-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
/
draft-dhody-pce-pcep-p2mp-per-destination-11.txt
784 lines (462 loc) · 25.6 KB
/
draft-dhody-pce-pcep-p2mp-per-destination-11.txt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
PCE Working Group D. Dhody
Internet-Draft U. Palle
Intended status: Experimental V. Kondreddy
Expires: September 14, 2017 Huawei Technologies
March 13, 2017
Supporting Explicit Inclusion or Exclusion of Abstract Nodes for a
Subset of P2MP Destinations in Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP).
draft-dhody-pce-pcep-p2mp-per-destination-11
Abstract
The ability to determine paths of point-to-multipoint (P2MP)
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) is one the key
requirements for Path Computation Element (PCE). The PCEP has been
extentded for intra and inter domain path computation via PCE(s) for
P2MP TE LSP.
This document describes the motivation and PCEP extension for
explicitly specifying abstract nodes for inclusion or exclusion for a
subset of destinations during P2MP path computation via PCE(s).
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 14, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Dhody, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft EXPLICIT-INC-EXC-ABSTRACT-NODES March 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Domain Sequence Tree in Inter Domain P2MP Path
Computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Explicit inclusion or exclusion of abstract nodes . . . . 6
4. Detailed Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Request Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. Report Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.4. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction
The PCE architecture is defined in [RFC4655]. [RFC5862] lay out the
requirements for PCEP to support P2MP path computation.
[I-D.ietf-pce-rfc6006bis] describe an extension to PCEP to compute
optimal constrained intra-domain (G)MPLS P2MP TE LSPs. [RFC7334]
describes the mechanism for inter-domain P2MP path computation.
Dhody, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft EXPLICIT-INC-EXC-ABSTRACT-NODES March 2017
Further [I-D.ietf-pce-rfc6006bis] describes mechanism to specify a
list of nodes that can be used as branch nodes or a list of nodes
that cannot be used as branch nodes via Branch Node Capability (BNC)
object. The BNC object is used to specify which nodes have the
capability to act as a branch nodes or which nodes lack the
capabilty. It supports IPv4 and IPv6 prefix sub-objects only.
This document explains the need to add the capability to explicitly
specify any abstract nodes (not just nodes with branch node
capabiltiy) for inclusion or exclusion for a subset of destinations.
[RFC7334] describes the core-tree procedure to compute inter-domain
P2MP tree. It assumes that, due to deployment and commercial
limitations, the sequence of domains for a path (the path domain
tree) will be known in advance. For a group of destination which
belong to a particular destination domain, the domain-sequence needs
to be encoded separately as described in [RFC7897]. The mechanism,
as described in this document, of explicitly specifying abstract
nodes for inclusion or exclusion for a subset of destinations can be
used for this purpose, where abstract nodes are domains.
Stateful PCEs are shown to be helpful in many application scenarios,
in both MPLS and GMPLS networks, as illustrated in [RFC8051]. These
scenarios apply equally to P2P and P2MP TE LSPs.
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] provides the fundamental extensions
needed for stateful PCE to support general functionality for P2P TE
LSP. [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] provides the an extensions
needed for stateful PCE-initiated P2P TE LSP. Complementarily,
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp] focuses on the extensions that are
necessary in order for the deployment of stateful PCEs to support
P2MP TE LSPs.
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.
IRO: Include Route Object.
PCC: Path Computation Client: any client application requesting a
path computation to be performed by a Path Computation Element.
Dhody, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft EXPLICIT-INC-EXC-ABSTRACT-NODES March 2017
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.
PCEP: Path Computation Element Protocol.
P2MP: Point-to-Multipoint
P2P: Point-to-Point
RRO: Record Route Object
RSVP: Resource Reservation Protocol
TE LSP: Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path.
XRO: Exclude Route Object.
3. Motivation
3.1. Domain Sequence Tree in Inter Domain P2MP Path Computation
[RFC7334] describes the core-tree procedure for inter-domain path
computation. The procedure assumes that the sequence of domains for
a path (the path domain tree) will be known in advance due to
deployment and commercial limitations (e.g., inter-AS peering
agreements).
In the Figure 1 below, D1 is the root domain; D4, D5 and D6 are the
destination domains. The ingress is Ro in domain D1; egresses are M,
N in Domain D4; R, S in Domain D5; and U, V in Domain D6.
Dhody, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft EXPLICIT-INC-EXC-ABSTRACT-NODES March 2017
+----------------+
| |Domain D1
| Ro |
| |
| A |
| |
+-B------------C-+
/ \
/ \
/ \
Domain D2 / \ Domain D3
+-------------D--+ +-----E----------+
| | | |
| F | | |
| G | | H |
| | | |
| | | |
+-I--------------+ +-J------------K-+
/\ / \
/ \ / \
/ \ / \
/ \ / \
/ \ / \
/ \ / \
/ Domain D4 \ Domain D5 / Domain D6 \
+-L-------------W+ +------P---------+ +-----------T----+
| | | | | |
| | | Q | | U |
| M O | | S | | |
| | | | | V |
| N | | R | | |
+----------------+ +----------------+ +----------------+
Figure 1: Domain Topology Example
The domain tree can be represented as a series of domain sequences:
Domain D1, Domain D3, Domain D6
Domain D1, Domain D3, Domain D5
Domain D1, Domain D2, Domain D4
Since destinations in different destination domain will have
different domain sequence within the domain tree, it requires
following encoding that binds destinations to a particular domain
sequence.
Dhody, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft EXPLICIT-INC-EXC-ABSTRACT-NODES March 2017
o Destination M and N: D1-D2-D4
o Destination R and S: D1-D3-D5
o Destination U and V: D1-D3-D6
An extension in P2MP Path Computation request is needed to support
this. (Refer Section 4.2)
The abstract nodes MAY include (but not limited to) domain subobjects
- AS number and IGP Area as described in [RFC7897].
3.2. Explicit inclusion or exclusion of abstract nodes
[I-D.ietf-pce-rfc6006bis] describes four possible types of leaves in
a P2MP request encoded in P2MP END-POINTS object.
o New leaves to add
o Old leaves to remove
o Old leaves whose path can be modified/reoptimized
o Old leaves whose path must be left unchanged
[I-D.ietf-pce-rfc6006bis] only allows to encode a list of nodes that
have (or have not) the branch node capability by using the Branch
Node Capability (BNC) Object. This object apply to all destinations
(old and new) in the P2MP tree.
For an existing P2MP tree with an overloaded branch node, when adding
a set of new leaves, administrator may want to exclude that
particular branch node to balance the final P2MP tree. This cannot
be achieved via the BNC object but by explicitly excluding a
particular node or including a different node, for the P2MP END-
POINTS object for new leaves only.
Administrator at the Ingress can exert stronger control by providing
explicit inclusion or exclusion of any abstract nodes (not limited to
specifying nodes with branch node capability) for a group (subset) of
destinations and not all destinations.
4. Detailed Description
Dhody, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft EXPLICIT-INC-EXC-ABSTRACT-NODES March 2017
4.1. Objective
[I-D.ietf-pce-rfc6006bis] and [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp]
defines Request Message Format and Objects, along with <end-point-
rro-pair-list>. This section introduce the use of <IRO> and <XRO>
which are added to the <end-point-rro-pair-list>.
To allow abstract nodes to be explicitly included or excluded for a
subset of destinations (encoded in one <END-POINTS> object), changes
are made as shown below.
The abstract node (encoded as subobject in <IRO> and <XRO>) MAY be an
absolute hop, IP-Prefix, AS or IGP Area. The subobjects are
described in [RFC3209], [RFC3477], [RFC4874] and [RFC7897].
Note that one P2MP Path request can have multiple <END-POINTS>
objects and each P2MP <END-POINTS> object may have multiple
destinations, the <pce-list>, <IRO> and <XRO> is applied for all
destinations in one such P2MP <END-POINTS> object.
4.2. Request Message Format
The format of PCReq message, with [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp] as
base, is modified as follows:
Dhody, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft EXPLICIT-INC-EXC-ABSTRACT-NODES March 2017
<PCReq Message>::= <Common Header>
[<svec-list>]
<request-list>
where:
<svec-list>::= <SVEC>
[<OF>]
[<metric-list>]
[<svec-list>]
<request-list>::=<request>[<request-list>]
<request>::= <RP>
<end-point-pce-iro-xro-rro-pair-list>
[<LSP>]
[<OF>]
[<LSPA>]
[<BANDWIDTH>]
[<metric-list>]
[<IRO>|<BNC>]
[<LOAD-BALANCING>]
<end-point-pce-iro-xro-rro-pair-list>::=
<END-POINTS>
[<IRO>]
[<XRO>]
[<RRO-List>][<BANDWIDTH>]
[<end-point-pce-iro-xro-rro-pair-list>]
<RRO-List>::=(<RRO>|<SRRO>)[<RRO-List>]
<metric-list>::=<METRIC>[<metric-list>]
From [I-D.ietf-pce-rfc6006bis] and [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp],
usage of <end-point-rro-pair-list> is changed to <end-point-pce-iro-
xro-rro-pair-list> in this document.
[I-D.ietf-pce-rfc6006bis] describes Branch Node Capability (BNC)
Object which is different from the use of <IRO> and <XRO> to specify
inclusion/exclusion of abstract nodes for a subset of destinations as
described here.
Dhody, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft EXPLICIT-INC-EXC-ABSTRACT-NODES March 2017
4.3. Report Message Format
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp] defines a report message format and
objects. This document extends the message to allow explicit
inclusion and exclusion of abstract nodes for a group of
destinations.
<PCRpt Message> ::= <Common Header>
<state-report-list>
Where:
<state-report-list> ::= <state-report>
[<state-report-list>]
<state-report> ::= [<SRP>]
<LSP>
<end-point-intended-path-pair-list>
[<actual_attribute_list>
<end-point-actual-path-pair-list>]
<intended-attribute-list>
Where:
<end-point-intended-path-pair-list>::=
[<END-POINTS>]
[<S2LS>]
[<IRO>]
[<XRO>]
<intended_path>
[<end-point-intended-path-pair-list>]
<end-point-actual-path-pair-list>::=
[<END-POINTS>]
[<S2LS>]
<actual_path>
[<end-point-actual-path-pair-list>]
<intended_path> ::= (<ERO>|<SERO>)
[<intended_path>]
<actual_path> ::= (<RRO>|<SRRO>)
[<actual_path>]
<intended_path> is represented by the ERO, SERO object. The
<actual_attribute_list> consists of the actual computed and signaled
values of the <BANDWIDTH> and <metric-lists> objects defined in
[RFC5440]. <actual_path> is represented by the RRO, SERO object.
Dhody, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft EXPLICIT-INC-EXC-ABSTRACT-NODES March 2017
The <end-point-intended-path-pair-list> is extended to add the IRO
and XRO object for a group of destinations in the END-POINTS object.
4.4. Backward Compatibility
A legacy implementation that does not support explicit inclusion or
exclusion of abstract nodes for a subset of P2MP destinations will
act according to the procedures set out in [RFC5440], that is it will
find the P2MP Path Request message out of order with respect to the
format specified in [I-D.ietf-pce-rfc6006bis] and
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp].
5. IANA Considerations
There are no new IANA allocation in this document.
6. Security Considerations
PCEP security mechanisms as described in [RFC5440],
[I-D.ietf-pce-rfc6006bis], [RFC7334] and
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp] are applicable for this document.
The new explicit inclusion or exclusion of abstract nodes for a
subset of P2MP destination defined in this document allow finer and
more specific control of the path computed by a PCE. Such control
increases the risk if a PCEP message is intercepted, modified, or
spoofed because it allows the attacker to exert control over the path
that the PCE will compute or to make the path computation impossible.
Therefore, the security techniques described in [RFC5440],
[I-D.ietf-pce-rfc6006bis], [RFC7334] and
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp] are considered more important.
Note, however, that the route exclusion mechanisms also provide the
operator with the ability to route around vulnerable parts of the
network and may be used to increase overall network security.
7. Manageability Considerations
7.1. Control of Function and Policy
Mechanisms defined in this document do not add any new control
function/policy requirements in addition to those already listed in
[I-D.ietf-pce-rfc6006bis] and [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp].
Dhody, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft EXPLICIT-INC-EXC-ABSTRACT-NODES March 2017
7.2. Information and Data Models
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new MIB
requirements.
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 [I-D.ietf-pce-rfc6006bis] and
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp].
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
[I-D.ietf-pce-rfc6006bis] and [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp].
7.5. Requirements On Other Protocols
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any requirements on
other protocols in addition to those already listed in
[I-D.ietf-pce-rfc6006bis] and [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp].
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
[I-D.ietf-pce-rfc6006bis] and [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp].
8. Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Pradeep Shastry, Suresh babu, Quintin Zhao,
Daniel King and Chen Huaimo for their useful comments and
suggestions.
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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
Dhody, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft EXPLICIT-INC-EXC-ABSTRACT-NODES March 2017
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-rfc6006bis]
Zhao, Q., Dhody, D., Palleti, R., King, D., Verhaeghe, F.,
Takeda, T., and J. Meuric, "Extensions to the Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for
Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched
Paths", draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-00 (work in progress),
March 2017.
[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-18 (work in progress), December 2016.
[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-09 (work in
progress), March 2017.
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp]
Palle, U., Dhody, D., Tanaka, Y., and V. Beeram, "Path
Computation Element (PCE) Protocol Extensions for Stateful
PCE usage for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering
Label Switched Paths", draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp-02
(work in progress), March 2017.
9.2. Informative References
[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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
[RFC3477] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered Links
in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, DOI 10.17487/RFC3477, January 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3477>.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
Dhody, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft EXPLICIT-INC-EXC-ABSTRACT-NODES March 2017
[RFC4874] Lee, CY., Farrel, A., and S. De Cnodder, "Exclude Routes -
Extension to Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 4874, DOI 10.17487/RFC4874,
April 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4874>.
[RFC5862] Yasukawa, S. and A. Farrel, "Path Computation Clients
(PCC) - Path Computation Element (PCE) Requirements for
Point-to-Multipoint MPLS-TE", RFC 5862,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5862, June 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5862>.
[RFC7334] Zhao, Q., Dhody, D., King, D., Ali, Z., and R. Casellas,
"PCE-Based Computation Procedure to Compute Shortest
Constrained Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Inter-Domain
Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths", RFC 7334,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7334, August 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7334>.
[RFC7897] Dhody, D., Palle, U., and R. Casellas, "Domain Subobjects
for the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
(PCEP)", RFC 7897, DOI 10.17487/RFC7897, June 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7897>.
[RFC8051] Zhang, X., Ed. and I. Minei, Ed., "Applicability of a
Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)", RFC 8051,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8051, January 2017,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8051>.
Authors' Addresses
Dhruv Dhody
Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
India
EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
Udayasree Palle
Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
India
EMail: udayasree.palle@huawei.com
Dhody, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft EXPLICIT-INC-EXC-ABSTRACT-NODES March 2017
Venugopal Reddy Kondreddy
Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
India
EMail: venugopalreddyk@huawei.com
Dhody, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 14]