PCE Working Group D. Dhody
Internet-Draft U. Palle
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies
Expires: September 6, 2015 R. Singh
Juniper Networks
March 5, 2015
PCEP Extensions for MPLS-TE LSP Automatic Bandwidth Adjustment with
stateful PCE
draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-04
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 provide stateful control of Multiprotocol
Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE
LSP) via PCEP, for a model where the PCC delegates control over one
or more locally configured LSPs to the PCE.
This document describes the automatic bandwidth adjustment of such
LSPs under the Active Stateful PCE model.
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 September 6, 2015.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Dhody, et al. Expires September 6, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft AUTO-BW March 2015
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Architectural Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Auto-Bandwidth Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Deploying Auto-Bandwidth Feature . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Extensions to the PCEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTE TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. BANDWIDTH Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.3. The PCRpt Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.4. The PCInitiate Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.2. AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.3. BANDWIDTH Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
[RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) as
the communication between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a Path
Control Element (PCE), or between PCE and PCE, enabling computation
Dhody, et al. Expires September 6, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft AUTO-BW March 2015
of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) for Traffic Engineering Label
Switched Path (TE LSP).
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] specifies extensions to PCEP to enable
stateful control of MPLS TE LSPs. In this document focus is on
Active Stateful PCE where LSPs are configured on the PCC and control
over them is delegated to the PCE.
Over time, based on the varying traffic pattern, an LSP established
with certain bandwidth may require to adjust the reserved bandwidth
over time automatically. Ingress Label Switch Router (LSR) samples
the traffic rate at each sample-interval (BwSample) to determine the
traffic information as Maximum Average Bandwidth (MaxAvgBw). Further
adjustment to the reserved bandwidth should be made at every
adjustment-interval automatically.
Enabling Auto-Bandwidth on a LSP results in the LSP automatically
adjusting its bandwidth based on the actual traffic flowing through
the LSP. A LSP can therefore be setup with some arbitrary (or zero)
bandwidth value such that the LSP automatically monitors the traffic
flow and adjusts its bandwidth every adjustment-interval period. The
bandwidth adjustment uses the make-before-break signaling method so
that there is no interruption to traffic flow. This is described in
detail in Section 4.1. [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app] describes the
usecase for auto-bandwidth adjustment for passive and active stateful
PCE.
There are two approaches to automatic bandwidth adjustments in case
of active stateful PCE -
o PCE to decide adjusted bandwidth:
* Active stateful PCE can use other information such as
historical trending data, application-specific information
about expected demands and central policy information along
with realtime actual flow volumes to make smarter bandwidth
adjustment to delegated LSPs. Since LSP has delegated control
to the PCE, it is inherently suited that it should be stateful
PCE that decides the bandwidth adjustments. But this requires
PCC to report the realtime bandwidth usage as well as the
configuration knobs etc.
o PCC to decide adjusted bandwidth:
* This approach would be similar to passive stateful PCE model,
where the headend (PCC) monitor and calculate the new adjusted
bandwidth and request the computed adjusted bandwidth to be
updated. The passive stateful PCE would use path request/reply
Dhody, et al. Expires September 6, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft AUTO-BW March 2015
mechanism where as in active stateful PCE report/update
mechanism is used to adjust the bandwidth. This approach only
require PCC to report the calculated bandwidth to be adjusted.
But this approach does not utilize the optimization advantages
offered by the active stateful PCE.
This document defines extensions needed to support Auto-Bandwidth
feature along with mechanism to provide traffic information of the
LSPs in a stateful PCE model using PCEP.
This document does not exclude use of any other mechanism employed by
stateful PCE to learn real time traffic information etc. But at the
same time, using the same protocol (PCEP in this case) for updating
and reporting the LSP parameters as well as to support automatic
bandwidth adjustment is operationally beneficial.
1.1. 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].
2. Terminology
The following terminology is used in this document.
Active Stateful PCE: PCE that uses tunnel state information learned
from PCCs to optimize path computations. Additionally, it
actively updates tunnel parameters in those PCCs that delegated
control over their tunnels to the PCE.
Delegation: :An operation to grant a PCE temporary rights to modify
a subset of tunnel parameters on one or more PCC's tunnels.
Tunnels are delegated from a PCC to a PCE.
PCC: Path Computation Client: any client application requesting a
path computation to be performed by a Path Computation Element.
PCE: Path Computation Element. An entity (component, application,
or network node) that is capable of computing a network path or
route based on a network graph and applying computational
constraints.
TE LSP: Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path.
Note the additional terms defined in Section 4.1.
Dhody, et al. Expires September 6, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft AUTO-BW March 2015
3. Motivation
An active stateful PCE can update the bandwidth for a delegated LSP
via mechanisms described in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]. Note that
further extension are needed because of following reasons:
1. To identify the LSPs that would like to use this feature. Not
all LSPs in some deployments would like their bandwidth to be
dependent on the live traffic but be constant as set by the
operator. Incase of PCC initiated LSP, they would be configured
at PCC and PCEP should support a mechanism to identify the LSP
with auto bandwidth feature enabled at the PCE. Where as for PCE
initiated LSP, PCEP should support mechanims to request PCC to
provide live traffic information.
2. Further for LSP with auto bandwidth feature enabled, operator
should be able to specify the knobs to control this feature like
the bandwidth-range etc and PCEP should support their encoding.
3. PCC would need to report the live traffic information using the
same protocol (PCEP in this case) making the network operations
easier.
Extensions as specified in this document is one of the way for PCE to
learn this information. But at the same time a stateful PCE MAY
choose to learn this information from other means like management,
performance tools.
4. Architectural Overview
4.1. Auto-Bandwidth Overview
Auto-Bandwidth feature allows an LSP to automatically and dynamically
adjust its reserved bandwidth over time, i.e. without network
operator intervention. The bandwidth adjustment uses the make-
before-break adaptive signaling method so that there is no
interruption to traffic flow.
The new bandwidth reservation is determined by sampling the actual
traffic flowing through the LSP. If the traffic flowing through the
LSP is lower than the configured or current bandwidth of the LSP, the
extra bandwidth is being reserved needlessly and being wasted.
Conversely, if the actual traffic flowing through the LSP is higher
than the configured or current bandwidth of the LSP, it can
potentially cause congestion or packet loss. With Auto-Bandwidth
feature, the LSP bandwidth can be set to some arbitrary value (even
zero) during initial setup time, and it will be periodically adjusted
over time based on the actual bandwidth requirement.
Dhody, et al. Expires September 6, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft AUTO-BW March 2015
Note the following terms:
Maximum Average Bandwidth (MaxAvgBw): The maximum average bandwidth
is the unit to measure the current traffic demand between a time
interval. This is the maximum value of the averaged traffic
pattern in a particular time interval.
Sample-Interval: The time interval in which the traffic rate is
collected as a sample.
Adjustment-Interval: The time interval in which the bandwidth
adjustment should be made based on the MaxAvgBw.
Minimum Bandwidth: The minimum bandwidth that should be reserved for
the LSP.
Maximum Bandwidth: The maximum bandwidth that can be reserved for
the LSP.
Report-Threshold: This value indicates when the current live traffic
bandwidth sample (BwSample) must be reported to stateful PCE via
PCRpt message. Only if the percentage difference between the
current BwSample and the last BwSample is greater than or equal to
the threshold percentage the LSP bandwidth is reported to PCE.
Adjust-Threshold: This value indicates when the bandwidth must be
adjusted. Only if the percentage difference between the current
MaxAvgBw and the current bandwidth allocation is greater than or
equal to the threshold percentage the LSP bandwidth is adjusted to
the current bandwidth demand.
4.2. Deploying Auto-Bandwidth Feature
The traffic rate is repeatedly sampled at each sample-interval (which
can be configured by the user and the default value as 5 minutes).
The sampled traffic rates are accumulated over the adjustment-
interval period (which can be configured by the user and the default
value as 24 hours).
The ingress LSR reports the live traffic information to the stateful
PCE via the PCRpt message, to avoid multiple reports, the Report-
Threshold percentage is used. Only if the percentage difference
between the current BwSample and the last BwSample is greater than or
equal to the threshold percentage the LSP bandwidth is reported to
PCE.
Stateful PCE will adjust the bandwidth of the LSP to the highest
sampled traffic rate amongst the set of samples taken over the
Dhody, et al. Expires September 6, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft AUTO-BW March 2015
adjustment-interval. Note that the highest sampled traffic rate
could be higher or lower than the current LSP bandwidth. Only if the
current MaxAvgBw and the current bandwidth allocation is greater than
or equal to the Adjust-Threshold percentage the LSP bandwidth is
adjusted to the current bandwidth demand.
Also to avoid multiple LSP re-signaling, sometimes operator set up
longer adjustment intervals. However long adjustment-interval can
also result in an undesirable effect of masking sudden changes in
traffic patterns. To avoid this, the stateful PCE MAY pre-maturely
expire the adjustment-interval to accommodate sudden bursts in
traffic.
5. Extensions to the PCEP
5.1. AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTE TLV
The AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTE TLV can be included as an optional TLV
in the LSP object as described in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce].
Whenever the LSP with Auto-Bandwidth feature enabled is delegated,
AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTE TLV is carried in PCRpt message. The TLV
provides PCE with the 'local configurable knobs' of this feature. In
case of PCE Initiated LSP ([I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]) with
this feature enabled, this TLV is included in LSP object with
PCInitiate message.
The format of the AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTE TLV is shown in the
following figure:
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=16 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sample Int | Adj Int | Rpt Threshold | Adj Threshold |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Minimum Bandwidth |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Maximum Bandwidth |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Flags |L|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTE TLV format
The type of the TLV is [TBD] and it has a fixed length of 16 octets.
Dhody, et al. Expires September 6, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft AUTO-BW March 2015
The value contains the following fields:
Sample Int (8 bits): The Sample-Interval, time interval in which the
traffic rate is collected at the PCC.
Adj Int (8 bits): The Adjustment-Interval, time interval in which
the bandwidth adjustment should be made.
Rpt Threshold (8 bits): The Report-Threshold value is encoded in
percentage. Only if the percentage difference between the between
the current BwSample and the last BwSample is greater than or
equal to the threshold percentage the real time bandwidth sample
is reported to PCE.
Adj Threshold (8 bits): The Adjust-Threshold value is encoded in
percentage. Only if the percentage difference between the current
MaxAvgBw and the current bandwidth allocation is greater than or
equal to the threshold percentage the LSP bandwidth is adjusted to
the current bandwidth demand.
Minimum Bandwidth (32 bits): The minimum bandwidth allowed is
encoded in IEEE floating point format (see [IEEE.754.1985]),
expressed in bytes per second. Refer to Section 3.1.2 of
[RFC3471] for a table of commonly used values.
Maximum Bandwidth (32 bits): The maximum bandwidth allowed is
encoded in IEEE floating point format (see [IEEE.754.1985]),
expressed in bytes per second. Refer to Section 3.1.2 of
[RFC3471] for a table of commonly used values.
Flags (16 bits): One flag is currently defined:
* L (Live-Traffic - 1 bit): If set, PCC SHOULD report the live
traffic information flowing on the LSP as per the Report-
Threshold set. Otherwise PCC only reports the calculated
bandwidth to be adjusted to the PCE.
Unassigned flags MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be
ignored on receipt.
Reserved (16 bits): This field MUST be set to zero on transmission
and MUST be ignored on receipt.
If the above parameters are not specified by the user, based on the
local policy at Ingress (PCC) the default value can be encoded.
Dhody, et al. Expires September 6, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft AUTO-BW March 2015
If no default value is specified at Ingress, value 'zero' can be
encoded for the particular field. The stateful PCE can then apply
its own default value based on the local policy.
5.2. BANDWIDTH Object
As per [RFC5440], the BANDWIDTH object is defined with two Object-
Type values:
o Requested Bandwidth: BANDWIDTH Object-Type is 1.
o Re-optimization Bandwidth: Bandwidth of an existing TE LSP for
which a reoptimization is requested. BANDWIDTH Object-Type is 2.
The new BANDWIDTH object type 3 [TBD] is used to specify the BwSample
determined from the existing TE LSP Traffic flow at every sample-
interval when L bit is set in AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTE TLV. The
Report-Threshold percentage is used to determine if there is a need
to report the current BwSample.
If Live-Traffic (L-Bit) is not set, PCC only reports the calculated
bandwidth to be adjusted (MaxAvgBw) to the PCE. This is done via the
existing 'Requested Bandwidth with BANDWIDTH Object-Type as 1'.
5.3. The PCRpt Message
When the delegated LSP is enabled with the Auto-Bandwidth adjustment
feature with Live-Traffic (L-Bit) set, PCC SHOULD include the
BANDWIDTH object of type 3 [TBD] in the PCRpt message. The
definition of the PCRpt message (see [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]) is
unchanged.
When LSP is delegated to a PCE for the very first time, BANDWIDTH
object of type 1 is used to specify the requested bandwidth in the
PCRpt message. To report the live traffic flow information (as the
BwSample) the BANDWIDTH object of type 3 [TBD] is encoded in further
PCRpt message.
If Live-Traffic (L-Bit) is not set, PCC SHOULD include the BANDWIDTH
object of type 1 to specify the he calculated bandwidth to be
adjusted to the PCE.
5.4. The PCInitiate Message
For PCE Initiated LSP ([I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]) with Auto-
Bandwidth feature enabled, AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTE TLV is included
in LSP object with the PCInitiate message. The rest of the
processing remains unchanged.
Dhody, et al. Expires September 6, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft AUTO-BW March 2015
6. Security Considerations
This document defines a new BANDWIDTH type and AUTO-BANDWIDTH-
ATTRIBUTE TLV which does not add any new security concerns beyond
those discussed in [RFC5440] and [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] in
itself. Some deployments may find the live traffic bandwidth
information as extra sensitive and thus should employ suitable PCEP
security mechanisms like TCP-AO or [I-D.ietf-pce-pceps].
7. Manageability Considerations
7.1. Control of Function and Policy
The Auto-Bandwidth feature MUST BE controlled per tunnel at Ingress
(PCC), the values for parameters like sample-interval, adjustment-
interval, minimum-bandwidth, maximum-bandwidth, report-threshold,
adjust-threshold, Live-Traffic (L-Bit) SHOULD BE configurable by an
operator.
7.2. Information and Data Models
[RFC7420] describes the PCEP MIB, there are no new MIB Objects for
this document.
7.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness
detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already
listed in [RFC5440].
7.4. Verify Correct Operations
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new operation
verification requirements in addition to those already listed in
[RFC5440].
7.5. Requirements On Other Protocols
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new requirements
on other protocols.
7.6. Impact On Network Operations
Mechanisms defined in this document do not have any impact on network
operations in addition to those already listed in [RFC5440].
Dhody, et al. Expires September 6, 2015 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft AUTO-BW March 2015
8. IANA Considerations
8.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators
This document defines the following new PCEP TLVs; IANA is requested
to make the following allocations from this registry.
Value Meaning Reference
TBD AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTE [This I.D.]
8.2. AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTE
This document requests that a registry is created to manage the Flags
field in the AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTE TLV in the LSP object. New
values are to be assigned by Standards Action [RFC5226]. Each bit
should be tracked with the following qualities:
o Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit)
o Capability description
o Defining RFC
The following values are defined in this document:
Bit Description Reference
31 Live-Traffic (L-Bit) [This I.D.]
8.3. BANDWIDTH Object
This document defines new object type for the BANDWIDTH object; IANA
is requested to make the following allocations from this registry.
Object-Class Value Name Reference
5 BANDWIDTH [This I.D.]
Object-Type
3: MaxAvgBw determined from
the existing TE LSP Traffic
flow.
9. Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Venugopal Reddy, Reeja Paul, Sandeep Boina and
Avantika for their useful comments and suggestions.
Dhody, et al. Expires September 6, 2015 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft AUTO-BW March 2015
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP. and JL. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element
(PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, March
2009.
[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-10 (work in progress), October 2014.
[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-02 (work in
progress), October 2014.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471,
January 2003.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
[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-stateful-pce-app]
Zhang, X. and I. Minei, "Applicability of a Stateful Path
Computation Element (PCE)", draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-
app-03 (work in progress), October 2014.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pceps]
Lopez, D., Dios, O., Wu, W., and D. Dhody, "Secure
Transport for PCEP", draft-ietf-pce-pceps-03 (work in
progress), March 2015.
Dhody, et al. Expires September 6, 2015 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft AUTO-BW March 2015
[IEEE.754.1985]
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
"Standard for Binary Floating-Point Arithmetic", IEEE
Standard 754, August 1985.
Dhody, et al. Expires September 6, 2015 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft AUTO-BW March 2015
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses
He Zekun
Tencent Holdings Ltd,
Shenzhen P.R.China
Email: kinghe@tencent.com
Xian Zhang
Huawei Technologies
Research Area F3-1B,
Huawei Industrial Base,
Shenzhen, 518129, China
Phone: +86-755-28972645
Email: zhang.xian@huawei.com
Young Lee
Huawei Technologies
1700 Alma Drive, Suite 100
Plano, TX 75075
US
Phone: +1 972 509 5599 x2240
Fax: +1 469 229 5397
EMail: leeyoung@huawei.com
Authors' Addresses
Dhruv Dhody
Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560037
India
EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
Udayasree Palle
Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560037
India
EMail: udayasree.palle@huawei.com
Dhody, et al. Expires September 6, 2015 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft AUTO-BW March 2015
Ravi Singh
Juniper Networks
1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
USA
EMail: ravis@juniper.net
Dhody, et al. Expires September 6, 2015 [Page 15]