PCE Working Group C. Li
Internet-Draft M. Chen
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies
Expires: August 17, 2020 W. Cheng
China Mobile
R. Gandhi
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Q. Xiong
ZTE Corporation
February 14, 2020
PCEP Extensions for Associated Bidirectional Segment Routing (SR) Paths
draft-ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path-01
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.
Segment routing (SR) leverages the source routing and tunneling
paradigms. The Stateful PCEP extensions allow stateful control of
Segment Routing (SR) Traffic Engineering (TE) Paths. Furthermore,
PCEP can be used for computing SR TE paths in the network.
This document defines PCEP extensions for grouping two unidirectional
SR Paths (one in each direction in the network) into a single
Associated Bidirectional SR Path. The mechanisms defined in this
document can also be applied 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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 17, 2020.
Li, et al. Expires August 17, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PCEP for Bidirectional SR Association February 2020
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include 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. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. PCEP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Double-sided Bidirectional SR Path Association Group . . 5
3.1.1. Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV . . . . . . . 5
4. PCEP Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. PCE Initiated Associated Bidirectional SR Paths . . . . . 6
4.2. PCC Initiated Associated Bidirectional SR Paths . . . . . 7
4.3. Stateless PCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.4. Bidirectional (B) Flag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.5. State Synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.6. Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1. Huawei's Commercial Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. ZTE's Commercial Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.1. Association Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.2. PCEP Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Li, et al. Expires August 17, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PCEP for Bidirectional SR Association February 2020
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Introduction
Segment routing (SR) [RFC8402] leverages the source routing and
tunneling paradigms. SR supports steering packets onto an explicit
forwarding path at the ingress node. SR is specified for
unidirectional paths. However, some applications require
bidirectional paths in SR networks, for example, in mobile backhaul
transport networks. The requirement for bidirectional SR Paths is
specified in [I-D.ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment].
[RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication
Protocol (PCEP). PCEP enables the communication between a Path
Computation Client (PCC) and a PCE, or between PCE and PCE, for the
purpose of computation of Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched
Paths (LSP). [RFC8231] specifies a set of extensions to PCEP to
enable stateful control of TE LSPs within and across PCEP sessions.
The mode of operation where LSPs are initiated from the PCE is
described in [RFC8281].
[RFC8408] specifies extensions to the Path Computation Element
Protocol (PCEP) [RFC5440] for SR networks, that allow a stateful PCE
to compute and initiate SR TE paths, as well as a PCC to request,
report or delegate them.
[RFC8697] 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, and is equally applicable to the active
and passive modes of a Stateful PCE [RFC8231] or a stateless PCE
[RFC5440].
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-bidir] defines PCEP extensions for grouping
two unidirectional RSVP-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. It specifies the
procedure for Double-sided Bidirectional LSP Association, where the
PCE creates the association and provisions the forward LSPs at their
ingress nodes. The RSVP-TE signals the forward LSPs to the egress
nodes. Thus, both endpoints learn the reverse LSPs forming the
bidirectional LSP association.
This document extends the bidirectional LSP association to SR by
specifying PCEP extensions for grouping two unidirectional SR Paths
into a bidirectional SR Path. For bidirectional SR, there are use
cases such as directed BFD [I-D.ietf-mpls-bfd-directed] and SR
performance measurement [I-D.gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm] those require
Li, et al. Expires August 17, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PCEP for Bidirectional SR Association February 2020
PCC to be aware of the reverse direction SR path. For such use-
cases, the reverse SR paths are also communicated to the ingress
nodes using the PCEP extensions defined in this document. This
allows both endpoints to be aware of SR Paths in both directions,
including their status and all other path related information.
2. Terminology
This document makes use of the terms defined in [RFC8408]. The
reader is assumed to be familiar with the terminology defined in
[RFC5440], [RFC8231], [RFC8281], [RFC8697], and
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-bidir].
2.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. PCEP Extensions
As per [RFC8697], TE LSPs are associated by adding them to a common
association group by a PCEP peer. [I-D.ietf-pce-association-bidir]
uses the the association group object and the procedures as specified
in [RFC8697] to group two unidirectional RSVP-TE LSPs. Similarly,
two SR Paths can also be associated using similar technique. This
document extends these association mechanisms for bidirectional SR
Paths. Two unidirectional SR Paths (one in each direction in the
network) can be associated together by using the Bidirectional SR
Path Association Group defined in this document for PCEP messages.
Note that the association group defined in this document is specific
to the bidirectional SR Paths. The procedure for this association
group is different than the RSVP-TE bidirectional association groups
defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-association-bidir].
[I-D.ietf-pce-sr-path-segment] defines a mechanism for communicating
Path Segment Identifier (PSID) in PCEP for SR. The PSID is defined
for SR-MPLS in [I-D.ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment]. The PSID can be
used for identifying an SR Path of an associated bidirectional SR
Path. The PATH-SEGMENT TLV MAY be included for each SR Path in the
LSP object to support required use-cases. The PATH-SEGMENT TLV MUST
be handled as defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-sr-path-segment] and is not
modified for associated bidirectional SR Path.
Li, et al. Expires August 17, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PCEP for Bidirectional SR Association February 2020
3.1. Double-sided Bidirectional SR Path Association Group
For associating two unidirectional SR paths, this document defines a
new Association Type called 'Double-sided Bidirectional SR Path
Association Group' for Association Group Object (Class-Value 40) as
follows:
o Association Type (TBD1 to be assigned by IANA) = Double-sided
Bidirectional SR Path Association Group
Similar to RSVP-TE bidirectional LSP associations, this Association
Type is operator-configured in nature and statically created by the
operator on the PCEP peers. The paths belonging to this association
is conveyed via PCEP messages to the PCEP peer. Operator-configured
Association Range TLV [RFC8697] MUST 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 handling of the Association
ID, Association Source, optional Global Association Source and
optional Extended Association ID in this association are set in the
same way as [I-D.ietf-pce-association-bidir].
A member of the 'Double-sided Bidirectional SR Path Association
Group' can take the role of a forward or reverse SR Path and follow
the similar rules defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-association-bidir] for
LSPs.
o An SR Path (forward or reverse) cannot be part of more than one
'Double-sided Bidirectional SR Path Association Group'.
o The endpoints of the SR Paths in this associations cannot be
different.
3.1.1. Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV
In Bidirectional SR Association Group, for properties such as forward
and reverse direction and co-routed path, it uses the Bidirectional
LSP Association Group TLV defined in
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-bidir]. All fields and processing rules
are as per [I-D.ietf-pce-association-bidir].
4. PCEP Procedures
For bidirectional SR path, an ingress PCC is aware of the forward
direction SR path beginning from itself to the egress PCC using the
existing PCEP procedures. For the use-cases which require the
ingress PCC to be aware of the reverse direction SR path, PCE informs
the reverse SR Path to the ingress PCC. To achieve this, a
PCInitiate message for the reverse SR Path is sent to the ingress PCC
Li, et al. Expires August 17, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PCEP for Bidirectional SR Association February 2020
and a PCInitiate message for the forward SR Path is sent to the
egress PCC (with the matching association group). These PCInitiate
message MUST NOT trigger initiation of SR Paths on PCCs.
For a bidirectional LSP computation when using both direction LSPs on
a node, the same LSP would need to be identified using 2 different
PLSP-IDs based on the PCEP session to the ingress or the egress node.
Note that the PLSP-ID space is independent at each PCC, the PLSP-ID
allocated by the egress PCC cannot be used for the LSP at the ingress
PCC (PLSP-ID conflict may occur). As per normal PCInitiate
operations, PCC assigns the PLSP-IDs for the local LSPs. Hence, when
the PCE notifies an ingress PCC of the reverse LSP, it does so by
using PCInitiate operations and sets PLSP-ID to zero and sets the R
bit in the Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV in the association
object to indicate that this PCInitiate LSP is a reverse LSP. The
PCC upon receiving the PCInitiate MUST locally assign a new PLSP-ID
and it MUST issue a PCRpt to PCE for this LSP containing the new
PLSP-ID. This reverse direction LSP MUST NOT be instantiated on the
PCC.
In other words, a given LSP will be identified by PLSP-ID A at the
ingress node while it will be identified by PLSP-ID B at the egress
node. The PCE will maintain two PLSP-IDs for the same LSP. For
example, ingress PCC1 may report to PCE an LSP1 with PLSP-ID 100.
Egress PCC2 may report to PCE an LSP2 with PLSP-ID 200. Both of
these LSPs are part of a bidirectional association. When PCE
notifies PCC1 of the reverse direction LSP2, it does so by sending a
PCInitiate to PCC1 with PLSP-ID set to zero and R bit set in the
Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV. PCC1 upon reception of this
generates a new PLSP-ID (example PLSP-ID 300) and issues a PCRpt to
PCE. Thus there would two PLSP-ID associated for LSP2 (300 at PCC1
and 200 at PCC2).
4.1. PCE Initiated Associated Bidirectional SR Paths
As specified in [RFC8697], Bidirectional SR Path Association Group
can be created by a Stateful PCE as shown in Figure 1.
o Stateful PCE can create and update the forward and reverse SR
Paths independently for 'Double-sided Bidirectional SR Path
Association Group'.
o Stateful PCE can establish and remove the association relationship
on a per SR Path basis.
o Stateful PCE can create and update the SR Path and the association
on a PCC via PCInitiate and PCUpd messages, respectively, using
the procedures described in [RFC8697].
Li, et al. Expires August 17, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PCEP for Bidirectional SR Association February 2020
o The reverse direction SR Path (LSP2(R) at node S, LSP1(R) at node
D as shown in Figure 1) SHOULD be informed by the PCE via
PCInitiate message with the matching association group for the
use-cases which require the PCC to be aware of the reverse
direction SR path.
+-----+
| PCE |
+-----+
PCInitiate/PCUpd: / \ PCInitiate/PCUpd:
Tunnel 1 (F) / \ Tunnel 2 (F)
(LSP1 (F), LSP2 (R)) / \ (LSP2 (F), LSP1 (R))
Association #1 / \ Association #1
/ \
v v
+-----+ LSP1 +-----+
| S |------------>| D |
| |<------------| |
+-----+ LSP2 +-----+
<no signaling>
Figure 1: PCE-Initiated Double-sided Bidirectional SR Path
with Forward and Reverse Direction SR Paths
4.2. PCC Initiated Associated Bidirectional SR Paths
As specified in [RFC8697], Bidirectional SR Path Association Group
can also be created by a PCC as shown in Figure 2a and 2b.
o PCC can create and update the forward SR Path and update the
reverse SR Path independently for a 'Double-sided Bidirectional SR
Path Association Group'.
o PCC cannot instantiate a reverse SR Path in a bidirectional SR
Path.
o PCC can establish and remove the association relationship on a per
SR Path basis.
o PCC MUST report the change in the association group of an SR Path
to PCE(s) via PCRpt message.
o PCC can report the forward and reverse SR Paths independently to
PCE(s) via PCRpt message.
o PCC can delegate the forward and reverse SR Paths independently to
a Stateful PCE, where PCE would control the SR Paths.
Li, et al. Expires August 17, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft PCEP for Bidirectional SR Association February 2020
o Stateful PCE can update the SR Paths in the 'Double-sided
Bidirectional SR Path Association Group' via PCUpd message, using
the procedures described in [RFC8697].
o The reverse direction SR Path (LSP2(R) at node S, LSP1(R) at node
D as shown in Figure 2b) SHOULD be informed by the PCE via
PCInitiate message with the matching association group for the
use-cases which require the PCC to be aware of the reverse
direction SR path.
+-----+
| PCE |
+-----+
Report/Delegate: ^ ^ Report/Delegate:
Tunnel 1 (F) / \ Tunnel 2 (F)
(LSP1 (F)) / \ (LSP2 (F))
Association #2 / \ Association #2
/ \
/ \
+-----+ LSP1 +-----+
| S |------------>| D |
| |<------------| |
+-----+ LSP2 +-----+
<no signaling>
Figure 2a: Step 1: PCC-Initiated Double-sided Bidirectional
SR Path with Forward Direction SR Paths
+-----+
| PCE |
+-----+
PCUpd/PCInitiate: / \ PCUpd/PCInitiate:
Tunnel 1 (F) / \ Tunnel 2 (F)
(LSP1 (F), LSP2 (R)) / \ (LSP2 (F), LSP1 (R))
Association #2 / \ Association #2
/ \
v v
+-----+ LSP1 +-----+
| S |------------>| D |
| |<------------| |
+-----+ LSP2 +-----+
<no signaling>
Figure 2b: Step 2: PCE-Updated/Initiated Double-sided Bidirectional
SR Path with Reverse Direction SR Paths
Li, et al. Expires August 17, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft PCEP for Bidirectional SR Association February 2020
4.3. Stateless PCE
As defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-association-bidir], for a stateless PCE,
it might be useful to associate a path computation request to an
association group, thus enabling it to 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 a bidirectional SR association group.
4.4. Bidirectional (B) Flag
As defined in [RFC5440], the Bidirectional (B) flag in Request
Parameters (RP) object MUST be set when the PCC specifies that the
path computation request relates to a bidirectional TE LSP. The
B-flag also MUST be set when the PCC specifies that the path
computation request relates to an associated bidirectional SR Path.
Note that the B-flag defined in Stateful PCE Request Parameter (SRP)
object [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls] is not required for
associated bidirectional SR path as association group is used to
indicate that the path is bidirectional.
4.5. State Synchronization
During state synchronization, a PCC MUST report all the existing
Bidirectional SR Association Groups to the Stateful PCE as per
[RFC8697]. After the state synchronization, the PCE MUST remove all
stale Bidirectional SR Associations.
4.6. Error Handling
The error handling as described in section 5.7 of
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-bidir] continue to apply.
The PCEP Path Setup Type (PST) for SR is set to 'TE Path is Setup
using Segment Routing' [RFC8408]. If a PCEP speaker receives a
different PST value for Bidirectional SR Path association group and
it does not support; it MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type =
26 (Association Error) and Error-Value = TBD2 (Bidirectional LSP
Association - Path Setup Type Not Supported).
5. Implementation Status
[Note to the RFC Editor - remove this section before publication, as
well as remove the reference to [RFC7942].
This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Li, et al. Expires August 17, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft PCEP for Bidirectional SR Association February 2020
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942].
The description of implementations in this section is intended to
assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort
has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not
be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
exist.
According to [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and working groups
to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
they see fit".
5.1. Huawei's Commercial Delivery
The feature is developing based on Huawei VRP8.
o Organization: Huawei
o Implementation: Huawei's Commercial Delivery implementation based
on VRP8.
o Description: The implementation is under development.
o Maturity Level: Product
o Contact: tanren@huawei.com
5.2. ZTE's Commercial Delivery
o Organization: ZTE
o Implementation: ZTE's Commercial Delivery implementation based on
Rosng v8.
o Description: The implementation is under development.
o Maturity Level: Product
o Contact: zhan.shuangping@zte.com.cn
Li, et al. Expires August 17, 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft PCEP for Bidirectional SR Association February 2020
6. Security Considerations
The security considerations described in [RFC5440], [RFC8231],
[RFC8281], and [RFC8408] apply to the extensions defined in this
document as well.
A new Association Type for the Association Object, 'Double-sided
Associated Bidirectional SR Path Association Group' is introduced in
this document. Additional security considerations related to LSP
associations due to a malicious PCEP speaker is described in
[RFC8697] and apply to this Association Type. Hence, securing the
PCEP session using Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8253] is
recommended.
7. Manageability Considerations
All manageability requirements and considerations listed in
[RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC8281] apply to PCEP protocol extensions
defined in this document. In addition, requirements and
considerations listed in this section apply.
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 [RFC8281].
7.2. Information and Data Models
[RFC7420] describes the PCEP MIB, there are no new MIB Objects
defined for Bidirectional SR Path associations. The PCEP YANG module
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] defines data model for Bidirectional SR Path
associations.
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], [RFC8231], and [RFC8281].
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], [RFC8231], and [RFC8408].
Li, et al. Expires August 17, 2020 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft PCEP for Bidirectional SR Association February 2020
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 [RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC8408] also apply
to PCEP extensions defined in this document.
8. IANA Considerations
8.1. Association Type
This document defines a new Association Type for the Association
Object (Class Value 40) defined [RFC8697]. IANA is requested to make
the assignment of a type for the sub-registry "ASSOCIATION Type" as
follows:
Type Name Reference
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TBD1 Double-sided Bidirectional SR Path This document
Association Group
8.2. PCEP Errors
This document defines new Error value for Error Type 26 (Association
Error). IANA is requested to allocate new Error value within the
"PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" sub-registry of the PCEP
Numbers registry, as follows:
Error Type Description Reference
-------------------------------------------------------------------
26 Association Error
Error value: TBD2 This document
Bidirectional LSP Association -
Path Setup Type Not Supported
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>.
Li, et al. Expires August 17, 2020 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft PCEP for Bidirectional SR Association February 2020
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>.
[RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281>.
[RFC8697] Minei, I., Crabbe, E., Sivabalan, S., Ananthakrishnan, H.,
Dhody, D., and Y. Tanaka, "Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Establishing
Relationships between Sets of Label Switched Paths
(LSPs)", RFC 8697, DOI 10.17487/RFC8697, January 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8697>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-bidir]
Gandhi, R., Barth, C., and B. Wen, "PCEP Extensions for
Associated Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs)",
draft-ietf-pce-association-bidir-05 (work in progress),
February 2020.
[I-D.ietf-pce-sr-path-segment]
Li, C., Chen, M., Cheng, W., Gandhi, R., and Q. Xiong,
"Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extension for Path Segment in Segment Routing (SR)",
draft-ietf-pce-sr-path-segment-00 (work in progress),
October 2019.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC8253] Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody,
"PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)",
RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253>.
Li, et al. Expires August 17, 2020 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft PCEP for Bidirectional SR Association February 2020
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC7420, December 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7420>.
[RFC8408] Sivabalan, S., Tantsura, J., Minei, I., Varga, R., and J.
Hardwick, "Conveying Path Setup Type in PCE Communication
Protocol (PCEP) Messages", RFC 8408, DOI 10.17487/RFC8408,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8408>.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-bfd-directed]
Mirsky, G., Tantsura, J., Varlashkin, I., and M. Chen,
"Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) Directed Return
Path", draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-13 (work in progress),
December 2019.
[I-D.gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm]
Gandhi, R., Filsfils, C., Voyer, D., Chen, M., and B.
Janssens, "Performance Measurement Using TWAMP Light for
Segment Routing Networks", draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-
srpm-05 (work in progress), December 2019.
[I-D.ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment]
Cheng, W., Li, H., Chen, M., Gandhi, R., and R. Zigler,
"Path Segment in MPLS Based Segment Routing Network",
draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment-01 (work in progress),
September 2019.
[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-13 (work in progress), October 2019.
Li, et al. Expires August 17, 2020 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft PCEP for Bidirectional SR Association February 2020
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls]
Lee, Y., Zheng, H., Dios, O., Lopezalvarez, V., and Z.
Ali, "Path Computation Element (PCE) Protocol Extensions
for Stateful PCE Usage in GMPLS-controlled Networks",
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-12 (work in
progress), October 2019.
Acknowledgments
Many thanks to Marina Fizgeer, Adrian Farrel, and Andrew Stone for
the detailed review of this document and providing many useful
comments.
Contributors
The following people have substantially contributed to this document:
Dhruv Dhody
Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
India
Email: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
Zhenbin Li
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China
Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com
Jie Dong
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China
Email: jie.dong@huawei.com
Li, et al. Expires August 17, 2020 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft PCEP for Bidirectional SR Association February 2020
Authors' Addresses
Cheng Li
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China
Email: chengli13@huawei.com
Mach(Guoyi) Chen
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China
Email: Mach.chen@huawei.com
Weiqiang Cheng
China Mobile
China
Email: chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com
Rakesh Gandhi
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Canada
Email: rgandhi@cisco.com
Quan Xiong
ZTE Corporation
China
Email: xiong.quan@zte.com.cn
Li, et al. Expires August 17, 2020 [Page 16]