IGP based Network Computing Combined Optimization
draft-wang-lsr-network-computing-optimization-00
This document is an Internet-Draft (I-D).
Anyone may submit an I-D to the IETF.
This I-D is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the
IETF standards process.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Aijun Wang , Zhibo Hu, Changwang Lin , Gyan Mishra | ||
| Last updated | 2024-11-14 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-wang-lsr-network-computing-optimization-00
LSR Working Group A. Wang
Internet-Draft China Telecom
Intended status: Standards Track Z. Hu
Expires: 19 May 2025 Huawei Technologies
C. Lin
New H3C Technologies
G. Mishra
Verizon Inc.
15 November 2024
IGP based Network Computing Combined Optimization
draft-wang-lsr-network-computing-optimization-00
Abstract
This document describes the scenario and procedures that can be used
to accomplish the IGP based network and computing combined
optimization within the IS-IS or OSPF domain.
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 19 May 2025.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Wang, et al. Expires 19 May 2025 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IGP based NCCO November 2024
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Network Computing Combined Optimization Scenario . . . . . . 3
4. Network Computing Combined Optimization Procedures . . . . . 4
5. Advertisement of Computing Capacity Related Information . . . 5
6. OSPF Protocol Extension for Stub Link Attributes . . . . . . 5
6.1. OSPF Stub-Link TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.2. OSPF Stub Link IPv4 Prefix Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.3. OSPF Stub Link IPv6 Prefix Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. IS-IS Protocol Extension for Stub Link Attributes . . . . . . 7
7.1. IS-IS Stub-link TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.2. IS-IS Stub Link IPv4 Prefix Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.3. IS-IS Stub Link IPv6 Prefix Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Application of the network computing combined optimization . 9
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
12. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction
Traditionally, the best path that is used to forward the packet
within one IGP domain is calculated solely based on the network
topology and links metric. In some scenario, there is need to select
the best path based on other information. This document describes
the scenario and procedures that can be used to accomplish the IGP
based network and computing combined optimization requirements.
2. Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] .
Wang, et al. Expires 19 May 2025 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IGP based NCCO November 2024
3. Network Computing Combined Optimization Scenario
Figure 1 below illustrates the scenario that the necessities of
integrating the computing and network related information to achieve
the combined optimization upon the service requirements.
In the network, R1-R8 are routers that connected each other to form
one IGP domain. Server Pool A, B and C which are different server
pools that can provide the same service are connected to the IGP
domain via R6, R7 and R8 respectively. The capacities and the access
bandwidths of the Server Pools may be different.
Image that one customer that is connected to router R1 requires the
computing capabilities, called X, and the minimum bandwidth C along
the end to end path. Based on the Short Path First(SPF) algorithm,
R1 will select the path R1-R4-R6 to access the service. But the
bandwidth between R6 and Server Pool A is below C and can't meet the
requirements. The user's service requirement can't be met and the
customer experiences will be downgraded significantly. Even there is
other Server Pools that can provide the same service, there is no
method for the SPF to select them automatically.
+--------------------------------------+
| |
| +---+ +---+ | +-------------+
| |R1 +---------+ +----+R6 +----------+Server Pool A|
| +-+-+ | | +-+-+ | +-------------+
| | +-+-+ | | |
| | +---+R4 +-----+ | |
| | | +-+-+ | |
| +-+-+ | | +-+-+ | +-------------+
| |R2 +---+ +------------+R7 +----------+Server Pool B|
| +-+-+ | +-+-+ | +-------------+
| | |---+---+ | |
| | |R5 +-----+ | |
| | +-+-+ | | |
| +-+-+ | | +-+-+ | +-------------+
| |R3 +---------+ +----+R8 +----------+Server Pool C|
| +---+ +---+ | +-------------+
| |
| |
| IGP Domain |
+--------------------------------------+
Figure 1: Network Computing Combined Optimization Scenario
Wang, et al. Expires 19 May 2025 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IGP based NCCO November 2024
Then, it is necessary to inject the other information that beyond the
traditional network related information into the SPF algorithm, to
find the best path that both satisfy the network and computing
capacity requirements, which are the key factors in artificial
intelligent era.
4. Network Computing Combined Optimization Procedures
The procedures to accomplish the network computing combined
optimization within one IGP domain are the followings:
1) Computing Capacity Information Registration.
The server pool registers its capacity information to the router that
it connects to, or the configuration of capacity information of the
server pool on the access router directly.
2) Computing Capacity Information Encapsulation and Flooding.
The access router that connects to the server pool encapsulates the
computing capacity information within one new container and floods
the computing capacity information within its domain, let other
routers within the same domain aware the capacity of each server
pool.
3) Computing and Network Information based SPF Optimization Algorithm
Optimize the SPF algorithm, let it find the best path in combination
both the network related information and computing capacity
information, build the forward table on each router based on the
combined optimization results. The router that can't parse the new
container can still use the traditional SPF that based solely on
network related information to build the forward table.
4) Network and Computing Combined Optimization Scheduling
Forward the customer traffic based on the combined optimization
results by the routers on the optimized path. In order to achieve
the incremental deployment of such features within the operator
network, the entry router should tunnel the customer traffic to the
router that connected to the preferred server pool. This can avoid
the traffic loop within the IGP domains when not all of its routers
use the same algorithm to find the best path.
Wang, et al. Expires 19 May 2025 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IGP based NCCO November 2024
5. Advertisement of Computing Capacity Related Information
OSPF[RFC7684] defines the OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque LSA and
[RFC8362]defines the E-Link-LSA to carry the information about links.
These existing LSA can be used to include the new container that
encapsulates and floods the computing capacity related information.
Based on the above containers, this document defines the Stub-Link
TLV and some additional sub-TLVs to identify the stub link and
transmit the associated computing capacity information for OSPF and
IS-IS respectively.
6. OSPF Protocol Extension for Stub Link Attributes
The following sections define the protocol extension to indicate the
stub link and its associated attributes in OSPFv2/v3.
6.1. OSPF Stub-Link TLV
This document defines the Stub-Link TLV to describe stub link of a
single router. This Stub-Link TLV is only applicable to the OSPFv2
Extended Link Opaque LSA[RFC7684] and E-Link-LSA LSA [RFC8362].
Inclusion in other LSAs MUST be ignored.
The OSPF Stub-Link TLV which is under the IANA codepoint "OSPFv2
Extended Link Opaque LSA TLVs" and "OSPFv3 Extended-LSA TLV" has the
following format:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type(Stub-Link) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Stub Link Prefix Sub-TLVs |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Computing Capacity related Sub-TLVs (variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Existing Sub-TLVs (variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: OSPF Stub-Link TLV
Type: The TLV type. The value is 2(TBD1) for OSPFv2 Extended Link
Opaque LSA TLVs and 10(TBD2) for OSPFv3 Extended-LSA TLVs.
Length: Variable, dependent on sub-TLVs
Wang, et al. Expires 19 May 2025 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IGP based NCCO November 2024
Flags: Define the type of the stub-link:
* bit 0-15: Reserved
Stub Link Prefix Sub-TLV: The prefix of the stub-link. It's format
is defined in Section 6.2 and Section 6.3.
Computing Capacity related Sub-TLVs: Sub-TLVs that contains the
computing capacity information. They can be defined in other
document and is out of the scope of this document.
Existing Sub-TLVs: Sub-TLV that defined within "Open Shortest Path
First (OSPF) Traffic Engineering TLVs" for TE Link TLV(Value 2) can
be included if necessary.
If this TLV is advertised multiple times in the same LSA, only the
first instance of the TLV is used by receiving OSPFv2/v3 routers.
This situation SHOULD be logged as an error.
This document creates a registry for Stub-Link attributes in
Section 10.
6.2. OSPF Stub Link IPv4 Prefix Sub-TLV
The OSPF Stub Link IPv4 Prefix Sub-TLV has the following format:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix Length | IPv4 Prefix(variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: OSPF Stub Link IPv4 Prefix Sub-TLV
Type: IPv4 Prefix Sub-TLV codepoint. Value is 37(TBD3) for
OSPF(under "Types for sub-TLVs of TE Link TLV (Value 2)")
Length: The length of the value portion in octets.
Prefix Length: the length of the IPv4 Prefix in bits.
IPv4 Prefix: The IPv4 Prefix value of stub link.
6.3. OSPF Stub Link IPv6 Prefix Sub-TLV
The OSPF Stub Link IPv6 Prefix Sub-TLV has the following format:
Wang, et al. Expires 19 May 2025 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IGP based NCCO November 2024
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix Length | IPv6 Prefix(variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: OSPF Stub Link IPv6 Prefix Sub-TLV
Type: IPv6 Prefix Sub-TLV codepoint. Value is Value is 38(TBD4) for
OSPF(under "Types for sub-TLVs of TE Link TLV (Value 2)")
Length: The length of the value portion in octets.
IPv6 Prefix: The IPv6 Prefix value of stub link.
7. IS-IS Protocol Extension for Stub Link Attributes
The following sections define the protocol extension to indicate the
stub link and its associated attributes in IS-IS.
7.1. IS-IS Stub-link TLV
This document defines the IS-IS Stub-Link TLV to describes stub link
of a single router.
The IS-IS Stub-Link TLV has the following format:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Type(Stub-Link)| Length | Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Stub Link Prefix Sub-TLV |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Computing Capacity related Sub-TLVs (variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Existing Sub-TLVs (variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: IS-IS Stub-Link TLV
Type: IS-IS TLV codepoint. Value is 151 (TBD5) for stub-link TLV.
Length: Variable, dependent on sub-TLVs
Flags: Define the type of the stub-link:
* bit 0-15: Reserved
Wang, et al. Expires 19 May 2025 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IGP based NCCO November 2024
Stub Link Prefix Sub-TLV: The prefix of the stub-link. It's format
is defined in Section 7.2 and Section 7.3.
Computing Capacity related Sub-TLVs: Sub-TLVs that contains the
computing capacity information. They can be defined in other
document and is out of the scope of this document.
Existing Sub-TLVs: Sub-TLVs that defined within "IS-IS Sub-TLVs for
TLVs Advertising Neighbor Information" can be included if necessary.
7.2. IS-IS Stub Link IPv4 Prefix Sub-TLV
The IS-IS Stub Link IPv4 Prefix Sub-TLV has the following format:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Reserved |Prefix Length|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Prefix(Variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: IS-IS Stub Link IPv4 Prefix Sub-TLV
Type: IPv4 Prefix Sub-TLV codepoint. Value is 46(TBD6) for IS-
IS(under "IS-IS Sub-TLVs for TLVs Advertising Neighbor Information")
Length: Length: The length of the value portion in octets.
Prefix Length: the length of the IPv4 Prefix in bits.
IPv4 Prefix: The IPv4 Prefix value of stub link.
7.3. IS-IS Stub Link IPv6 Prefix Sub-TLV
The IS-IS Stub Link IPv6 Prefix Sub-TLV has the following format:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Reserved |Prefix Length|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 Prefix(Variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7: IS-IS Stub Link IPv6 Prefix Sub-TLV
Type: IPv6 Prefix Sub-TLV codepoint. Value is 47(TBD7) for IS-
IS(under "IS-IS Sub-TLVs for TLVs Advertising Neighbor Information")
Wang, et al. Expires 19 May 2025 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IGP based NCCO November 2024
Length: Length: The length of the value portion in octets.
Prefix Length: the length of the IPv6 Prefix in bits.
IPv6 Prefix: The IPv6 Prefix value of stub link.
8. Application of the network computing combined optimization
The following figure gives the application example of the network
computing combined optimization.
+--------------------------------------+
| |
| ***** ***** | +-------------+
| *R1 *---------+ +----*R6 *----------+Server Pool A|
| ***** | | ***** | +-------------+
| | +-+-+ | | |
| | +---+R4 +-----+ | |
| | | +-+-+ | |
| +---+ | | ***** | +-------------+
| |R2 +---+ +------------*R7 *----------+Server Pool B|
| +---+ | ***** | +-------------+
| | | ***** | |
| | |---*R5 *-----+ | |
| | ***** | | |
| ***** | | ***** | +-------------+
| *R3 *---------+ +----*R8 *----------+Server Pool C|
| ***** ***** | +-------------+
| |
| |
| IGP Domain |
+--------------------------------------+
Figure 9: Application of Network Computing Combined Optimization
Suppose R1, R3, R5,R6,R7 and R8 (identified via the "*" signal)are
the routers that have been updated to support the parse of newly
defined Stub Link TLV and the optimized SPF algorithm that depends
both on the network and computing capacity information. The router
R2 and R4 (identified via the "-" signal are the legacy routers that
had not been upgraded yet.
Wang, et al. Expires 19 May 2025 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IGP based NCCO November 2024
When R6, R7 and R8 knows the computing capacity information of their
connected server Pool A, B and C( via the automatic registration
process between the access router and server pool, or the manual
configuration on the access router, which is out of the scope this
document), they encapsulation such information within the above Stub
Link TLV, and then the related LSA (for OSPF) or TLV(for IS-IS),
flooding them within the IGP domain.
When upgraded routers receives such information, it can accomplish
the network computing combined optimized SPF algorithm, to calculate
the best path to each server pool and build the forwarding table on
it. For the legacy routers, the forwarding table are built still via
the traditional SPF algorithm.
When router R1 receives the customer traffic that requires the
computing capacity X and minimum bandwidth path of C, it will lookup
its FIB, make the final decision based on both of these information.
If the connection between R6 and its associated server Pool A can't
meet minimum bandwidth requirements, it will check the next candidate
within its FIB table. If the capacity of Server Pool is less than X,
it will be passed also. The final result will be Server Pool C,
whose access bandwidth and the computing capacity can all meet the
customer requirements.
Router R1 will encapsulate the customer traffic within one tunnel,
with the tunnel destination set to the address of R8, which is the
access router of Server Pool C and tunnel source is the R1 itself.
When the traffic path through the intermediated router along the
path, the traffic will be forwarded based on the destination address
of R8, which is solely based on the traditional SPF algorithm. The
tunnelled traffic can arrive safely to the tunnel destination without
any possibility of loop, even they use different algorithm for
different prefixes.
9. Security Considerations
Security concerns for IS-IS are addressed in [RFC5304] and[RFC5310]
Security concern for OSPFv3 is addressed in [RFC4552]
Advertisement of the additional information defined in this document
introduces no new security concerns.
10. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to the allocation in following registries:
Wang, et al. Expires 19 May 2025 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IGP based NCCO November 2024
+===========================================+============+===============================+
| Registry | Type | Meaning |
| |(suggested) | |
+===========================================+============+===============================+
|OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque LSA TLVs | TBD1(2) |OSPFv2 Stub-Link |
+-------------------------------------------+------------+-------------------------------+
|OSPFv3 Extended-LSA TLVs | TBD2(10) |OSPFv3 Stub-Link |
+-------------------------------------------+------------+-------------------------------+
|IS-IS Top-Level TLV | TBD5(151)|IS-IS Stub-Link |
+-------------------------------------------+------------+-------------------------------+
|Types for sub-TLVs of TE Link TLV (Value 2)| TBD3(37) |OSPF Stub Link IPv4 Prefix |
+-------------------------------------------+------------+-------------------------------+
|Types for sub-TLVs of TE Link TLV (Value 2)| TBD4(38) |OSPF Stub Link IPv6 Prefix |
+-------------------------------------------+------------+-------------------------------+
|IS-IS Sub-TLVs for TLVs | | |
|Advertising Neighbor Information | TBD6(46) |IS-IS Stub Link IPv4 Prefix |
+-------------------------------------------+------------+-------------------------------+
|IS-IS Sub-TLVs for TLVs | | |
|Advertising Neighbor Information | TBD7(47) |IS-IS Stub Link IPv6 Prefix |
+-------------------------------------------+------------+-------------------------------+
Figure 10: IANA Allocation for newly defined TLVs and Sub-TLVs
11. Acknowledgement
TBD
12. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4552] Gupta, M. and N. Melam, "Authentication/Confidentiality
for OSPFv3", RFC 4552, DOI 10.17487/RFC4552, June 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4552>.
[RFC5304] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "IS-IS Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 5304, DOI 10.17487/RFC5304, October
2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5304>.
[RFC5310] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Li, T., Atkinson, R., White, R.,
and M. Fanto, "IS-IS Generic Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 5310, DOI 10.17487/RFC5310, February
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5310>.
Wang, et al. Expires 19 May 2025 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IGP based NCCO November 2024
[RFC5392] Chen, M., Zhang, R., and X. Duan, "OSPF Extensions in
Support of Inter-Autonomous System (AS) MPLS and GMPLS
Traffic Engineering", RFC 5392, DOI 10.17487/RFC5392,
January 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5392>.
[RFC7684] Psenak, P., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W.,
Tantsura, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute
Advertisement", RFC 7684, DOI 10.17487/RFC7684, November
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7684>.
[RFC8362] Lindem, A., Roy, A., Goethals, D., Reddy Vallem, V., and
F. Baker, "OSPFv3 Link State Advertisement (LSA)
Extensibility", RFC 8362, DOI 10.17487/RFC8362, April
2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8362>.
[RFC9346] Chen, M., Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and D. Xiaodong, "IS-
IS Extensions in Support of Inter-Autonomous System (AS)
MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC 9346,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9346, February 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9346>.
Authors' Addresses
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
Beiqijia Town, Changping District
Beijing
102209
China
Email: wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn
Zhibo Hu
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing
100095
China
Email: huzhibo@huawei.com
Changwang
New H3C Technologies
China
Email: linchangwang.04414@h3c.com
Wang, et al. Expires 19 May 2025 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IGP based NCCO November 2024
Gyan S. Mishra
Verizon Inc.
13101 Columbia Pike
Silver Spring, MD 20904
United States of America
Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com
Wang, et al. Expires 19 May 2025 [Page 13]