Architecture for Scheduled Use of Resources
draft-ietf-teas-scheduled-resources-00

TEAS Working Group                                        Y. Zhuang, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                     Q. Wu
Intended status: Standards Track                                 H. Chen
Expires: May 17, 2017                                             Huawei
                                                               A. Farrel
                                                        Juniper Networks
                                                       November 13, 2016

              Architecture for Scheduled Use of Resources
                 draft-ietf-teas-scheduled-resources-00

Abstract

   Time-Scheduled reservation of traffic engineering (TE) resources can
   be used to provide resource booking for TE Label Switched Paths so as
   to better guarantee services for customers and to improve the
   efficiency of network resource usage into the future.  This document
   provides a framework that describes and discusses the architecture
   for the scheduled reservation of TE resources.  This document does
   not describe specific protocols or protocol extensions needed to
   realize this service.

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 May 17, 2017.

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

Zhuang, et al.            Expires May 17, 2017                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft         Scheduled Use of Resources          November 2016

   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.  Problem statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Provisioning TE-LSPs and TE Resources . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  Selecting the Path of an LSP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.3.  Planning Future LSPs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.4.  Looking at Future Demands on TE Resources . . . . . . . .   5
     2.5.  Requisite State Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Architectural Concepts  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.1.  Where is Scheduling State Held? . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  What State is Held? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   4.  Architecture Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.1.  Service Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.2.  Initialization and Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     4.3.  Synchronization Between PCEs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   5.  Security Consideration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   7.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   8.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14

1.  Introduction

   Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE-LSPs) are connection
   oriented tunnels in packet and non-packet networks [RFC3209],
   [RFC3945].  TE-LSPs may reserve network resources for use by the
   traffic they carry, thus providing some guarantees of service
   delivery and allowing a network operator to plan the use of the
   resources across the whole network.

   In some technologies (such as wavelength switched optical networks)
   the resource is synonymous with the label that is switched on the
   path of the LSP so that it is not possible to establish an LSP that
   can carry traffic without assigning a concrete resource to the LSP.
   In other technologies (such as packet switched networks) the
   resources assigned to an LSP are a measure of the capacity of a link
   that is dedicated for use by the traffic on the LSP.  In all cases,
   network planning consists of selecting paths for LSPs through the
   network so that there will be no contention for resources; LSP
   establishment is the act of setting up an LSP and reserving resources

Zhuang, et al.            Expires May 17, 2017                  [Page 2]
Internet-Draft         Scheduled Use of Resources          November 2016

   within the network; and network optimization or re-optimization is
   the process of re-positioning LSPs in the network to make the
   unreserved network resources more useful for potential future LSPs
   while ensuring that the established LSPs continue to fulfill their
   objectives.

   It is often the case that it is known that an LSP will be needed at
   some time in the future.  While a path for that LSP could be computed
   using knowledge of the currently established LSPs and the currently
   available resources, this does not give any degree of certainty that
   the necessary resources will be available when it is time to set up
   the new LSP.  Yet setting up the LSP ahead of the time when it is
   needed (which would guarantee the availability of the resources) is
   wasteful since the network resources could be used for some other
   purpose in the meantime.

   Similarly, it may be known that an LSP will no longer be needed after
   some future time and that it will be torn down releasing the network
   resources that were assigned to it.  This information can be helpful
   in planning how a future LSP is placed in the network.

   Time-Scheduled (TS) reservation of TE resources can be used to
   provide resource booking for TE-LSPs so as to better guarantee
   services for customers and to improve the efficiency of network
   resource usage into the future.  This document provides a framework
   that describes and discusses the architecture for the scheduled
   reservation of TE resources.  This document does not describe
   specific protocols or protocol extensions needed to realize this
   service.

2.  Problem statement

2.1.  Provisioning TE-LSPs and TE Resources

   TE-LSPs in existing networks are provisioned using RSVP-TE as a
   signaling protocol [RFC3209] [RFC3473], by direct control of network
   elements such as in the Software Defined Networking (SDN) paradigm,
   and using the PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) [RFC5440] as a
   control protocol.

   TE resources are reserved at the point of use.  That is, the
   resources (wavelengths, timeslots, bandwidth, etc.) are reserved for
   use on a specific link and are tracked by the Label Switching Routers
   (LSRs) at the end points of the link.  Those LSRs learn which
   resources to reserve during the LSP setup process.

Zhuang, et al.            Expires May 17, 2017                  [Page 3]
Internet-Draft         Scheduled Use of Resources          November 2016

   The use of TE resources can be varied by changing the parameters of
   the LSP that uses them, and the resources can be released by tearing
   down the LSP.

2.2.  Selecting the Path of an LSP

   Although TE-LSPs can determine their paths hop-by-hop using the
   shortest path toward the destination to route the signaling protocol
   messages [RFC3209], in practice this option is not applied because it
   does not look far enough ahead into the network to verify that the
   desired resources are available.  Instead, the full length of the
   path of an LSP is computed ahead of time either by the head-end LSR
   of a signaled LSP, or by Path Computation Element (PCE) functionality
   in a dedicated server or built into network management software
   [RFC4655].

   Such full-path computation is applied in order that an end-to-end
   view of the available resources in the network can be used to
   determine the best likelihood of establishing a viable LSP that meets
   the service requirements.  Even in this situation, however, it is
   possible that two LSPs being set up at the same time will compete for
   scarce network resources meaning that one or both of them will fail
   to be established.  This situation is avoided by using a centralized
   PCE that is aware of the LSP setup requests that are in progress.

2.3.  Planning Future LSPs

   LSPs may be established "on demand" when the requester determines
   that a new LSP is needed.  In this case, the path of the LSP is
   computed as described in Section 2.2.

   However, in many situations, the requester knows in advance that an
   LSP will be needed at a particular time in the future.  For example,
   the requester may be aware of a large traffic flow that will start at
   a well-known time, perhaps for a database synchronzation or for the
   exchange of content between streamng sites.  Furthermore, the
   requester may also know for how long the LSP is required before it
   can be torn down.

   The set of requests for future LSPs could be collected and held in a
   central database (such as at a Network Management System - NMS): when
   the time comes for each LSP to be set up the NMS can ask the PCE to
   compute a path and can then requst the LSP to be provisioned.  This
   approach has a number of drawbacks because it is not possible to
   determine in advance whether it will be possible to deliver the LSP
   since the resources it needs might be used by other LSPs in the
   network.  Thus, at the time the requester asks for the future LSP,

Zhuang, et al.            Expires May 17, 2017                  [Page 4]
Internet-Draft         Scheduled Use of Resources          November 2016

   the NMS can only make a best-effort guarantee that the LSP will be
   set up at the desired time.

   A better solution, therefore, is for the requests for future LSPs to
   be serviced at once.  The paths of the LSPs can be computed ahead of
   time and converted into reservations of network resources during
   specific windows in the future.

2.4.  Looking at Future Demands on TE Resources

   While path computation as described in Section 2.2 takes account of
   the currently available network resources, and can act to place LSPs
   in the network so that there is the best possibility of future LSPs
   being accommodated, it cannot handle all eventualities.  It is simple
   to construct scenarios where LSPs that are placed one at a time lead
   to future LSPs being blocked, but where foreknowledge of all of the
   LSPs would have made it possible for them all to be set up.

   If, therefore, we were able to know in advance what LSPs were going
   to be requested we could plan for them and ensure resources were
   available.  Furthermore, such an approach enables a commitment to be
   made to a service user that an LSP will be set up and available at a
   specific time.

   This service can be achieved by tracking the current use of network
   resources and also a future view of the resource usage.  We call this
   time-scheduled TE (TS-TE) resource reservation.

2.5.  Requisite State Information

   In order to achieve the TS-TE resource reservation, the use of
   resources on the path needs to be scheduled.  Scheduling state is
   used to indicate when resources are reserved and when they are
   available for use.

   A simple information model for one piece of scheduling state is as
   follows:

      { link id;
        resource id or reserved capacity;
        reservation start time;
        reservation end time
      }

   The resource that is scheduled can be link capacity, physical
   resources on a link, CPU utilization, memory, buffers on an
   interfaces, etc.  The resource might also be the maximal unreserved
   bandwidth of the link over a time intervals.  For any one resource

Zhuang, et al.            Expires May 17, 2017                  [Page 5]
Internet-Draft         Scheduled Use of Resources          November 2016

   there could be multiple pieces of scheduling state, and for any one
   link, the timing windows might overlap.

   There are multiple ways to realize this information model and
   different ways to store the data.  The resource state could be
   expressed as a start time and and end time as shown above, or could
   be expressed as a start time and a duration.  Multiple periods,
   possibly of different lengths, may be associated with one reservation
   request, and a reservation might repeat on a regular cycle.
   Furthermore, the current state of network reservation could be kept
   separate from the scheduled usage, or everything could be merged into
   a single TS databasae.  This document does not spend any more time on
   discussion of encoding of state information except to discuss the
   location of storage of the state information and the recovery of the
   information after failure events.

   This scheduling state information can be used by applications to book
   resources for future or now, so as to maximize chance of services
   being delivered.  Also, it can avoid contention for resources of
   LSPs.

   Note that it is also to store the information about future LSPs.
   This information is held to allow the LSPs to be instantiated when
   they are due and using the paths/resources that have been computed
   for them, but also to provide correlation with the TS-TE resource
   reservations so that it is clear why resources were reserved allowing
   pre-emption and handling release of reserved resources in the event
   of cancelation of future LSPs.

3.  Architectural Concepts

   This section examines several important architectural concepts that
   lead to design decisions that will influence how networks can achieve
   TS-TE in a scalable and robust manner.

3.1.  Where is Scheduling State Held?

   The scheduling state information described in Section 2.5 has to be
   held somewhere.  There are two places where this makes sense:

   o  In the network nodes where the resources exist;

   o  In a central scheduling controller where decisions about resource
      allocation are made.

   The first of these makes policing of resource allocation easier.  It
   means that many points in the network can request immediate or
   scheduled LSPs with the associated resource reservation and that all

Zhuang, et al.            Expires May 17, 2017                  [Page 6]
Internet-Draft         Scheduled Use of Resources          November 2016

   such requests can be correlated at the point where the resources are
   allocated.  However, this approach has some scaling and technical
   problems:

   o  The most obvious issue is that each network node must retain the
      full time-based state for all of its resources.  In a busy network
      with a high arrival rate of new LSPs and a low hold time for each
      LSP, this could be a lot of state.  Yet network nodes are normally
      implemented with minimal spare memory.

   o  In order that path computation can be performed, the computing
      entity normally known as a Path Computation Element (PCE)
      [RFC4655] needs access to a database of available links and nodes
      in the network, and of the TE properties of the links.  This
      database is known as the Traffic Engineering Database (TED) and is
      usually populated from information advertised in the IGP by each
      of the network nodes or exported using BGP-LS
      [I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution].  To be able to compute a path for
      a future LSP the PCE needs to populate the TED with all of the
      future resource availability: if this information is held on the
      network nodes it must also be advertised in the IGP.  This could
      be a significant scaling issue for the IGP and the network nodes
      as all of the advertised information is held at every network node
      and must be periodically refreshed by the IGP.

   o  When a normal node restarts it can recover resource reservation
      state from the forwarding hardware, from Non-volatile random-
      access memory (NVRAM), or from adjacent nodes through the
      signaling protocol [RFC5063].  If scheduling state is held at the
      network nodes it must also be recovered after the restart of a
      network node.  This cannot be achieved from the forwarding
      hardware because the reservation will not have been made, could
      require additional expensive NVRAM, or might require that all
      adjacent nodes also have the scheduling state in order to
      reinstall it on the restarting node.  This is potentially complex
      processing with scaling and cost implications.

   Conversely, if the scheduling state is held centrally it is easily
   available at the point of use.  That is, the PCE can utilize the
   state to plan future LSPs and can update that stored information with
   the scheduled reservation of resources for those future LSPs.  This
   approach also has several issues:

   o  If there are multiple controllers then they must synchronise their
      stored scheduling state as they each plan future LSPs, and must
      have a mechanism to resolve resource contention.  This is
      relatively simple and is mitigated by the fact that there is ample

Zhuang, et al.            Expires May 17, 2017                  [Page 7]
Internet-Draft         Scheduled Use of Resources          November 2016

      processing time to replan future LSPs in the case of resource
      contention.

   o  If other sources of immediate LSPs are allowed (for example, other
      controllers or autonomous action by head-end LSRs) then the
      changes in resource availability caused by the setup or teardown
      of these LSPs must be reflected in the TED (by use of the IGP as
      currently) and may have an impact of planned future LSPs.  This
      impact can be mitigated by replanning future LSPs or through LSP
      preemption.

   o  If other sources of planned LSPs are allowed, they can request
      path computation and resource reservation from the centralized PCE
      using PCEP [RFC5440].

   o  If the scheduling state is held centrally at a PCE, the state must
      be held and restored after a system restart.  This is relatively
      easy to achieve on a central server that can have access to non-
      volatile storage.  The PCE could also synchronize the scheduling
      state with other PCEs after restart.  See Section 4.2 for details.

   o  Of course, a centralized system must store informaton about all of
      the resources in the network.  In a busy network with a high
      arrival rate of new LSPs and a low hold time for each LSP, this
      could be a lot of state.  This is multiplied by the size of the
      network measured both by the number of links and nodes, and by the
      number of trackable resources on each link or at each node.  The
      challenge may be mitigated by the centralized server being
      dedicated hardware, but the problem of collecting the information
      from the network is only solved if the central server has full
      control of the booking of resources and the estblshment of new
      LSPs.

   Thus the architectural conclusion is that scheduling state should be
   held centrally at the point of use and not in the network devices.

3.2.  What State is Held?

   As already described, the PCE needs access to an enhanced, time-based
   TED.  It stores the traffic engineering (TE) information such as
   bandwidth for every link for a series of time intervals.  There are a
   few ways to store the TE information in the TED.  For example,
   suppose that the amount of the unreserved bandwidth at a priority
   level for a link is Bj in a time interval from time Tj to Tk (k =
   j+1), where j = 0, 1, 2, ....

Zhuang, et al.            Expires May 17, 2017                  [Page 8]
Internet-Draft         Scheduled Use of Resources          November 2016

        Bandwidth
         ^
         |                                    B3
         |          B1                        ___________
         |          __________
         |B0                                             B4
         |__________          B2                         _________
         |                    ________________
         |
        -+-------------------------------------------------------> Time
         |T0        T1        T2              T3         T4

             Figure 1: A Plot of Bandwidth Usage against Time

   The unreserved bandwidth for the link can be represented and stored
   in the TED as [T0, B0], [T1, B1], [T2, B2], [T3, B3], ... as shown in
   Figure 1.

   But it must be noted that service requests for future LSPs are known
   in terms of the LSPs whose paths are computed and for which resources
   are scheduled.  For example, if the requester of a future LSP decides
   to cancel the request or to modify the request, the PCE must be able
   to map this to the resources that were reserved.  When the LSP or the
   request for the LSP with a number of time intervals is cancelled, the
   PCE must release the resources that were reserved on each of the
   links along the path of the LSP in every time intervals from the TED.
   If the bandwidth reserved on a link for the LSP is B from time T2 to
   T3 and the unreserved bandwidth on the link is B2 from T2 to T3, B is
   added to the link for the time interval from T2 to T3 and the
   unreserved bandwidth on the link from T2 to T3 will be B2 + B.

   This suggests that the PCE needs an LSP Database (LSP-DB)
   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] that contains information not only about
   LSPs that are active in the network, but also those that are planned.
   The information for an LSP stored in the LSP-DB includes for each
   time interval that applies to the LSP: the time interval, the paths
   computed for the LSP satisfying the constraints in the time interval,
   and the resources such as bandwidth reserved for the LSP in the time
   interval.  See also Section 2.3

   It is an implementation choice how the TED and LSP-DB are stored both
   for dynamic use and for recovery after failure or restart, but it may
   be noted that all of the information in the scheduled TED can be
   recovered from the active network state and from the scheduled LSP-
   DB.

Zhuang, et al.            Expires May 17, 2017                  [Page 9]
Internet-Draft         Scheduled Use of Resources          November 2016

4.  Architecture Overview

   The architectural considerations and conclusions described in the
   previous section lead to the architecture described in this section.

          -------------------
         | Service Requester |
          -------------------
                     ^
                    a|
                     v
                  -------   b   --------
                 |       |<--->| LSP-DB |
                 |       |      --------
                 |  PCE  |
                 |       |  c    -----
                 |       |<---->| TED |
                  -------        -----
                  ^     ^
                  |     |
                 d|     |e
                  |     |
            ------+-----+--------------------
                  |     |          Network
                  |     --------
                  |    | Router |
                  v     --------
                -----          -----
               | LSR |<------>| LSR |
                -----     f    -----

      Figure 2: Reference Architecture for Scheduled Use of Resources

4.1.  Service Request

   As shown in Figure 2, some component in the network requests a
   service.  This may be an application, an NMS, an LSR, or any
   component that qualifies as a Path Computation Client (PCC).  We show
   this on the figure as the "Service Requester" and it sends a request
   to the PCE for an LSP to be set up at some time (either now or in the
   future).  The request, indicated on Figure 2 by the arrow (a)
   includes all of the parameters of the LSP that the requester wishes
   to supply such as bandwidth, start time, and end time.  Note that the
   requester in this case may be the same LSR shown in the figure or may
   be a distinct system.

Zhuang, et al.            Expires May 17, 2017                 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft         Scheduled Use of Resources          November 2016

   The PCE enters the LSP request in its LSP-DB (b), and uses
   information from its TED (c) to compute a path that satisfies
   constraints such as bandwidth constraint for the LSP in the time
   interval from a start time to an end time.  It updates the future
   resource availability in the TED so that further path computations
   can take account of the scheduled resource usage.  It stores the path
   for the LSP into the LSP-DB (b).

   When it is time such as at a start time for the LSP to be set up, the
   PCE sends a PCEP Initiate request to the head end LSR (d) providing
   the path to be signaled as well as other parameters such as the
   bandwidth of the LSP.

   As the LSP is signaled between LSRs (f) the use of resources in the
   network is updated and distributed using the IGP.  This information
   is shared with the PCE either through the IGP or using BGP-LS (e),
   and the PCE updates the information stored in its TED (c).

   After the LSP is set up, the head end LSR sends a PCEP LSP State
   Report (PCRpt message) to the PCE (d).  The report contains the
   resources such as bandwidth usage for the LSP.  The PCE updates the
   status of the LSP in the LSPDB according to the report.

   When an LSP is no longer required (either because the Service
   Requester has cancelled the request, or because the LSP's scheduled
   lifetime has expired) the PCE can remove it.  If the LSP is currently
   active, the PCE instructs the head-end LSR to tear it down (d), and
   the network resource usage will be updated by the IGP and advertised
   back to the PCE through the IGP or BGP-LS (e).  Once the LSP is no
   longer active, the PCE can remove it from the LSP-DB (b).

4.2.  Initialization and Recovery

   When a PCE in the architecture shown in Figure 2 is initialized, it
   must learn state from the network, from its stored databases, and
   potentially from other PCEs in the network.

   The first step is to get an accurate view of the topology and
   resource availability in the network.  This would normally involve
   reading the state direct from the network via the IGP or BGP-LS (e),
   but might include receiving a copy of the TED from another PCE.  Note
   that a TED stored from a previous instantiation of the PCE is
   unlikely to be valid.

   Next, the PCE must construct a time-based TED to show scheduled
   resource usage.  How it does this is implementation specific and this
   document does not dictate any particular mechanism: it may recover a
   time-based TED previously saved to non-volatile storage, or it may

Zhuang, et al.            Expires May 17, 2017                 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft         Scheduled Use of Resources          November 2016

   reconstruct the time-based TED from information retrieved from the
   LSP-DB previously saved to non-volatile storage.  If there is more
   than one PCE active in the network, the recovering PCE will need to
   synchronize the LSP-DB and time-based TED with other PCEs (see
   Section 4.3).

4.3.  Synchronization Between PCEs

   If there is more than one PCE active in the network which supports
   scheduling, it is important to achieve some consistency between the
   scheduled TED and scheduled LSP-DB between the PCEs.

   [RFC7399] answers various questions around synchronization between
   the PCEs.  It should be noted that the time-based "scheduled"
   information adds another dimension to it.  It should be noted that
   the deployment may use a primary PCE and the other PCEs as backup,
   where the backup PCE can take over only in the event of a failure of
   the primary PCE.  Or the PCEs may share the load at all times.  The
   choice of the synchronization technique is largely dependent on the
   deployment of PCEs in the network.

   One option for ensuring that multiple PCEs use the same scheduled
   information is simply to have the PCEs driven from the same shared
   database, but it is likely to be inefficient and inter-operation
   between multiple implementation harder.

   Or the PCEs might be responsible for its own scheduled database and
   utilize some distributed database synchronization mechanism to have a
   consistent database.  Based on the implementation, this could be
   efficient but the inter-operation between heterogeneous
   implementation is still hard.

   Another approach would be to utilize PCEP messages to synchronize the
   scheduled state between PCEs.  This approach would work well if the
   number of PCEs which support scheduling are less, but as the number
   increases considerable message exchange needs to happen to keep the
   scheduled database in sync.  Future solution could also utilize some
   synchronization optimization techniques for efficiency.  Another
   variation would be to request information from other PCEs for a
   particular time slice but this might have impact on the optimization
   algorithm.

5.  Security Consideration

   TBD

Zhuang, et al.            Expires May 17, 2017                 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft         Scheduled Use of Resources          November 2016

6.  Acknowledgements

   This work has benefited from the discussions of resource scheduling
   over the years.  In particular the DRAGON project [DRAGON] and
   [I-D.yong-ccamp-ason-gmpls-autobw-service] both of which provide
   approaches to auto-bandwidth services in GMPLS networks.

   Mehmet Toy, Lei Liu and Khuzema Pithewan contributed the earlier
   version of [I-D.chen-teas-frmwk-tts].  We would like to thank authors
   of that draft on Temporal Tunnel Services andfor help inspire
   discussion in the TEAS WG and get this work solid.

   Thanks to Michael Scharf and Daniele Ceccarelli for useful comments
   on this work.

7.  Contributors

   The following people contributed to discussions that led to the
   development of this document:

              Dhruv Dhody
              Email: dhruv.dhody@huawei.com

8.  Informative References

   [DRAGON]   National Science Foundation, "http://www.maxgigapop.net/
              wp-content/uploads/The-DRAGON-Project.pdf".

   [I-D.chen-teas-frmwk-tts]
              Chen, H., Toy, M., Liu, L., and K. Pithewan, "Framework
              for Temporal Tunnel Services", draft-chen-teas-frmwk-
              tts-01 (work in progress), March 2016.

   [I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution]
              Gredler, H., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and S.
              Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and TE
              Information using BGP", draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution-13
              (work in progress), October 2015.

   [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-16 (work in progress), September 2016.

Zhuang, et al.            Expires May 17, 2017                 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft         Scheduled Use of Resources          November 2016

   [I-D.yong-ccamp-ason-gmpls-autobw-service]
              Yong, L. and Y. Lee, "ASON/GMPLS Extension for Reservation
              and Time Based Automatic Bandwidth Service", draft-yong-
              ccamp-ason-gmpls-autobw-service-00 (work in progress),
              October 2006.

   [RFC3209]  Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
              and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
              Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.

   [RFC3473]  Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
              Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-
              Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3473, January 2003,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3473>.

   [RFC3945]  Mannie, E., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
              Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3945, October 2004,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3945>.

   [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>.

   [RFC5063]  Satyanarayana, A., Ed. and R. Rahman, Ed., "Extensions to
              GMPLS Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Graceful
              Restart", RFC 5063, DOI 10.17487/RFC5063, October 2007,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5063>.

   [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>.

   [RFC7399]  Farrel, A. and D. King, "Unanswered Questions in the Path
              Computation Element Architecture", RFC 7399,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7399, October 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7399>.

Authors' Addresses

Zhuang, et al.            Expires May 17, 2017                 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft         Scheduled Use of Resources          November 2016

   Yan Zhuang (editor)
   Huawei
   101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
   Nanjing, Jiangsu  210012
   China

   Email: zhuangyan.zhuang@huawei.com

   Qin Wu
   Huawei
   101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
   Nanjing, Jiangsu  210012
   China

   Email: bill.wu@huawei.com

   Huaimo Chen
   Huawei
   Boston, MA
   US

   Email: huaimo.chen@huawei.com

   Adrian Farrel
   Juniper Networks

   Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk

Zhuang, et al.            Expires May 17, 2017                 [Page 15]