Extensions to Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) to Support Resource Sharing-based Path Computation
draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Expired".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Xian Zhang , Haomian Zheng , Oscar Gonzalez de Dios , Victor Lopez | ||
| Last updated | 2014-02-13 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing-00
CCAMP Working Group Xian Zhang
Internet Draft Haomian Zheng
Category: Standards track Huawei
Oscar Gonzales de Dios
Victor Lopez
Telefonica I+D
Expires: August 14, 2014 February 14, 2014
Extensions to Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) to Support
Resource Sharing-based Path Computation
draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing-00.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with
the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 14, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
Zhang et al Expires August 2014 [Page 1]
draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing-00.txt February 2014
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.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Abstract
Resource sharing in a network means two or more Label Switched Paths
(LSPs) use common piece(s) of resource along their paths. This can
help save network resource and useful in scenarios such as LSP
recovery or two LSPs do not need to be active at the same time. A
Path Computation Element (PCE) is a centralized entity, responsible
for path calculation. Given this feature and its access to the
network resource information and possibly active LSPs information,
it can be used to support resource-sharing-based path computation
with better efficiency.
This document extends the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP)
in order to support resource sharing-based path computation.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction and Motivation.................................. 3
2. Motivation .................................................. 4
2.1. Use Case 1 ............................................. 4
2.2. Use Case 2 ............................................. 5
3. Extensions to PCEP .......................................... 7
3.1. Resource Sharing Object................................. 7
3.2. Processing Rules........................................ 9
3.3. Carrying RSO in a PCEP Message .........................10
4. Security Considerations..................................... 11
5. IANA Considerations ........................................ 12
5.1. New Object Type........................................ 12
6. References ................................................. 13
6.1. Normative References................................... 13
6.2. Informative References................................. 13
7. Authors' Addresses ......................................... 13
Zhang et al Expires August 2014 [Page 2]
draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing-00.txt February 2014
1. Introduction and Motivation
A Path Computation Element (PCE) provides an alternative way for
providing path computation function, and it is especially useful in
the scenarios where complex constraints and/or a demanding amount of
computation resource are required [RFC4655]. The development of PCE
standardization has evolved from stateless to stateful. A stateful
PCE has access to the LSP database information of the network(s) it
serves as a computation engine [Stateful-PCE]. Unless specified
otherwise, this document assumes a PCE mentioned is a stateful PCE
(either passive or active).
Resource sharing denotes that two or more Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
share common piece(s) of resource, (such as a common time slot of a
link in an Optical Transport Network (OTN)). This is usually useful
in the scenario where only one LSP is active and the benefit herein
is to save network resources. A simple example of this is
dynamically calculating a LSP for an existing LSP undergoing a link
failure. Note that the resource sharing can be worked out using a
statelss PCE, but the mechanism may be complex and is out the scope
of this draft.
This document considers the following requirement: resource sharing
with one or multiple existing LSPs. In a single domain, this is a
common requirement in the recovery cases especially in order to
increase traffic resilience against failure while reducing the amount
of network resource used for recovery purpose [RFC4428].
The current protocol supporting the communication between a PCE and
a Path Computation Client (PCC), i.e. PCE Protocol (PCEP), allows
for re-optimization of an existing LSP [RFC5440]. This is achieved
by setting R bit in the Request Parameter (RP) object, together with
some additional information if applicable, in the Path Computation
Request (PCReq) message sent from a PCC to the PCE. To support this
type of resource sharing, a PCC needs to ask a PCE to compute a new
path with the constraints of sharing resource with one or multiple
existing LSPs. Current PCEP specifications do not provide such
function.
As mentioned in [stateful-PCE], the standardization of stateful PCEs
also facilitates PCEP to meet this requirement since a LSP can be
identified using a unique number. This simplifies configuration of
PCCs by making it simpler to for a PCC to request resource sharing
without having to determine all of the resources to be shared.
Zhang et al Expires August 2014 [Page 3]
draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing-00.txt February 2014
The resource sharing can also be required across layers. This is
similar to the previous requirement. However, it is more complex and
therefore deserves a more detailed explanation here.
In a multi-layer network, Label Switched Paths (LSPs) in a lower
layer are used to carry higher-layer LSPs across the lower-layer
network [RFC5623]. Therefore, the resource sharing constraints in
the higher layer might actually relate to the resource sharing in
the lower layer. Thus, it is useful to consider how this can be
achieved and whether additional extensions are needed using the
models defined in [RFC5623].
In the next sections, use cases are provided to show what
information needs to be exchanged to fulfill these requirements.
This memo then provides extensions to PCEP to enable this function.
2. Motivation
2.1. Use Case 1
Figure 1 shows a single domain network with a stateful PCE. Assume a
working LSP (N1-N2-N3) exists in the network. When there is failure
on the link N2-N3, it is desired to set up a restoration path for
this working LSP. Suppose N1 serves as the PCC and sends a request
to the stateful PCE for such an LSP. Before sending the request, N1
may need to check what policy is configured locally on N1. For
example, it might value resource sharing more than effectiveness.
Effectiveness here denotes whether the traffic can be diverted back
to the working LSP immediately once the failure on the working LSP
is repaired. In this case, it would prefer to share as much resource
with the working LSP as possible and specify this in the PCReq
message.
On the other hand, if N1 considers effectiveness more important, it
would prefer to share as few resources as possible. Note this is
different from path diversity, since diversity is a much stricter
requirement and it would cause path computation failure if the
diverse recovery path cannot be found. A simple illustration is
provided below:
Zhang et al Expires August 2014 [Page 4]
draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing-00.txt February 2014
+--------------+
| |
| Stateful PCE |
| |
+--------------+
+------+ +------+ +------+
| N1 +----------+ N2 +-----X---+ N3 |
+--+---+ +---+--+ +---+--+
| | |
| +---------+ |
| | |
| +------+ +------+ |
+-----+ N5 +----------+ N4 +-----+
+------+ +------+
Figure 1: A Single Domain Example
Available recovery paths computed by the stateful PCE:
LSP1: N1-N2-N4-N3
LSP2: N1-N5-N4-N3
If resource sharing is preferred, the stateful PCE will reply with
LSP1 information. Instead, if effectiveness is valued higher, it
will reply with LSP2 information.
Another piece of information that needs to be conveyed to the PCE is
the information about the working path LSP. Note this simple use
case assumes end-to-end recovery. But in order to be applicable to
use cases such as shared mesh protection purpose, where the head-end
and tail-end nodes may be different, this information is necessary
in the message exchange between PCCs and PCEs, so that the stateful
PCE knows which LSP the path computation request wants to share the
resource with.
2.2. Use Case 2
Figure 2 shows a two-layer network example, with each layer managed
by a PCE (referred as PCE Hi for higher layer and PCE Lo for lower
layer later). As Discussed in Section 3 of [RFC5623], there are
three models for inter-layer path computation. They are single PCE
computation, multiple PCE with inter-PCE communication and multiple
PCE without inter-PCE communication, respectively. For the single
Zhang et al Expires August 2014 [Page 5]
draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing-00.txt February 2014
PCE computation, the process would be similar to that of the use
case in Section 2.1. Thus, this model is not discussed further.
.................................| LSR |
.: | H5 |
.: /-----
.: / |
----- -----.: ----- -----/ |
| LSR |--| LSR |.......................| LSR |--| LSR | /
| H1 | | H2 | | H3 | | H4 | /
----- -----\ /----- ----- /
\ / /
\ / /
\ / /
\ / /
\----- -----/ /
| LSR |-| LSR | /
| L1 | | L2 | /
----- -----\ /
| \ /
| \ /
| \ /
----- \-----/
| LSR |-----------| LSR |
| L3 | | L4 |
----- -----
Figure 2: A Two-layer Network Example
In this example, assume a LSP (LSP1: H2-H3) has been established
already. A new request comes at H2 to establish a new LSP (LSP2:
from H2 to H5), given the constraint it can share resource with LSP1.
This requirement is possible if only one of the LSPs needs to be
active and resource sharing is the target.
If multiple PCE with inter-PCE communication model is employed, the
path computation request sent by H2 to PCE Hi will be passed to PCE
Lo since there is no resource readily available in the upper layer.
So it leaves to the PCE Lo to compute a path in the lower layer in
order to support the upper layer request. In this case, PCE Lo is
required to compute a path between H2 and H5 under the constraint
that it can share the resource with that of the LSP1. Assume here
LSP1 goes from H2, via L1-L2 to H3. So when PCE Lo computes the path
for LSP2, it can view the resource used by LSP1 available. For
example, PCE Lo may choose H2-L1-L2-L4-H5 as the computation result.
Zhang et al Expires August 2014 [Page 6]
draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing-00.txt February 2014
The issue to solve during this procedure is that PCE Hi can only use
LSP1 information (such as its five-tuple LSP information) as the
information, how PCE Lo can resolve this information to the actual
resource usage in its own layer, i.e. lower layer. This could be
solved by edge LSR L1 reporting this higher-lower layer LSP
correlation to the Lo PCE as part of the LSP information during the
LSP state synchronization process. If needed, it can be later
updated when there is a change in this information. Alternatively,
the PCE Lo can get this information from other sources, such as
network management system, where this information should be stored.
If multiple PCE without inter-PCE communication model is employed,
the path computation request in the lower layer will be initiated
the border LSR node, i.e., L1. The process would be similar to that
of the previous scenario. A point worth noting is that the border
LSR node may be able to resolve the higher LSP information itself,
such as mapping it to the corresponding LSP in the lower layer, thus
PCE Lo do not need to perform this function. Otherwise, the method
mentioned above can still be used.
3. Extensions to PCEP
This section provides PCEP extensions to allow a PCC to specify
resource sharing when sending a PCReq message. It also details the
processing rule and error codes needed.
3.1. Resource Sharing Object
The PCEP Resource Sharing Object (RSO) is optional. It MAY be
carried within a PCRep message so as to indicate the desired
resource sharing requirements to be applied by the stateful PCE
during path computation.
The RSO object format is compliant with the PCEP object format
defined in [RFC5440].
The RSO Object-Class is TBA.
The RSO Object-type is 1.
The format of the RSO object body is:
Zhang et al Expires August 2014 [Page 7]
draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing-00.txt February 2014
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| RSO codes |R|D| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Optional TLVs ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: RSO Object Format
RSO codes (16 bits): the objective of the resource sharing.
Currently, the following objectives are defined:
D (1 bit): sharing as little as possible.
R (1 bit): sharing as much as possible
If D and R are both set to 0, it denotes the requesting node only
requires resource sharing without further constraint (i.e., the
extent of resource sharing). The combination of D=1 and R=1 is not
allowed.
Reserved (2 bytes): This field MUST be set to zero on transmission
and MUST be ignored on receipt.
Optional TLVs may be needed to indicate the LSP with which the
resource is shared. The LSP Info TLV is defined as follows, for IPv4
and IPv6 addresses respectively
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=[TBD] | Length=20 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 tunnel end point address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0 | Tunnel ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Extended Tunnel ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 tunnel sender address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0 | LSP ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: IPv4 LSP Info TLV
Zhang et al Expires August 2014 [Page 8]
draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing-00.txt February 2014
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=[TBD] | Length=44 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 tunnel end point address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 tunnel end point address (cont.) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 tunnel end point address (cont.) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 tunnel end point address (cont.) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0 | Tunnel ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Extended Tunnel ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 tunnel sender address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 tunnel end point address (cont.) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 tunnel end point address (cont.) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 tunnel end point address (cont.) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0 | LSP ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: IPv6 LSP Info TLV
3.2. Processing Rules
To request a path allowing sharing resource with one or multiple
existing LSPs, a PCC includes a RSO object in the PCReq message.
On receipt of a PCReq message with a RSO object, a stateful PCE MUST
proceed as follows:
- If the RSO object is unknown/unsupported, the PCE will follow
procedures defined in [RFC5440]. That is, the PCE sends a PCErr
message with error type 3 or 4 (Unknown / Not supported object)
and error value 1 or 2 (unknown / unsupported object class /
object type), and the related path computation request is
discarded.
Zhang et al Expires August 2014 [Page 9]
draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing-00.txt February 2014
- If TLV(s) present in the RSO object are unknown/unsupported and
the P bit is set, the PCE MUST send a PCErr message with error
type 3 or 4 (Unknown / Not supported object) and error value 4
(Unrecognized/Unsupported parameter), and the related path
computation request MUST be discarded as defined in [RFC5440].
- If the resource sharing information is extracted correctly, the
PCE MUST apply the requested resource sharing requirement.
If the received RSO has D bit set, the PCE will find a path that
shares as much resources as possible with the specified LSP(s).
Otherwise, if S bit is set, the PCE will find a path that shares as
little resources as possible with the specified LSP(s). The RSO
codes may be locally configured on the requesting nodes via external
entities, such as a network management system or the entity that
impose the resource sharing requirement.
3.3. Carrying RSO in a PCEP Message
The RSO is applied to an individual path computation request and the
format of the PCReq message is updated as follows:
<PCReq Message> ::= <Common Header>
[<svec-list>]
<request-list>
where:
<svec-list> ::= <SVEC>
[<OF>]
[<metric-list>]
[<svec-list>]
<request-list> ::= <request> [<request-list>]
<request> ::= <RP>
<END-POINTS>
Zhang et al Expires August 2014 [Page 10]
draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing-00.txt February 2014
[<LSPA>]
[<BANDWIDTH>]
[<metric-list>]
[<OF>]
[<RRO>[<BANDWIDTH>]]
[<IRO>]
[<RSO>]
[<LOAD-BALANCING>]
and where:
<metric-list> ::= <METRIC>[<metric-list>]
4. Security Considerations
Security of PCEP is discussed in [RFC5440] and [RFC6952]. The
extensions in this document do not change the fundamentals of
security for PCEP.
However, the introduction of the RSO provides a vector that may be
used to probe for information from a network. For example, a PCC
that wants to discover the path of an LSP with which it is not
involved, can issue a PCReq with an RSO and may be able to get back
quite a lot of information about the path of the LSP through issuing
multiple such requests for different endpoints and analyzing the
received results. To protect against this, a PCE should be
configured with access and authorization controls such that only
authorized PCCs (for example, those within the network) can make
computation requests, only specifically authorized PCCs can make
requests using the RSO, and resource sharing requests relating to
specific LSPs are further limited to a select few PCCs. How such
access controls and authorization is managed is outside the scope of
this document, but it will at the least include Access Control Lists.
Furthermore, a PCC must be aware that setting up an LSP that shares
resources with another LSP may be a way of attacking the other LSP,
for example by depriving it of the resources it needs to operate
correctly. Thus it is important that, both in PCEP and the
associated signaling protocols, only authorized resource sharing is
allowed.
Zhang et al Expires August 2014 [Page 11]
draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing-00.txt February 2014
5. IANA Considerations
5.1. New Object Type
IANA manages the PCEP Objects code point registry (see [RFC5440]).
This is maintained as the "PCEP Objects" sub-registry of the "Path
Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry.
This document defines a new PCEP object, the RSO object, to be
carried in PCReq messages. IANA is requested to make the following
allocation in the "PCEP Objects" sub-registry:
Object Name Object Name Reference
Class Type
------------------------------------------------------------
TBA RSO Resource Sharing [this document]
5.2 New RSO TLVs
IANA is request to create and maintain a new sub-registry named "RSO
TLVs" and include the following TLVs:
Value Description Reference
1 IPv4 LSP Info TLV [this document]
2 IPv6 LSP Info TLV [this document]
5.3 RSO codes
IANA is requested to create and maintain a new sub-registry named
"RSO codes". The following codes are defined in this document:
Bit Code Name Meaning Reference
0 D sharing as much as possible
[this document]
1 R sharing as little as possible
[this document]
Zhang et al Expires August 2014 [Page 12]
draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing-00.txt February 2014
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to indicate
requirements levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and Ash, J., "A Path
Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
August 2006.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, J.-P., and Le Roux, JL., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
March 2009.
[Stateful-PCE] Crabbe, E., Medved, J., Minei, I., and R. Varga,
"PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE", draft-ietf-pce-
stateful-pce-07 (work in progress), October 2013.
6.2. Informative References
[RFC4428] Papadimitriou, D., Mannie., E., "Analysis of Generalized
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)-based Recovery
Mechanisms (including Protection and Restoration)",
RFC4428, March 2006.
[RFC5623] Oki., E., Takeda, T., Le Roux, JL., Farrel, A., "Framework
for PCE-Based Inter-Layer MPLS and GMPLS Traffic
Engineering", RFC5623, September 2009.
[RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., Zheng, L., "Analysis of BGP,
LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying and
Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design Guide",
RFC6952, May 2013.
7. Authors' Addresses
Xian Zhang
Huawei Technologies
Email: zhang.xian@huawei.com
Haomian Zheng
Zhang et al Expires August 2014 [Page 13]
draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing-00.txt February 2014
Huawei Technologies
Email: zhenghaomian@huawei.com
Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
Telefonica I+D
Don Ramon de la Cruz 82-84
Madrid 28045
Spain
EMail: ogondio@tid.es
Victor Lopez
Telefonica I+D
Don Ramon de la Cruz 82-84
Madrid 28045
Spain
EMail: vlopez@tid.es
Zhang et al Expires August 2014 [Page 14]