Network Working Group F. Zhang, Ed.
Internet-Draft Huawei
Intended status: Standards Track O. Gonzalez de Dios, Ed.
Expires: April 30, 2015 Telefonica Global CTO
D. Li
Huawei
C. Margaria
M. Hartley
Z. Ali
Cisco
October 27, 2014
RSVP-TE Extensions for Collecting SRLG Information
draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-09
Abstract
This document provides extensions for the Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) to support automatic
collection of Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) information for the TE
link formed by a Label Switched Path (LSP).
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 April 30, 2015.
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
Zhang, et al. Expires April 30, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Ext for Collecting SRLG October 2014
(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. Applicability Example: Dual Homing . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. RSVP-TE Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. SRLG Collection Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. SRLG Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. SRLG Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Encodings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. SRLG Collection Flag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. SRLG sub-object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Signaling Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. SRLG Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. SRLG Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.3. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1. Policy Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2. Coherent SRLG IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.1. RSVP Attribute Bit Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.2. ROUTE_RECORD Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.3. Policy Control Failure Error subcodes . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction
It is important to understand which TE links in the network might be
at risk from the same failures. In this sense, a set of links can
constitute a 'shared risk link group' (SRLG) if they share a resource
whose failure can affect all links in the set [RFC4202].
On the other hand, as described in [RFC4206] and [RFC6107], H-LSP
(Hierarchical LSP) or S-LSP (stitched LSP) can be used for carrying
one or more other LSPs. Both of the H-LSP and S-LSP can be formed as
Zhang, et al. Expires April 30, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Ext for Collecting SRLG October 2014
a TE link. In such cases, it is important to know the SRLG
information of the LSPs that will be used to carry further LSPs.
This document provides a mechanism to collect the SRLGs used by a
LSP, which can then be advertized as properties of the TE-link formed
by that LSP. Note that specification of the the use of the collected
SRLGs is outside the scope of this document.
1.1. Applicability Example: Dual Homing
An interesting use case for the SRLG collection procedures defined in
this document is achieving LSP diversity in a dual homing scenario.
The use case is illustrated in Figure 1, when the overlay model is
applied as defined in RFC 4208 [RFC4208] . In this example, the
exchange of routing information over the User-Network Interface (UNI)
is prohibited by operator policy.
+---+ +---+
| P |....| P |
+---+ +---+
/ \
+-----+ +-----+
+---+ | PE1 | | PE3 | +---+
|CE1|----| | | |----|CE2|
+---+\ +-----+ +-----+ /+---+
\ | | /
\ +-----+ +-----+ /
\| PE2 | | PE4 |/
| | | |
+-----+ +-----+
\ /
+---+ +---+
| P |....| P |
+---+ +---+
Figure 1: Dual Homing Configuration
Single-homed customer edge (CE) devices are connected to a single
provider edge (PE) device via a single UNI link (which could be a
bundle of parallel links, typically using the same fiber cable).
This single UNI link can constitute a single point of failure. Such
a single point of failure can be avoided if the CE device is
connected to two PE devices via two UNI interfaces as depicted in
Figure 1 above for CE1 and CE2, respectively.
For the dual-homing case, it is possible to establish two connections
(LSPs) from the source CE device to the same destination CE device
where one connection is using one UNI link to PE1, for example, and
Zhang, et al. Expires April 30, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Ext for Collecting SRLG October 2014
the other connection is using the UNI link to PE2. In order to avoid
single points of failure within the provider network, it is necessary
to also ensure path (LSP) diversity within the provider network in
order to achieve end-to-end diversity for the two LSPs between the
two CE devices CE1 and CE2. This use case describes how it is
possible to achieve path diversity within the provider network based
on collected SRLG information. As the two connections (LSPs) enter
the provider network at different PE devices, the PE device that
receives the connection request for the second connection needs to
know the additional path computation constraints such that the path
of the second LSP is disjoint with respect to the already established
first connection.
As SRLG information is normally not shared between the provider
network and the client network, i.e., between PE and CE devices, the
challenge is how to solve the diversity problem when a CE is dual-
homed. For example, CE1 in Figure 1 may have requested an LSP1 to
CE2 via PE1 that is routed via PE3 to CE2. CE1 can then subsequently
request an LSP2 to CE2 via PE2 with the constraint that it needs to
be maximally SRLG disjoint with respect to LSP1. PE2, however, does
not have any SRLG information associated with LSP1, which is needed
as input for its constraint-based path computation function. If CE1
is capable of retrieving the SRLG information associated with LSP1
from PE1, it can pass this information to PE2 as part of the LSP2
setup request (RSVP PATH message), and PE2 can now calculate a path
for LSP2 that is SRLG disjoint with respect to LSP1. The SRLG
information associated with LSP1 can already be retrieved when LSP1
is setup or at any time before LSP2 is setup.
The RSVP extensions for collecting SRLG information defined in this
document make it possible to retrieve SRLG information for an LSP and
hence solve the dual-homing LSP diversity problem. When CE1 sends
the setup request for LSP2 to PE2, it can also request the collection
of SRLG information for LSP2 and send that information to PE1. This
will ensure that the two paths for the two LSPs remain mutually
diverse, which is important, when the provider network is capable to
restore connections that failed due to a network failure (fiber cut)
in the provider network.
Note that the knowledge of SRLG information even for multiple LSPs
does not allow a CE devices to derive the provider network topology
based on the collected SRLG information.
2. 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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Zhang, et al. Expires April 30, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Ext for Collecting SRLG October 2014
3. RSVP-TE Requirements
3.1. SRLG Collection Indication
The ingress node of the LSP SHOULD be capable of indicating whether
the SRLG information of the LSP is to be collected during the
signaling procedure of setting up an LSP. SRLG information SHOULD
NOT be collected without an explicit request for it being made by the
ingress node.
3.2. SRLG Collection
If requested, the SRLG information SHOULD be collected during the
setup of an LSP. The endpoints of the LSP can use the collected SRLG
information, for example, for routing, sharing and TE link
configuration purposes.
3.3. SRLG Update
When the SRLG information of an existing LSP for which SRLG
information was collected during signaling changes, the relevant
nodes of the LSP SHOULD be capable of updating the SRLG information
of the LSP. This means that that the signaling procedure SHOULD be
capable of updating the new SRLG information.
4. Encodings
4.1. SRLG Collection Flag
In order to indicate nodes that SRLG collection is desired, this
document defines a new flag in the Attribute Flags TLV (see RFC 5420
[RFC5420]), which MAY be carried in an LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES or
LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object:
o Bit Number (temporarily 12, an early allocation has been made by
IANA, see Section 8.1 for more details): SRLG Collection flag
The SRLG Collection flag is meaningful on a Path message. If the
SRLG Collection flag is set to 1, it means that the SRLG information
SHOULD be reported to the ingress and egress node along the setup of
the LSP.
The rules of the processing of the Attribute Flags TLV are not
changed.
Zhang, et al. Expires April 30, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Ext for Collecting SRLG October 2014
4.2. SRLG sub-object
This document defines a new RRO sub-object (ROUTE_RECORD sub-object)
to record the SRLG information of the LSP. Its format is modeled on
the RRO sub-objects defined in RFC 3209 [RFC3209].
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SRLG ID 1 (4 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ...... ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SRLG ID n (4 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type
The type of the sub-object. The value is temporarily 34. An early
allocation has been made by IANA (see Section 8.2 for more details).
Length
The Length field contains the total length of the sub-object in
bytes, including the Type and Length fields. The Length depends on
the number of SRLG IDs.
Reserved
This 2 byte field is reserved. It SHOULD be set to zero on
transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
SRLG ID
This 4 byte field contains one SRLG ID. There is one SRLG ID field
per SRLG collected. There MAY be multiple SRLG ID fields in an SRLG
sub-object
As described in RFC 3209 [RFC3209], the RECORD_ROUTE object is
managed as a stack. The SRLG sub-object SHOULD be pushed by the node
before the node IP address or link identifier. The SRLG-sub-object
SHOULD be pushed after the Attribute subobject, if present, and after
the LABEL subobject, if requested.
RFC 5553 [RFC5553] describes mechanisms to carry a PKS (Path Key Sub-
object) in the RRO so as to facilitate confidentiality in the
Zhang, et al. Expires April 30, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Ext for Collecting SRLG October 2014
signaling of inter-domain TE LSPs, and allows the path segment that
needs to be hidden (that is, a Confidential Path Segment (CPS)) to be
replaced in the RRO with a PKS. If the CPS contains SRLG Sub-
objects, these MAY be retained in the RRO by adding them again after
the PKS Sub-object in the RRO. The CPS is defined in RFC 5520
[RFC5520]
A node MUST NOT push a SRLG sub-object in the RECORD_ROUTE without
also pushing either a IPv4 sub-object, a IPv6 sub-object, a
Unnumbered Interface ID sub-object or a Path Key sub-object.
The rules of the processing of the LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES,
LSP_ATTRIBUTE and ROUTE_RECORD Objects are not changed.
5. Signaling Procedures
5.1. SRLG Collection
Per RFC 3209 [RFC3209], an ingress node initiates the recording of
the route information of an LSP by adding a RRO to a Path message.
If an ingress node also desires SRLG recording, it MUST set the SRLG
Collection Flag in the Attribute Flags TLV which MAY be carried
either in an LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object when the collection is
mandatory, or in an LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object when the collection is
desired, but not mandatory
When a node receives a Path message which carries an
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object and the SRLG Collection Flag set, if
local policy determines that the SRLG information is not to be
provided to the endpoints, it MUST return a PathErr message with
Error Code 2 (policy) and Error subcode "SRLG Recording Rejected"
(value 31, an early allocation of the value has been done by IANA,
see Section 8.3 for more details) to reject the Path message.
When a node receives a Path message which carries an LSP_ATTRIBUTES
Object and the SRLG Collection Flag set, if local policy determines
that the SRLG information is not to be provided to the endpoints, the
Path message SHOULD NOT be rejected due to SRLG recording restriction
and the Path message SHOULD be forwarded without any SRLG sub-
object(s) in the RRO of the corresponding outgoing Path message.
If local policy permits the recording of the SRLG information, the
processing node SHOULD add local SRLG information, as defined below,
to the RRO of the corresponding outgoing Path message. The
processing node MAY add multiple SRLG sub-objects to the RRO if
necesary. It then forwards the Path message to the next node in the
downstream direction.
Zhang, et al. Expires April 30, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Ext for Collecting SRLG October 2014
If the addition of SRLG information to the RRO would result in the
RRO exceeding its maximum possible size or becoming too large for the
Path message to contain it, the requested SRLGs MUST NOT be added.
If the SRLG collection request was contained in an
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object, the processing node MUST behave as
specified by RFC 3209 [RFC3209] and drop the RRO from the Path
message entirely. If the SRLG collection request was contained in an
LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object, the processing node MAY omit some or all of
the requested SRLGs from the RRO; otherwise it MUST behave as
specified by RFC 3209 [RFC3209] and drop the RRO from the Path
message entirely.
Following the steps described above, the intermediate nodes of the
LSP can collect the SRLG information in the RRO during the processing
of the Path message hop by hop. When the Path message arrives at the
egress node, the egress node receives SRLG information in the RRO.
Per RFC 3209 [RFC3209], when issuing a Resv message for a Path
message which contains an RRO, an egress node initiates the RRO
process by adding an RRO to the outgoing Resv message. The
processing for RROs contained in Resv messages then mirrors that of
the Path messages.
When a node receives a Resv message for an LSP for which SRLG
Collection is specified, then when local policy allows recording SRLG
information, the node SHOULD add SRLG information, to the RRO of the
corresponding outgoing Resv message, as specified below. When the
Resv message arrives at the ingress node, the ingress node can
extract the SRLG information from the RRO in the same way as the
egress node.
Note that a link's SRLG information for the upstream direction cannot
be assumed to be the same as that in the downstream.
o For Path and Resv messages for a unidirectional LSP, a node SHOULD
include SRLG sub-objects in the RRO for the downstream data link
only.
o For Path and Resv messages for a bidirectional LSP, a node SHOULD
include SRLG sub-objects in the RRO for both the upstream data
link and the downstream data link from the local node. In this
case, the node MUST include the information in the same order for
both Path messages and Resv messages. That is, the SRLG sub-
object for the upstream link is added to the RRO before the SRLG
sub-object for the downstream link.
Based on the above procedure, the endpoints can get the SRLG
information automatically. Then the endpoints can for instance
Zhang, et al. Expires April 30, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Ext for Collecting SRLG October 2014
advertise it as a TE link to the routing instance based on the
procedure described in [RFC6107] and configure the SRLG information
of the FA automatically.
5.2. SRLG Update
When the SRLG information of a link is changed, the LSPs using that
link need to be aware of the changes. The procedures defined in
Section 4.4.3 of RFC 3209 [RFC3209] MUST be used to refresh the SRLG
information if the SRLG change is to be communicated to other nodes
according to the local node's policy. If local policy is that the
SRLG change SHOULD be suppressed or would result in no change to the
previously signaled SRLG-list, the node SHOULD NOT send an update.
5.3. Compatibility
A node that does not recognize the SRLG Collection Flag in the
Attribute Flags TLV is expected to proceed as specified in RFC 5420
[RFC5420]. It is expected to pass the TLV on unaltered if it appears
in a LSP_ATTRIBUTES object, or reject the Path message with the
appropriate Error Code and Value if it appears in a
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object.
A node that does not recognize the SRLG RRO sub-object is expected to
behave as specified in RFC 3209 [RFC3209]: unrecognized subobjects
are to be ignored and passed on unchanged.
6. Manageability Considerations
6.1. Policy Configuration
In a border node of inter-domain or inter-layer network, the
following SRLG processing policy SHOULD be capable of being
configured:
o Whether the SRLG IDs of the domain or specific layer network can
be exposed to the nodes outside the domain or layer network, or
whether they SHOULD be summarized, mapped to values that are
comprehensible to nodes outside the domain or layer network, or
removed entirely.
A node using RFC 5553 [RFC5553] and PKS MAY apply the same policy.
6.2. Coherent SRLG IDs
In a multi-layer multi-domain scenario, SRLG ids can be configured by
different management entities in each layer/domain. In such
scenarios, maintaining a coherent set of SRLG IDs is a key
Zhang, et al. Expires April 30, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Ext for Collecting SRLG October 2014
requirement in order to be able to use the SRLG information properly.
Thus, SRLG IDs SHOULD be unique. Note that current procedure is
targeted towards a scenario where the different layers and domains
belong to the same operator, or to several coordinated administrative
groups. Ensuring the aforementioned coherence of SRLG IDs is beyond
the scope of this document.
Further scenarios, where coherence in the SRLG IDs cannot be
guaranteed are out of the scope of the present document and are left
for further study.
7. Security Considerations
This document builds on the mechanisms defined in [RFC3473], which
also discusses related security measures. In addition, [RFC5920]
provides an overview of security vulnerabilities and protection
mechanisms for the GMPLS control plane. The procedures defined in
this document permit the transfer of SRLG data between layers or
domains during the signaling of LSPs, subject to policy at the layer
or domain boundary. It is recommended that domain/layer boundary
policies take the implications of releasing SRLG information into
consideration and behave accordingly during LSP signaling.
8. IANA Considerations
8.1. RSVP Attribute Bit Flags
IANA has created a registry and manages the space of the Attribute
bit flags of the Attribute Flags TLV, as described in section 11.3 of
RFC 5420 [RFC5420], in the "Attribute Flags" section of the "Resource
Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Parameters"
registry located in http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-
parameters". IANA has made an early allocation in the "Attribute
Flags" section of the mentioned registry that expires on 2015-09-11.
This document introduces a new Attribute Bit Flag:
Bit No Name Attribute Attribute RRO Reference
Flags Path Flags Resv
----------- ---------- ---------- ----------- --- ---------
12 (tempo- SRLG Yes Yes Yes This I-D
rary expires collection
2015-09-11) Flag
Zhang, et al. Expires April 30, 2015 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Ext for Collecting SRLG October 2014
8.2. ROUTE_RECORD Object
IANA manages the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters. IANA has made an
early allocation in the Sub-object type 21 ROUTE_RECORD - Type 1
Route Record registry. The early allocation expires on 2015-09-11.
This document introduces a new RRO sub-object:
Value Description Reference
--------------------- ------------------- ---------
34 (temporary, SRLG sub-object This I-D
expires 2015-09-11)
8.3. Policy Control Failure Error subcodes
IANA manages the assignments in the "Error Codes and Globally-Defined
Error Value Sub-Codes" section of the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry
located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters. IANA has
made an early allocation in the "Sub-Codes - 2 Policy Control
Failure" subsection of the the "Error Codes and Globally-Defined
Error Value Sub-Codes" section of the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry.
The early allocation expires on 2015-09-11.
This document introduces a new Policy Control Failure Error sub-code:
Value Description Reference
--------------------- ----------------------- ---------
21 (temporary, SRLG Recording Rejected This I-D
expires 2015-09-11)
9. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Igor Bryskin, Ramon Casellas, Lou
Berger, Alan Davey, Dhruv Dhody and Dieter Beller for their useful
comments and improvements to the document.
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.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
Zhang, et al. Expires April 30, 2015 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Ext for Collecting SRLG October 2014
[RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC5420] Farrel, A., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, JP., and A.
Ayyangarps, "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP
Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 5420, February 2009.
[RFC5520] Bradford, R., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel, "Preserving
Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path Computation
Using a Path-Key-Based Mechanism", RFC 5520, April 2009.
[RFC5553] Farrel, A., Bradford, R., and JP. Vasseur, "Resource
Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Extensions for Path Key
Support", RFC 5553, May 2009.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC4202] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Routing Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005.
[RFC4206] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths (LSP)
Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206, October 2005.
[RFC4208] Swallow, G., Drake, J., Ishimatsu, H., and Y. Rekhter,
"Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) User-
Network Interface (UNI): Resource ReserVation Protocol-
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Support for the Overlay
Model", RFC 4208, October 2005.
[RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
[RFC6107] Shiomoto, K. and A. Farrel, "Procedures for Dynamically
Signaled Hierarchical Label Switched Paths", RFC 6107,
February 2011.
Authors' Addresses
Zhang, et al. Expires April 30, 2015 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Ext for Collecting SRLG October 2014
Fatai Zhang (editor)
Huawei
F3-5-B RD Center
Bantian, Longgang District, Shenzhen 518129
P.R.China
Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com
Oscar Gonzalez de Dios (editor)
Telefonica Global CTO
Distrito Telefonica, edificio sur, Ronda de la Comunicacion 28045
Madrid 28050
Spain
Phone: +34 913129647
Email: oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com
Dan Li
Huawei
F3-5-B RD Center
Bantian, Longgang District, Shenzhen 518129
P.R.China
Email: danli@huawei.com
Cyril Margaria
Suite 4001, 200 Somerset Corporate Blvd.
Bridgewater, NJ 08807
US
Email: cyril.margaria@gmail.com
Matt Hartley
Cisco
Email: mhartley@cisco.com
Zafar Ali
Cisco
Email: zali@cisco.com
Zhang, et al. Expires April 30, 2015 [Page 13]
