PCE Working Group C. Barth
Internet-Draft Juniper Networks
Intended status: Standards Track R. Gandhi
Expires: April 6, 2018 Cisco Systems, Inc.
B. Wen
Comcast
October 3, 2017
PCEP Extensions for
Associated Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
draft-barth-pce-association-bidir-03
Abstract
The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides
mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path
computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests.
The Stateful PCE extensions allow stateful control of Multiprotocol
Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched Paths
(LSPs) using PCEP.
This document defines PCEP extensions for grouping two reverse
unidirectional MPLS TE LSPs into an Associated Bidirectional LSP when
using a Stateful PCE for both PCE-Initiated and PCC-Initiated LSPs as
well as when using a Stateless PCE.
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."
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Barth, et al. Expires April 6, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PCEP For Associated Bidirectional LSPs October 3, 2017
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
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Key Word Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Single-sided Initiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Double-sided Initiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Co-routed Associated Bidirectional LSP . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Association Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV . . . . . . . . . 7
5. PCEP Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. PCE Initiated LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. PCC Initiated LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.3. Stateless PCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.4. State Synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.5. Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.1. Association Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.2. Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV . . . . . . . . . 10
8.2.1. Flag Fields in Bidirectional LSP Association Group
TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.3. PCEP Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Barth, et al. Expires April 6, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PCEP For Associated Bidirectional LSPs October 3, 2017
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
[RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) as a
communication mechanism between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a
Path Control Element (PCE), or between PCE and PCC, that enables
computation of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic
Engineering (TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs).
[RFC8231] specifies extensions to PCEP to enable stateful control of
MPLS TE LSPs. It describes two modes of operation - Passive Stateful
PCE and Active Stateful PCE. In [RFC8231], the focus is on Active
Stateful PCE where LSPs are provisioned on the PCC and control over
them is delegated to a PCE. Further, [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-
lsp] describes the setup, maintenance and teardown of PCE-Initiated
LSPs for the Stateful PCE model.
[I-D.ietf-pce-association] introduces a generic mechanism to create a
grouping of LSPs which can then be used to define associations
between a set of LSPs and/or a set of attributes, for example primary
and secondary LSP associations, and is equally applicable to the
active and passive modes of a Stateful PCE [RFC8231] or a stateless
PCE [RFC5440].
The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) requirements document [RFC5654]
specifies that MPLS-TP MUST support associated bidirectional point-
to-point LSPs. [RFC7551] specifies RSVP signaling extensions for
binding two reverse unidirectional LSPs [RFC3209] into an associated
bidirectional LSP. The fast reroute (FRR) procedures for associated
bidirectional LSPs are described in [I-D.ietf-teas-assoc-corouted-
bidir-frr].
This document specifies PCEP extensions for grouping two reverse
unidirectional MPLS-TE LSPs into an Associated Bidirectional LSP for
both single-sided and double-sided initiation cases when using a
Stateful (both active and passive modes) or Stateless PCE. The PCEP
extensions cover the following cases:
o A PCE initiates the forward and/ or reverse LSP of a single-sided
or double-sided bidirectional LSP on a PCC and retains the control
of the LSP. The PCE computes the path of the LSP and updates the
PCC with the information about the path.
o A PCC initiates the forward and/ or reverse LSP of a single-sided
or double-sided bidirectional LSP and retains the control of the
LSP. The PCC computes the path of the LSP and reports the PCE
Barth, et al. Expires April 6, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PCEP For Associated Bidirectional LSPs October 3, 2017
with the information about the path (as long as it controls the
LSP, as in passive Stateful PCE mode).
o A PCC initiates the forward and/ or reverse LSP of a single-sided
or double-sided bidirectional LSP and delegates the control of the
LSP to a Stateful PCE. The PCE may compute the path of the LSP
and update the PCC with the information about the path (as long as
it controls the LSP, as in active Stateful PCE mode).
o A PCC requests co-routed or non co-routed paths for forward and
reverse LSPs of a bidirectional LSP from a Stateless PCE.
2. Conventions Used in This Document
2.1. Key Word Definitions
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].
2.2. Terminology
The reader is assumed to be familiar with the terminology defined in
[RFC5440], [RFC7551], [RFC8231], and [I-D.ietf-pce-association].
3. Overview
As shown in Figure 1, two reverse unidirectional LSPs can be grouped
to form an associated bidirectional LSP. There are two methods of
initiating the bidirectional LSP association, single-sided and
double-sided as described in the following sections.
LSP1 --> LSP1 --> LSP1 -->
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
| A +-----------+ B +-----------+ C +-----------+ D |
+-----+ +--+--+ +--+--+ +-----+
<-- LSP2 | | <-- LSP2
| |
| |
+--+--+ +--+--+
| E +-----------+ F |
+-----+ +-----+
<-- LSP2
Figure 1: Example of Associated Bidirectional LSP
Barth, et al. Expires April 6, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PCEP For Associated Bidirectional LSPs October 3, 2017
3.1. Single-sided Initiation
As specified in [RFC7551], in the single-sided case, the
bidirectional tunnel is provisioned only on one endpoint node (PCC)
of the tunnel. Both forward and reverse LSPs of this tunnel are
initiated with the Association Type set to "Single-sided
Bidirectional LSP Association" on the originating endpoint node. The
forward and reverse LSPs are identified in the Bidirectional LSP
Association Group TLV of their PCEP Association Objects.
The originating endpoint node signals the properties for the revere
LSP in the RSVP REVERSE_LSP Object [RFC7551] of the forward LSP Path
message. The remote endpoint then creates the corresponding reverse
tunnel and signals the reverse LSP in response to the received RSVP
Path message.
The two unidirectional reverse LSPs on the originating endpoint node
are grouped together using the PCEP Association Object and on the
remote endpoint node by the RSVP signaled Association Object.
As shown in Figure 1, the forward tunnel and both the forward LSP
LSP1 and the reverse LSP LSP2 are initiated on the originating
endpoint node A, either by the PCE or the PCC. The creation of
reverse tunnel and reverse LSP2 on the remote endpoint node D is
triggered by the RSVP signaled LSP1.
As specified in [I-D.ietf-teas-assoc-corouted-bidir-frr], for fast-
reroute bypass tunnel assignment, the LSP starting from the
originating node is identified as the forward LSP of the single-sided
initiated bidirectional LSP.
3.2. Double-sided Initiation
As specified in [RFC7551], in the double-sided case, the
bidirectional tunnel is provisioned on both endpoint nodes (PCCs) of
the tunnel. The forward and reverse LSPs of this tunnel are
initiated with the Association Type set to "Double-sided
Bidirectional LSP Association" on both endpoint nodes. The forward
and reverse LSPs are identified in the Bidirectional LSP Association
Group TLV of their Association Objects.
The two reverse unidirectional LSPs on both the endpoint nodes are
grouped together by using the PCEP Association Object.
As shown in Figure 1, the forward tunnel and LSP1 are initiated on
the endpoint node A and the reverse tunnel and LSP2 are initiated on
the endpoint node D, either by the PCE or the PCCs.
Barth, et al. Expires April 6, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PCEP For Associated Bidirectional LSPs October 3, 2017
As specified in [I-D.ietf-teas-assoc-corouted-bidir-frr], for fast-
reroute bypass tunnel assignment, the LSP with the higher Source
Address [RFC3209] is identified as the forward LSP of the double-
sided initiated bidirectional LSP.
3.3. Co-routed Associated Bidirectional LSP
In both single-sided and double-sided initiation cases, forward and
reverse LSPs may be co-routed as shown in Figure 2, where both
forward and reverse LSPs follow the same congruent path in the
forward and reverse directions, respectively.
LSP3 --> LSP3 --> LSP3 -->
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
| A +-----------+ B +-----------+ C +-----------+ D |
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
<-- LSP4 <-- LSP4 <-- LSP4
Figure 2: Example of Co-routed Associated Bidirectional LSP
4. Protocol Extensions
4.1. Association Object
As per [I-D.ietf-pce-association], LSPs are associated by adding them
to a common association group. This document defines two new
Bidirectional LSP Association Groups to be used by the associated
bidirectional LSPs. A member of the Bidirectional LSP Association
Group can take the role of a forward or reverse LSP and follows the
following rules:
o An LSP can not be part of more than one Bidirectional LSP
Association Group.
o The Tunnel (as defined in [RFC3209]) of forward and reverse LSPs
of the single-sided bidirectional association MUST be the same.
This document defines two new Association Types for the Association
Object as follows:
o Association Type (TBD1) = Single-sided Bidirectional LSP
Association Group
o Association Type (TBD2) = Double-sided Bidirectional LSP
Association Group
Barth, et al. Expires April 6, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PCEP For Associated Bidirectional LSPs October 3, 2017
These Association Types are operator-configured associations in
nature and statically created by the operator on the PCEP peers. The
LSP belonging to these associations is conveyed via PCEP messages to
the PCEP peer. Operator-configured Association Range TLV [I-D.ietf-
pce-association] SHOULD NOT be sent for these Association Types, and
MUST be ignored, so that the entire range of association ID can be
used for them.
The Association ID, Association Source, optional Global Association
Source and optional Extended Association ID in the Bidirectional LSP
Association Group Object are also operator-configured and populated
using the procedures defined in [RFC7551].
4.2. Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV
The Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV is an optional TLV for
use with the Single-sided and Double-sided Bidirectional LSP
Association Group Object Types.
o The Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV follows the PCEP TLV
format from [RFC5440].
o The Type (16 bits) of the TLV is TBD3, to be assigned by IANA.
o The Length is 4 Bytes.
o The value comprises of a single field, the Bidirectional LSP
Association Flags (32 bits), where each bit represents a flag
option.
o If the Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV is missing, it
means the LSP is the forward LSP.
o The Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV MUST NOT be present
more than once. If it appears more than once, only the first
occurrence is processed and any others MUST be ignored.
The format of the Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV is shown in
Figure 3:
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 = TBD3 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved |C|R|F|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Barth, et al. Expires April 6, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft PCEP For Associated Bidirectional LSPs October 3, 2017
Figure 3: Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV format
Bidirectional LSP Association Flags are defined as following.
F (Forward LSP, 1 bit) - Indicates whether the LSP associated is the
forward LSP of the bidirectional LSP. If this flag is set, the LSP
is a forward LSP.
R (Reverse LSP, 1 bit) - Indicates whether the LSP associated is the
reverse LSP of the bidirectional LSP. If this flag is set, the LSP
is a reverse LSP.
C (Co-routed LSP, 1 bit) - Indicates whether the bidirectional LSP is
co-routed. This flag MUST be set for both the forward and reverse
LSPs of a co-routed bidirectional LSP.
The C flag is used by the PCE (for both Stateful and Stateless) to
compute bidirectional paths of the forward and reverse LSPs.
The Reserved flags MUST be set to 0 when sent and MUST be ignored
when received.
5. PCEP Procedure
5.1. PCE Initiated LSPs
As specified in [I-D.ietf-pce-association], Association Groups can be
created by both Stateful PCE and PCC.
A Stateful PCE can create and update the forward and reverse LSPs
independently for both Single-sided and Double-sided bidirectional
LSP association groups. The establishment and removal of the
association relationship can be done on a per LSP basis. A PCE can
create and update the association of the LSP on a PCC via PCInitiate
and PCUpd messages, respectively, using the procedures described in
[I-D.ietf-pce-association].
5.2. PCC Initiated LSPs
A PCC can associate or remove an LSP under its control from the
bidirectional LSP association group. The PCC MUST report the change
in LSP association to Stateful PCE via PCRpt message.
5.3. Stateless PCE
For a stateless PCE, it might be useful to associate a path
computation request to an association group, thus enabling it to
Barth, et al. Expires April 6, 2018 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft PCEP For Associated Bidirectional LSPs October 3, 2017
associate a common set of configuration parameters or behaviors with
the request. A PCC can request co-routed or non co-routed forward
and reverse direction paths from a stateless PCE for the
bidirectional LSP association group.
5.4. State Synchronization
During state synchronization, a PCC MUST report all the existing
bidirectional LSP association groups to the Stateful PCE. After the
state synchronization, the PCE MUST remove all stale bidirectional
associations.
5.5. Error Handling
The LSPs (forward or reverse) in a single-sided bidirectional LSP
association group MUST belong to the same TE Tunnel (as defined in
[RFC3209]). If a PCE attempts to add an LSP in a single-sided
bidirectional LSP association group for a different Tunnel, the PCC
MUST send PCErr with Error-Type = TBD4 (Bidirectional LSP Association
Error) and Error-Value = 1 (Tunnel mismatch). Similarly, if a PCC
attempts to add an LSP to a single-sided bidirectional LSP
association group at PCE not complying to this rule, the PCE MUST
send this PCErr.
6. Security Considerations
The security considerations described in [RFC5440], [RFC8231], and
[I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] apply to the extensions defined in
this document as well.
Two new Association Types for the Association Object, Double-sided
Bidirectional LSP Association Group and Single-sided Associated
Bidirectional LSP Group are introduced in this document. Additional
security considerations related to LSP associations due to a
malicious PCEP speaker is described in [I-D.ietf-pce-association] and
apply to these Association Types. Thus, securing the PCEP session
using Transport Layer Security (TLS) [I-D.ietf-pce-pceps] is
recommended.
7. Manageability Considerations
7.1. Control of Function and Policy
The mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any control or
policy requirements in addition to those already listed in [RFC5440],
[RFC8231], and [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp].
Barth, et al. Expires April 6, 2018 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft PCEP For Associated Bidirectional LSPs October 3, 2017
7.2. Information and Data Models
[RFC7420] describes the PCEP MIB, there are no new MIB Objects
defined for LSP associations.
The PCEP YANG module [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] supports LSP
associations.
7.3. 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], [RFC8231], and [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp].
7.4. 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 [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp].
7.5. Requirements On Other Protocols
The mechanisms defined in this document do not add any new
requirements on other protocols.
7.6. Impact On Network Operations
The mechanisms defined in this document do not have any impact on
network operations in addition to those already listed in [RFC5440],
[RFC8231], and [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp].
8. IANA Considerations
8.1. Association Types
This document adds new Association Types for the Association Object
defined [I-D.ietf-pce-association]. IANA is requested to make the
assignment of values for the sub-registry "ASSOCIATION Type Field"
(to be created in [I-D.ietf-pce-association]), as follows:
Value Name Reference
---------------------------------------------------------------------
TBD1 Single-sided Bidirectional LSP Association Group [This document]
TBD2 Double-sided Bidirectional LSP Association Group [This document]
8.2. Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV
Barth, et al. Expires April 6, 2018 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft PCEP For Associated Bidirectional LSPs October 3, 2017
This document defines a new TLV for carrying additional information
of LSPs within a Bidirectional LSP Association Group. IANA is
requested to add the assignment of a new value in the existing "PCEP
TLV Type Indicators" registry as follows:
TLV-Type Name Reference
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TBD3 Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV [This document]
8.2.1. Flag Fields in Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV
This document requests that a new sub-registry, named "Bidirectional
LSP Association Group TLV Flag Field", is created within the "Path
Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry to manage the
Flag field in the Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV. New
values are to be assigned by Standards Action [RFC8126]. Each bit
should be tracked with the following qualities:
o Bit number (count from 0 as the most significant bit)
o Description
o Reference
The following values are defined in this document for the Flag field.
Bit No. Description Reference
---------------------------------------------------------
31 F - Forward LSP [This document]
30 R - Reverse LSP [This document]
29 C - Co-routed LSP [This document]
8.3. PCEP Errors
IANA is requested to allocate new Error-Type and Error-Value related
to bidirectional LSP association within the " PCEP-ERROR Object Error
Types and Values" sub-registry of the PCEP Numbers registry, as
follows:
Error-Type Description Reference
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TBD4 Bidirectional LSP Association Error [This document]
Error-value=1: Tunnel mismatch [This document]
Barth, et al. Expires April 6, 2018 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft PCEP For Associated Bidirectional LSPs October 3, 2017
9. References
9.1. 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>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
March 2009.
[RFC7551] Zhang, F., Ed., Jing, R., and R. Gandhi, Ed., "RSVP-TE
Extensions for Associated Bidirectional LSPs", RFC 7551,
May 2015.
[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>.
[RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Pah
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231, DOI
10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc8231>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-association] Minei, I., Crabbe, E., Sivabalan, S.,
Ananthakrishnan, H., Dhody, D., and Y. Tanaka, "PCEP
Extensions for Establishing Relationships Between Sets of
LSPs", draft-ietf-pce-association-group (work in
progress).
[I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan,
S., and R. Varga, "PCEP Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP
Setup in a Stateful PCE Model", draft-ietf-pce-pce-
initiated-lsp (work in progress).
[I-D.ietf-teas-assoc-corouted-bidir-frr] Gandhi, R., Ed., Shah, H.,
and J. Whittaker, "Fast Reroute Procedures for Associated
Bidirectional Label Switched Paths", draft-ietf-teas-
assoc-corouted-bidir-frr (work-in-progress).
Barth, et al. Expires April 6, 2018 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft PCEP For Associated Bidirectional LSPs October 3, 2017
9.2. Informative References
[RFC5654] Niven-Jenkins, B., Ed., Brungard, D., Ed., Betts, M., Ed.,
Sprecher, N., and S. Ueno, "Requirements of an MPLS
Transport Profile", RFC 5654, September 2009.
[RFC7420] Koushik, A., Stephan, E., Zhao, Q., King, D., and J.
Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
(PCEP) Management Information Base (MIB) Module", RFC
7420, December 2014.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pceps] Lopez, D., Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody,
"Secure Transport for PCEP", draft-ietf-pce-pceps (work in
progress).
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V., and J.
Tantsura, "A YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element
Communications Protocol (PCEP)", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang
(work in progress).
Barth, et al. Expires April 6, 2018 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft PCEP For Associated Bidirectional LSPs October 3, 2017
Acknowledgments
TBA.
Authors' Addresses
Colby Barth
Juniper Networks
Email: cbarth@juniper.net
Rakesh Gandhi
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: rgandhi@cisco.com
Bin Wen
Comcast
Email: Bin_Wen@cable.comcast.com
Barth, et al. Expires April 6, 2018 [Page 14]