, the endpoint behavior is considered unknown.
* [RFC8986] defines an SRv6 SID as consisting of LOC:FUNCT:ARG,
where a locator (LOC) is encoded in the L most significant bits of
the SID, followed by F bits of function (FUNCT) and A bits of
arguments (ARG). A locator may be represented as B:N where B is
the SRv6 SID locator block (IPv6 prefix allocated for SRv6 SIDs by
the operator) and N is the identifier of the parent node
instantiating the SID called locator node. The following fields
are used to advertise the length of each individual part of the
SRv6 SID as defined in :
- LB Length: 1 octet. SRv6 SID Locator Block length in bits.
- LN Length: 1 octet. SRv6 SID Locator Node length in bits.
- Function Length: 1 octet. SRv6 SID Function length in bits.
- Argument Length: 1 octet. SRv6 SID Arguments length in bits.
The total of the locator block, locator node, function, and argument
lengths MUST be lower or equal to 128 bits. If this condition is not
met, the corresponding TE-PATH-BINDING TLV is considered invalid.
Also, if the Endpoint Behavior is found to be unknown or
inconsistent, it is considered invalid. A PCErr message with Error-
Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and Error-Value = 37
("Invalid SRv6 SID Structure") MUST be sent in such cases.
The SRv6 SID Structure could be used by the PCE for ease of
operations and monitoring. For example, this information could be
used for validation of SRv6 SIDs being instantiated in the network
and checked for conformance to the SRv6 SID allocation scheme chosen
by the operator as described in Section 3.2 of [RFC8986]. In the
future, PCE could also be used for verification and the automation
for securing the SRv6 domain by provisioning filtering rules at SR
domain boundaries as described in Section 5 of [RFC8754]. The
details of these potential applications are outside the scope of this
document.
Sivabalan, et al. Expires 21 September 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID March 2022
5. Operation
The binding value is usually allocated by the PCC and reported to a
PCE via a PCRpt message (see Section 8 where PCE does the
allocation). If a PCE does not recognize the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV, it
would ignore the TLV in accordance with [RFC5440]. If a PCE
recognizes the TLV but does not support the TLV, it MUST send a PCErr
with Error-Type = 2 (Capability not supported).
Multiple TE-PATH-BINDING TLVs are allowed to be present in the same
LSP object. This signifies the presence of multiple binding SIDs for
the given LSP. In the case of multiple TE-PATH-BINDING TLVs, the
existing instances of TE-PATH-BINDING TLVs MAY be included in the LSP
object. In case of an error condition, the whole message is rejected
and the resulting PCErr message MAY include the offending TE-PATH-
BINDING TLV in the PCEP-ERROR object.
If a PCE recognizes an invalid binding value (e.g., label value from
the reserved MPLS label space), it MUST send a PCErr message with
Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and Error Value =
2 ("Bad label value") as specified in [RFC8664].
For SRv6 BSIDs, it is RECOMMENDED to always explicitly specify the
SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure in the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV
by setting the BT (Binding Type) to 3. This can enable the sender to
have control of the SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure. A
sender MAY choose to set the BT to 2, in which case the receiving
implementation chooses how to interpret the SRv6 Endpoint Behavior
and SID Structure according to local policy.
If a PCC wishes to withdraw a previously reported binding value, it
MUST send a PCRpt message with the specific TE-PATH-BINDING TLV with
R flag set to 1. If a PCC wishes to modify a previously reported
binding, it MUST withdraw the former binding value (with R flag set
in the former TE-PATH-BINDING TLV) and include a new TE-PATH-BINDING
TLV containing the new binding value. Note that other instances of
TE-PATH-BINDING TLVs that are unchanged MAY also be included. If the
unchanged instances are not included, they will remain associated
with the LSP.
If a PCE requires a PCC to allocate a (or several) specific binding
value(s), it may do so by sending a PCUpd or PCInitiate message
containing a TE-PATH-BINDING TLV(s). If the value(s) can be
successfully allocated, the PCC reports the binding value(s) to the
PCE. If the PCC considers the binding value specified by the PCE
invalid, it MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type = TBD2
("Binding label/SID failure") and Error Value = TBD3 ("Invalid SID").
If the binding value is valid, but the PCC is unable to allocate the
Sivabalan, et al. Expires 21 September 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID March 2022
binding value, it MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type = TBD2
("Binding label/SID failure") and Error Value = TBD4 ("Unable to
allocate the specified binding value"). Note that, in case of an
error, the PCC rejects the PCUpd or PCInitiate message in its
entirety and can include the offending TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in the
PCEP-ERROR object.
If a PCE wishes to request the withdrawal of a previously reported
binding value, it MUST send a PCUpd message with the specific TE-
PATH-BINDING TLV with R flag set to 1. If a PCE wishes to modify a
previously requested binding value, it MUST request the withdrawal of
the former binding value (with R flag set in the former TE-PATH-
BINDING TLV) and include a new TE-PATH-BINDING TLV containing the new
binding value. If a PCC receives a PCUpd message with TE-PATH-
BINDING TLV where the R flag is set to 1, but either the binding
value is missing (empty TE-PATH-BINDING TLV) or the binding value is
incorrect, it MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type = TBD2
("Binding label/SID failure") and Error Value = TBD6 ("Unable to
remove the binding value").
In some cases, a stateful PCE may want to request that the PCC
allocate a binding value of the PCC's own choosing. It instructs the
PCC by sending a PCUpd message containing an empty TE-PATH-BINDING
TLV, i.e., no binding value is specified (bringing the Length field
of the TLV to 4). A PCE can also request a PCC to allocate a binding
value at the time of initiation by sending a PCInitiate message with
an empty TE-PATH-BINDING TLV. Only one such instance of empty TE-
PATH-BINDING TLV, per BT, SHOULD be included in the LSP object and
others ignored on receipt. If the PCC is unable to allocate a new
binding value as per the specified BT, it MUST send a PCErr message
with Error-Type = TBD2 ("Binding label/SID failure") and Error-Value
= TBD5 ("Unable to allocate a new binding label/SID").
As previously noted, if a message contains an invalid TE-PATH-BINDING
TLV that leads to an error condition, the whole message is rejected
including any other valid instances of TE-PATH-BINDING TLVs, if any.
The resulting error message MAY include the offending TE-PATH-BINDING
TLV in the PCEP-ERROR object.
If a PCC receives a TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in any message other than
PCUpd or PCInitiate, it MUST close the corresponding PCEP session
with the reason "Reception of a malformed PCEP message" (according to
[RFC5440]). Similarly, if a PCE receives a TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in
any message other than a PCRpt or if the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV is
associated with any object other than an LSP or PCEP-ERROR object,
the PCE MUST close the corresponding PCEP session with the reason
"Reception of a malformed PCEP message" (according to [RFC5440]).
Sivabalan, et al. Expires 21 September 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID March 2022
If a TE-PATH-BINDING TLV is absent in the PCRpt message and no
binding values were reported before, the PCE MUST assume that the
corresponding LSP does not have any binding. Similarly, if TE-PATH-
BINDING TLV is absent in the PCUpd message and no binding values were
reported before, the PCC's local policy dictates how the binding
allocations are made for a given LSP.
Note that some binding types have similar information but different
binding value formats. For example, BT=(2 or 3) is used for the SRv6
SID and BT=(0 or 1) is used for the MPLS Label. In case a PCEP
speaker receives multiple TE-PATH-BINDING TLVs with the same SRv6 SID
or MPLS Label but different BT values, it MUST send a PCErr message
with Error-Type = TBD2 ("Binding label/SID failure") and Error-Value
= TBD7 ("Inconsistent binding types").
6. Binding SID in SR-ERO
In PCEP messages, LSP route information is carried in the Explicit
Route Object (ERO), which consists of a sequence of subobjects.
[RFC8664] defines the "SR-ERO subobject" capable of carrying a SID as
well as the identity of the node/adjacency (NAI) represented by the
SID. The NAI Type (NT) field indicates the type and format of the
NAI contained in the SR-ERO. In case of binding SID, the NAI MUST
NOT be included and NT MUST be set to zero. [RFC8664] Section 5.2.1
specifies bit settings and error handling in the case when NT=0.
7. Binding SID in SRv6-ERO
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6] defines the "SRv6-ERO subobject"
for an SRv6 SID. Similarly to SR-ERO (Section 6), the NAI MUST NOT
be included and the NT MUST be set to zero. [RFC8664] Section 5.2.1
specifies bit settings and error handling in the case when NT=0.
8. PCE Allocation of Binding label/SID
Section 5 already includes the scenario where a PCE requires a PCC to
allocate a specified binding value by sending a PCUpd or PCInitiate
message containing a TE-PATH-BINDING TLV. This section specifies an
OPTIONAL feature for the PCE to allocate the binding label/SID of its
own accord in the case where the PCE also controls the label space of
the PCC and can make the label allocation on its own as described in
[RFC8283]. Note that the act of requesting a specific binding value
(Section 5) is different from the act of allocating a binding label/
SID as described in this section.
[RFC8283] introduces the architecture for PCE as a central controller
as an extension of the architecture described in [RFC4655] and
assumes the continued use of PCEP as the protocol used between PCE
Sivabalan, et al. Expires 21 September 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID March 2022
and PCC. [RFC9050] specifies the procedures and PCEP extensions for
using the PCE as the central controller. It assumes that the
exclusive label range to be used by a PCE is known and set on both
PCEP peers. A future extension could add the capability to advertise
this range via a possible PCEP extension as well (see
[I-D.li-pce-controlled-id-space]).
When PCECC operations are supported as per [RFC9050], the binding
label/SID MAY also be allocated by the PCE itself. Both peers need
to exchange the PCECC capability as described in [RFC9050] before the
PCE can allocate the binding label/SID on its own.
A new P flag in the LSP object [RFC8231] is introduced to indicate
that the allocation needs to be made by the PCE. Note that the P
flag could be used for other types of allocations (such as path
segments [I-D.ietf-pce-sr-path-segment]) in future.
* P (PCE-allocation): If the bit is set to 1, it indicates that the
PCC requests PCE to make allocations for this LSP. The TE-PATH-
BINDING TLV in the LSP object identifies that the allocation is
for a binding label/SID. A PCC MUST set this bit to 1 and include
a TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in the LSP object if it wishes to request
for allocation of binding label/SID by the PCE in the PCEP
message. A PCE MUST also set this bit to 1 and include a TE-PATH-
BINDING TLV to indicate that the binding label/SID is allocated by
PCE and encoded in the PCEP message towards the PCC. Further, if
the binding label/SID is allocated by the PCC, the PCE MUST set
this bit to 0 and follow the procedure described in Section 5.
Note that -
* A PCE could allocate the binding label/SID of its own accord for a
PCE-initiated or delegated LSP, and inform the PCC in the
PCInitiate message or PCUpd message by setting P=1 and including
TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in the LSP object.
* To let the PCC allocate the binding label/SID, a PCE MUST set P=0
and include an empty TE-PATH-BINDING TLV ( i.e., no binding value
is specified) in the LSP object in PCInitiate/PCUpd message.
* To request that the PCE allocate the binding label/SID, a PCC MUST
set P=1, D=1, and include an empty TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in PCRpt
message. The PCE will attempt to allocate it and respond to the
PCC with PCUpd message including the allocated binding label/SID
in the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV and P=1, D=1 in the LSP object. If the
PCE is unable to allocate, it MUST send a PCErr message with
Error-Type = TBD2 ("Binding label/SID failure") and Error-Value =
TBD5 ("Unable to allocate a new binding label/SID").
Sivabalan, et al. Expires 21 September 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID March 2022
* If one or both speakers (PCE and PCC) have not indicated support
and willingness to use the PCEP extensions for the PCECC as per
[RFC9050] and a PCEP peer receives P=1 in the LSP object, it MUST:
- send a PCErr message with Error-Type=19 (Invalid Operation) and
Error-value=16 (Attempted PCECC operations when PCECC
capability was not advertised) and
- terminate the PCEP session.
* A legacy PCEP speaker that does not recognize the P flag in the
LSP object would ignore it in accordance with [RFC8231].
It is assumed that the label range to be used by a PCE is known and
set on both PCEP peers. The exact mechanism is out of the scope of
[RFC9050] or this document. Note that the specific BSID could be
from the PCE-controlled or the PCC-controlled label space. The PCE
can directly allocate the label from the PCE-controlled label space
using P=1 as described above, whereas the PCE can request the
allocation of a specific BSID from the PCC-controlled label space
with P=0 as described in Section 5.
Note that, the P-Flag in the LSP object SHOULD NOT be set to 1
without the presence of TE-PATH-BINDING TLV or any other future TLV
defined for PCE allocation. On receipt of such an LSP object, the
P-Flag is ignored. The presence of TE-PATH-BINDING TLV with P=1
indicates the allocation is for the binding label/SID. In the
future, some other TLV (such as one defined in
[I-D.ietf-pce-sr-path-segment]) could also be used alongside P=1 to
indicate allocation of a different attribute. A future document
should not attempt to assign semantics to P=1 without limiting its
scope that both PCEP peers could agree on.
9. Implementation Status
[Note to the RFC Editor - remove this section before publication, as
well as remove the reference to RFC 7942.]
Sivabalan, et al. Expires 21 September 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID March 2022
This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942].
The description of implementations in this section is intended to
assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort
has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not
be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
exist.
According to [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and working groups
to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
they see fit".
9.1. Huawei
* Organization: Huawei
* Implementation: Huawei's Router and Controller
* Description: An experimental code-point is used and will be
modified to the value allocated in this document.
* Maturity Level: Production
* Coverage: Full
* Contact: c.l@huawei.com
9.2. Cisco
* Organization: Cisco Systems
* Implementation: Head-end and controller.
* Description: An experimental code-point is used and will be
modified to the value allocated in this document.
* Maturity Level: Production
* Coverage: Full
Sivabalan, et al. Expires 21 September 2022 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID March 2022
* Contact: mkoldych@cisco.com
10. Security Considerations
The security considerations described in [RFC5440], [RFC8231],
[RFC8281], [RFC8664], and [RFC9050] are applicable to this
specification. No additional security measure is required.
As described in [RFC8402] and [RFC8664], SR intrinsically involves an
entity (whether head-end or a central network controller) controlling
and instantiating paths in the network without the involvement of
(other) nodes along those paths. Binding SIDs are in effect
shorthand aliases for longer path representations, and the alias
expansion is in principle known only by the node that acts on it. In
this document, the expansion of the alias is shared between PCC and
PCE, and rogue actions by either PCC or PCE could result in shifting
or misdirecting traffic in ways that are hard for other nodes to
detect. In particular, when a PCE propagates paths of the form {A,
B, BSID} to other entities, the BSID values are opaque, and a rogue
PCE can substitute a BSID from a different LSP in such paths to move
traffic without the recipient of the path knowing the ultimate
destination.
The case of BT=3 provides additional opportunities for malfeasance,
as it purports to convey information about internal SRv6 SID
structure. There is no mechanism defined to validate this internal
structure information, and mischaracterizing the division of bits
into locator block, locator node, function, and argument can result
in different interpretation of the bits by PCC and PCE. Most
notably, shifting bits into or out of the "argument" is a direct
vector for affecting processing, but other attacks are also possible.
Thus, as per [RFC8231], it is RECOMMENDED that these PCEP extensions
only be activated on authenticated and encrypted sessions across PCEs
and PCCs belonging to the same administrative authority, using
Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8253], as per the recommendations
and best current practices in BCP195 [RFC7525] (unless explicitly set
aside in [RFC8253]).
11. Manageability Considerations
All manageability requirements and considerations listed in
[RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC8664] apply to PCEP protocol extensions
defined in this document. In addition, requirements and
considerations listed in this section apply.
Sivabalan, et al. Expires 21 September 2022 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID March 2022
11.1. Control of Function and Policy
A PCC implementation SHOULD allow the operator to configure the
policy the PCC needs to apply when allocating the binding label/SID.
If BT is set to 2, the operator needs to have local policy set to
decide the SID structure and the SRv6 Endpoint Behavior of the BSID.
11.2. Information and Data Models
The PCEP YANG module [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] will be extended to
include policy configuration for binding label/SID allocation.
11.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
The mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness
detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already
listed in [RFC5440].
11.4. Verify Correct Operations
The mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new
operation verification requirements in addition to those already
listed in [RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC8664].
11.5. Requirements On Other Protocols
The mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new
requirements on other protocols.
11.6. Impact On Network Operations
The mechanisms defined in [RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC8664] also
apply to the PCEP extensions defined in this document.
12. IANA Considerations
IANA maintains the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers"
registry. This document requests IANA actions to allocate code
points for the protocol elements defined in this document.
12.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators
This document defines a new PCEP TLV; IANA is requested to confirm
the following early allocations from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators"
subregistry of the PCEP Numbers registry, as follows:
Sivabalan, et al. Expires 21 September 2022 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID March 2022
+=======+=================+===============+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+=======+=================+===============+
+-------+-----------------+---------------+
| 55 | TE-PATH-BINDING | This document |
+-------+-----------------+---------------+
Table 1
12.1.1. TE-PATH-BINDING TLV
IANA is requested to create a new subregistry "TE-PATH-BINDING TLV BT
field" to manage the value of the Binding Type field in the TE-PATH-
BINDING TLV. Initial values for the subregistry are given below.
New values are assigned by Standards Action [RFC8126].
+=======+======================================+===============+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+=======+======================================+===============+
+-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
| 0 | MPLS Label | This document |
+-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
| 1 | MPLS Label Stack Entry | This document |
+-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
| 2 | SRv6 SID | This document |
+-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
| 3 | SRv6 SID with Behavior and Structure | This document |
+-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
| 4-255 | Unassigned | This document |
+-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
Table 2
IANA is requested to create a new subregistry "TE-PATH-BINDING TLV
Flag field" to manage the Flag field in the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV. New
values are to be assigned by Standards Action [RFC8126]. Each bit
should be tracked with the following qualities:
* Bit number (count from 0 as the most significant bit)
* Description
* Reference
Sivabalan, et al. Expires 21 September 2022 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID March 2022
+=====+=============+===============+
| Bit | Description | Reference |
+=====+=============+===============+
+-----+-------------+---------------+
| 0 | R (Removal) | This document |
+-----+-------------+---------------+
| 1-7 | Unassigned | This document |
+-----+-------------+---------------+
Table 3
12.2. LSP Object
IANA is requested to confirm the early allocation for a new code-
point in the "LSP Object Flag Field" sub-registry for the new P flag
as follows:
+=====+================+===============+
| Bit | Description | Reference |
+=====+================+===============+
+-----+----------------+---------------+
| 0 | PCE-allocation | This document |
+-----+----------------+---------------+
Table 4
12.3. PCEP Error Type and Value
This document defines a new Error-type and associated Error-Values
for the PCErr message. IANA is requested to allocate new error-type
and error-values within the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and
Values" subregistry of the PCEP Numbers registry, as follows:
Sivabalan, et al. Expires 21 September 2022 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID March 2022
+============+================+========================+===========+
| Error-Type | Meaning | Error-value | Reference |
+============+================+========================+===========+
+------------+----------------+------------------------+-----------+
| TBD2 | Binding label/ | 0: Unassigned | This |
| | SID failure | | document |
+------------+----------------+------------------------+-----------+
| | | TBD3: Invalid SID | This |
| | | | document |
+------------+----------------+------------------------+-----------+
| | | TBD4: Unable to | This |
| | | allocate the specified | document |
| | | binding value | |
+------------+----------------+------------------------+-----------+
| | | TBD5: Unable to | This |
| | | allocate a new binding | document |
| | | label/SID | |
+------------+----------------+------------------------+-----------+
| | | TBD6: Unable to remove | This |
| | | the binding value | document |
+------------+----------------+------------------------+-----------+
| | | TBD7: Inconsistent | This |
| | | binding types | document |
+------------+----------------+------------------------+-----------+
Table 5
13. Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Milos Fabian, Mrinmoy Das, Andrew Stone, Tom
Petch, Aijun Wang, Olivier Dugeon, and Adrian Farrel for their
valuable comments.
Thanks to Julien Meuric for shepherding. Thanks to John Scudder for
the AD review.
Thanks to Theresa Enghardt for the GENART review.
Thanks to Martin Vigoureux, Benjamin Kaduk, Eric Vyncke, Lars Eggert,
Murray Kucherawy, and Erik Kline for the IESG reviews.
14. References
14.1. Normative References
Sivabalan, et al. Expires 21 September 2022 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID March 2022
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
[RFC5462] Andersson, L. and R. Asati, "Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic
Class" Field", RFC 5462, DOI 10.17487/RFC5462, February
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5462>.
[RFC7525] Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre,
"Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer
Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
(DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 7525, DOI 10.17487/RFC7525, May
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7525>.
[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>.
[RFC8253] Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody,
"PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)",
RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253>.
Sivabalan, et al. Expires 21 September 2022 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID March 2022
[RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281>.
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
[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>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8986] Filsfils, C., Ed., Camarillo, P., Ed., Leddy, J., Voyer,
D., Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "Segment Routing over IPv6
(SRv6) Network Programming", RFC 8986,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8986, February 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8986>.
[RFC9050] Li, Z., Peng, S., Negi, M., Zhao, Q., and C. Zhou, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Procedures and Extensions for Using the PCE as a Central
Controller (PCECC) of LSPs", RFC 9050,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9050, July 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9050>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6]
Li, C., Negi, M., Sivabalan, S., Koldychev, M.,
Kaladharan, P., and Y. Zhu, "PCEP Extensions for Segment
Routing leveraging the IPv6 data plane", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-12, 6
March 2022, <https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-
ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-12.txt>.
14.2. Informative References
Sivabalan, et al. Expires 21 September 2022 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID March 2022
[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>.
[RFC8283] Farrel, A., Ed., Zhao, Q., Ed., Li, Z., and C. Zhou, "An
Architecture for Use of PCE and the PCE Communication
Protocol (PCEP) in a Network with Central Control",
RFC 8283, DOI 10.17487/RFC8283, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8283>.
[RFC8754] Filsfils, C., Ed., Dukes, D., Ed., Previdi, S., Leddy, J.,
Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header
(SRH)", RFC 8754, DOI 10.17487/RFC8754, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8754>.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and
P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-spring-segment-
routing-policy-21, 19 March 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-spring-
segment-routing-policy-21.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]
Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V. P., and J. Tantsura,
"A YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element
Communications Protocol (PCEP)", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-18, 25 January
2022, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-
pcep-yang-18.txt>.
[I-D.li-pce-controlled-id-space]
Li, C., Chen, M., Wang, A., Cheng, W., and C. Zhou, "PCE
Controlled ID Space", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-10, 24 February 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-li-pce-controlled-
id-space-10.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-sr-path-segment]
Li, C., Chen, M., Cheng, W., Gandhi, R., and Q. Xiong,
"Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extension for Path Segment in Segment Routing (SR)", Work
in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pce-sr-path-
segment-05, 13 February 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-sr-path-
segment-05.txt>.
Sivabalan, et al. Expires 21 September 2022 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID March 2022
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses
Jonathan Hardwick
Microsoft
United Kingdom
EMail: jonhardwick@microsoft.com
Dhruv Dhody
Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
India
EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
Mahendra Singh Negi
RtBrick India
N-17L, Floor-1, 18th Cross Rd, HSR Layout Sector-3
Bangalore, Karnataka 560102
India
EMail: mahend.ietf@gmail.com
Mike Koldychev
Cisco Systems, Inc.
2000 Innovation Drive
Kanata, Ontario K2K 3E8
Canada
Email: mkoldych@cisco.com
Zafar Ali
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: zali@cisco.com
Authors' Addresses
Siva Sivabalan
Ciena Corporation
Email: msiva282@gmail.com
Sivabalan, et al. Expires 21 September 2022 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID March 2022
Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Pegasus Parc
BRABANT 1831 De kleetlaan 6a
Belgium
Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com
Jeff Tantsura
Microsoft Corporation
Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com
Stefano Previdi
Huawei Technologies
Email: stefano@previdi.net
Cheng Li (editor)
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing
100095
China
Email: c.l@huawei.com
Sivabalan, et al. Expires 21 September 2022 [Page 25]