draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-01.txt   draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-02.txt 
PCE Working Group S. Sivabalan PCE Working Group S. Sivabalan
Internet-Draft C. Filsfils Internet-Draft C. Filsfils
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc. Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: May 6, 2020 J. Tantsura Expires: September 10, 2020 J. Tantsura
Apstra, Inc. Apstra, Inc.
J. Hardwick J. Hardwick
Metaswitch Networks Metaswitch Networks
S. Previdi S. Previdi
C. Li C. Li
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
November 3, 2019 March 9, 2020
Carrying Binding Label/Segment-ID in PCE-based Networks. Carrying Binding Label/Segment-ID in PCE-based Networks.
draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-01 draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-02
Abstract Abstract
In order to provide greater scalability, network opacity, and service In order to provide greater scalability, network opacity, and service
independence, Segment Routing (SR) utilizes a Binding Segment independence, Segment Routing (SR) utilizes a Binding Segment
Identifier (BSID). It is possible to associate a BSID to RSVP-TE Identifier (BSID). It is possible to associate a BSID to RSVP-TE
signaled Traffic Engineering Label Switching Path or binding Segment- signaled Traffic Engineering Label Switching Path or binding Segment-
ID (SID) to SR Traffic Engineering path. Such a binding label/SID ID (SID) to SR Traffic Engineering path. Such a binding label/SID
can be used by an upstream node for steering traffic into the can be used by an upstream node for steering traffic into the
appropriate TE path to enforce SR policies. This document proposes appropriate TE path to enforce SR policies. This document proposes
skipping to change at page 2, line 7 skipping to change at page 2, line 7
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 6, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 10, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Path Binding TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Path Binding TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Binding SID in SR-ERO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Binding SID in SR-ERO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Binding SID in SRv6-ERO/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Binding SID in SRv6-ERO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1. Huawei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7.1. Huawei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
skipping to change at page 3, line 39 skipping to change at page 3, line 39
SID-list. SID-list.
[RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) for [RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) for
communication between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a PCE or communication between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a PCE or
between a pair of PCEs as per [RFC4655]. [RFC8231] specifies between a pair of PCEs as per [RFC4655]. [RFC8231] specifies
extension to PCEP that allows a PCC to delegate its LSPs to a extension to PCEP that allows a PCC to delegate its LSPs to a
stateful PCE. A stateful PCE can then update the state of LSPs stateful PCE. A stateful PCE can then update the state of LSPs
delegated to it. [RFC8281] specifies a mechanism allowing a PCE to delegated to it. [RFC8281] specifies a mechanism allowing a PCE to
dynamically instantiate an LSP on a PCC by sending the path and dynamically instantiate an LSP on a PCC by sending the path and
characteristics. The PCEP extension to setup and maintain SR-TE characteristics. The PCEP extension to setup and maintain SR-TE
paths is specified in [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing]. paths is specified in [RFC8664].
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] provides a mechanism for a network [RFC8664] provides a mechanism for a network controller (acting as a
controller (acting as a PCE) to instantiate candidate paths for an SR PCE) to instantiate candidate paths for an SR Policy onto a head-end
Policy onto a head-end node (acting as a PCC) using PCEP. For more node (acting as a PCC) using PCEP. For more information on the SR
information on the SR Policy Architecture, see Policy Architecture, see [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].
Binding label/SID has local significance to the ingress node of the Binding label/SID has local significance to the ingress node of the
corresponding TE path. When a stateful PCE is deployed for setting corresponding TE path. When a stateful PCE is deployed for setting
up TE paths, it may be desirable to report the binding label or SID up TE paths, it may be desirable to report the binding label or SID
to the stateful PCE for the purpose of enforcing end-to-end TE/SR to the stateful PCE for the purpose of enforcing end-to-end TE/SR
policy. A sample Data Center (DC) use-case is illustrated in the policy. A sample Data Center (DC) use-case is illustrated in the
following diagram. In the MPLS DC network, an SR LSP (without following diagram. In the MPLS DC network, an SR LSP (without
traffic engineering) is established using a prefix SID advertised by traffic engineering) is established using a prefix SID advertised by
BGP (see [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid]). In IP/MPLS WAN, an SR-TE BGP (see [RFC8669]). In IP/MPLS WAN, an SR-TE LSP is setup using the
LSP is setup using the PCE. The list of SIDs of the SR-TE LSP is {A, PCE. The list of SIDs of the SR-TE LSP is {A, B, C, D}. The gateway
B, C, D}. The gateway node 1 (which is the PCC) allocates a binding node 1 (which is the PCC) allocates a binding SID X and reports it to
SID X and reports it to the PCE. In order for the access node to the PCE. In order for the access node to steer the traffic over the
steer the traffic over the SR-TE LSP, the PCE passes the SID stack SR-TE LSP, the PCE passes the SID stack {Y, X} where Y is the prefix
{Y, X} where Y is the prefix SID of the gateway node-1 to the access SID of the gateway node-1 to the access node. In the absence of the
node. In the absence of the binding SID X, the PCE should pass the binding SID X, the PCE should pass the SID stack {Y, A, B, C, D} to
SID stack {Y, A, B, C, D} to the access node. This example also the access node. This example also illustrates the additional
illustrates the additional benefit of using the binding SID to reduce benefit of using the binding SID to reduce the number of SIDs imposed
the number of SIDs imposed on the access nodes with a limited on the access nodes with a limited forwarding capacity.
forwarding capacity.
SID stack SID stack
{Y, X} +-----+ {Y, X} +-----+
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _| PCE | _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _| PCE |
| +-----+ | +-----+
| ^ | ^
| | Binding | | Binding
| .-----. | SID (X) .-----. | .-----. | SID (X) .-----.
| ( ) | ( ) | ( ) | ( )
V .--( )--. | .--( )--. V .--( )--. | .--( )--.
skipping to change at page 6, line 35 skipping to change at page 6, line 35
MPLS label binding as well as SRv6 Binding SID. It is formatted MPLS label binding as well as SRv6 Binding SID. It is formatted
according to the rules specified in [RFC5440]. according to the rules specified in [RFC5440].
Binding Type (BT): A one byte field identifies the type of binding Binding Type (BT): A one byte field identifies the type of binding
included in the TLV. This document specifies the following BT included in the TLV. This document specifies the following BT
values: values:
o BT = 0: The binding value is an MPLS label carried in the format o BT = 0: The binding value is an MPLS label carried in the format
specified in [RFC5462] where only the label value is valid, and specified in [RFC5462] where only the label value is valid, and
other fields (TC, S, and TTL) fields MUST be considered invalid. other fields (TC, S, and TTL) fields MUST be considered invalid.
The Length MUST be set to 6. The Length MUST be set to 7.
o BT = 1: Similar to the case where BT is 0 except that all the o BT = 1: Similar to the case where BT is 0 except that all the
fields on the MPLS label entry are set on transmission. However, fields on the MPLS label entry are set on transmission. However,
the receiver MAY choose to override TC, S, and TTL values the receiver MAY choose to override TC, S, and TTL values
according its local policy. according its local policy. The Length MUST be set to 8.
o BT = 2: The binding value is a SRv6 SID with a format of an 16 o BT = 2: The binding value is a SRv6 SID with a format of an 16
byte IPv6 address, representing the binding SID for SRv6. byte IPv6 address, representing the binding SID for SRv6. The
Length MUST be set to 20.
Reserved: MUST be set to 0 while sending and ignored on receipt. Reserved: MUST be set to 0 while sending and ignored on receipt.
Binding Value: A variable length field, padded with trailing zeros to Binding Value: A variable length field, padded with trailing zeros to
a 4-byte boundary. For the BT as 0, the 20 bits represents the MPLS a 4-byte boundary. For the BT as 0, the 20 bits represents the MPLS
label. For the BT as 1, the 32-bits represents the label stack entry label. For the BT as 1, the 32-bits represents the label stack entry
as per [RFC5462]. For the BT as 2, the 128-bits represent the SRv6 as per [RFC5462]. For the BT as 2, the 128-bits represent the SRv6
SID. SID.
4. Operation 4. Operation
skipping to change at page 7, line 20 skipping to change at page 7, line 22
recognizes the TLV but does not support the TLV, it MUST send PCErr recognizes the TLV but does not support the TLV, it MUST send PCErr
with Error-Type = 2 (Capability not supported). with Error-Type = 2 (Capability not supported).
If a TE-PATH-BINDING TLV is absent in PCRpt message, PCE MUST assume If a TE-PATH-BINDING TLV is absent in PCRpt message, PCE MUST assume
that the corresponding LSP does not have any binding. If there are that the corresponding LSP does not have any binding. If there are
more than one TE-PATH-BINDING TLVs, only the first TLV MUST be more than one TE-PATH-BINDING TLVs, only the first TLV MUST be
processed and the rest MUST be silently ignored. If a PCE recognizes processed and the rest MUST be silently ignored. If a PCE recognizes
an invalid binding value (e.g., label value from the reserved label an invalid binding value (e.g., label value from the reserved label
space when MPLS label binding is used), it MUST send the PCErr space when MPLS label binding is used), it MUST send the PCErr
message with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and message with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and
Error Value = 2 ("Bad label value") as specified in Error Value = 2 ("Bad label value") as specified in [RFC8664].
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing].
If a PCE requires a PCC to allocate a specific binding value, it may If a PCE requires a PCC to allocate a specific binding value, it may
do so by sending a PCUpd or PCInitiate message containing a TE-PATH- do so by sending a PCUpd or PCInitiate message containing a TE-PATH-
BINDING TLV. If the value can be successfully allocated, the PCC BINDING TLV. If the value can be successfully allocated, the PCC
reports the binding value to the PCE. If the PCC considers the reports the binding value to the PCE. If the PCC considers the
binding value specified by the PCE invalid, it MUST send a PCErr binding value specified by the PCE invalid, it MUST send a PCErr
message with Error-Type = TBD2 ("Binding label/SID failure") and message with Error-Type = TBD2 ("Binding label/SID failure") and
Error Value = TBD3 ("Invalid SID"). If the binding value is valid, Error Value = TBD3 ("Invalid SID"). If the binding value is valid,
but the PCC is unable to allocate the binding value, it MUST send a but the PCC is unable to allocate the binding value, it MUST send a
PCErr message with Error-Type = TBD2 ("Binding label/SID failure") PCErr message with Error-Type = TBD2 ("Binding label/SID failure")
skipping to change at page 8, line 26 skipping to change at page 8, line 27
binding value. It may do so by sending a PCUpd message containing an binding value. It may do so by sending a PCUpd message containing an
empty TE-PATH-BINDING TLV, i.e., no binding value is specified empty TE-PATH-BINDING TLV, i.e., no binding value is specified
(making the length field of the TLV as 2). A PCE can also make the (making the length field of the TLV as 2). A PCE can also make the
request PCC to allocate a binding at the time of initiation by request PCC to allocate a binding at the time of initiation by
sending a PCInitiate message with an empty TE-PATH-BINDING TLV. sending a PCInitiate message with an empty TE-PATH-BINDING TLV.
5. Binding SID in SR-ERO 5. Binding SID in SR-ERO
In PCEP messages, LSP route information is carried in the Explicit In PCEP messages, LSP route information is carried in the Explicit
Route Object (ERO), which consists of a sequence of subobjects. Route Object (ERO), which consists of a sequence of subobjects.
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] defines a new ERO subobject "SR-ERO [RFC8664] defines a new ERO subobject "SR-ERO subobject" capable of
subobject" capable of carrying a SID as well as the identity of the carrying a SID as well as the identity of the node/adjacency (NAI)
node/adjacency (NAI) represented by the SID. The NAI Type (NT) field represented by the SID. The NAI Type (NT) field indicates the type
indicates the type and format of the NAI contained in the SR-ERO. In and format of the NAI contained in the SR-ERO. In case of binding
case of binding SID, the NAI MUST NOT be included and NT MUST be set SID, the NAI MUST NOT be included and NT MUST be set to zero. So as
to zero. So as per Section 5.2.1 of [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing], per Section 5.2.1 of [RFC8664], for NT=0, the F bit is set to 1, the
for NT=0, the F bit is set to 1, the S bit needs to be zero and the S bit needs to be zero and the Length is 8. Further the M bit is
Length is 8. Further the M bit is set. If these conditions are not set. If these conditions are not met, the entire ERO MUST be
met, the entire ERO MUST be considered invalid and a PCErr message is considered invalid and a PCErr message is sent with Error-Type = 10
sent with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and ("Reception of an invalid object") and Error-Value = 11 ("Malformed
Error-Value = 11 ("Malformed object"). object").
6. Binding SID in SRv6-ERO/ 6. Binding SID in SRv6-ERO
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] defines a new ERO subobject "SRv6-ERO [RFC8664] defines a new ERO subobject "SRv6-ERO subobject" for SRv6
subobject" for SRv6 SID. The NAI MUST NOT be included and NT MUST be SID. The NAI MUST NOT be included and NT MUST be set to zero. So as
set to zero. So as per Section 5.2.1 of per Section 5.2.1 of [RFC8664], for NT=0, the F bit is set to 1, the
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing], for NT=0, the F bit is set to 1, the
S bit needs to be zero and the Length is 24. If these conditions are S bit needs to be zero and the Length is 24. If these conditions are
not met, the entire ERO is considered invalid and a PCErr message is not met, the entire ERO is considered invalid and a PCErr message is
sent with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and sent with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and
Error-Value = 11 ("Malformed object") (as per Error-Value = 11 ("Malformed object") (as per [RFC8664]).
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing]).
7. Implementation Status 7. Implementation Status
[Note to the RFC Editor - remove this section before publication, as [Note to the RFC Editor - remove this section before publication, as
well as remove the reference to RFC 7942.] well as remove the reference to RFC 7942.]
This section records the status of known implementations of the This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942]. Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942].
The description of implementations in this section is intended to The description of implementations in this section is intended to
skipping to change at page 9, line 48 skipping to change at page 9, line 48
o Maturity Level: Production o Maturity Level: Production
o Coverage: Full o Coverage: Full
o Contact: chengli13@huawei.com o Contact: chengli13@huawei.com
8. Security Considerations 8. Security Considerations
The security considerations described in [RFC5440], [RFC8231], The security considerations described in [RFC5440], [RFC8231],
[RFC8281] and [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] are applicable to this [RFC8281] and [RFC8664] are applicable to this specification. No
specification. No additional security measure is required. additional security measure is required.
As described [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing], SR allows a network As described [RFC8664], SR allows a network controller to instantiate
controller to instantiate and control paths in the network. A rouge and control paths in the network. A rouge PCE can manipulate binding
PCE can manipulate binding SID allocations to move traffic around for SID allocations to move traffic around for some other LSPs that uses
some other LSPs that uses BSID in its SR-ERO. BSID in its SR-ERO.
Thus, as per [RFC8231], it is RECOMMENDED that these PCEP extensions Thus, as per [RFC8231], it is RECOMMENDED that these PCEP extensions
only be activated on authenticated and encrypted sessions across PCEs only be activated on authenticated and encrypted sessions across PCEs
and PCCs belonging to the same administrative authority, using and PCCs belonging to the same administrative authority, using
Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8253], as per the recommendations Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8253], as per the recommendations
and best current practices in BCP195 [RFC7525] (unless explicitly set and best current practices in BCP195 [RFC7525] (unless explicitly set
aside in [RFC8253]). aside in [RFC8253]).
9. Manageability Considerations 9. Manageability Considerations
All manageability requirements and considerations listed in All manageability requirements and considerations listed in
[RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] apply to [RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC8664] apply to PCEP protocol extensions
PCEP protocol extensions defined in this document. In addition, defined in this document. In addition, requirements and
requirements and considerations listed in this section apply. considerations listed in this section apply.
9.1. Control of Function and Policy 9.1. Control of Function and Policy
A PCC implementation SHOULD allow the operator to configure the A PCC implementation SHOULD allow the operator to configure the
policy based on which PCC needs to allocates the binding label/SID. policy based on which PCC needs to allocates the binding label/SID.
9.2. Information and Data Models 9.2. Information and Data Models
The PCEP YANG module [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] could be extended to The PCEP YANG module [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] could be extended to
include policy configuration for binding label/SID allocation. include policy configuration for binding label/SID allocation.
skipping to change at page 10, line 41 skipping to change at page 10, line 41
9.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring 9.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness
detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already
listed in [RFC5440]. listed in [RFC5440].
9.4. Verify Correct Operations 9.4. Verify Correct Operations
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new operation Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new operation
verification requirements in addition to those already listed in verification requirements in addition to those already listed in
[RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing]. [RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC8664].
9.5. Requirements On Other Protocols 9.5. Requirements On Other Protocols
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new requirements Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new requirements
on other protocols. on other protocols.
9.6. Impact On Network Operations 9.6. Impact On Network Operations
Mechanisms defined in [RFC5440], [RFC8231], and Mechanisms defined in [RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC8664] also apply
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] also apply to PCEP extensions defined to PCEP extensions defined in this document. Further, the mechanism
in this document. Further, the mechanism described in this document described in this document can help the operator to request control
can help the operator to request control of the LSPs at a particular of the LSPs at a particular PCE.
PCE.
10. IANA Considerations 10. IANA Considerations
10.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators 10.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators
This document defines a new PCEP TLV; IANA is requested to make the This document defines a new PCEP TLV; IANA is requested to make the
following allocations from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" sub- following allocations from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" sub-
registry of the PCEP Numbers registry, as follows: registry of the PCEP Numbers registry, as follows:
Value Name Reference Value Name Reference
skipping to change at page 13, line 22 skipping to change at page 13, line 22
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017, Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281>.
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., [RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402, Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>. July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] [RFC8664] Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,
Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W., and J. Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication
and J. Hardwick, "PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing", Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8664,
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-16 (work in progress), DOI 10.17487/RFC8664, December 2019,
March 2019. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8664>.
12.2. Informative References 12.2. Informative References
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006, DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[RFC8283] Farrel, A., Ed., Zhao, Q., Ed., Li, Z., and C. Zhou, "An [RFC8283] Farrel, A., Ed., Zhao, Q., Ed., Li, Z., and C. Zhou, "An
Architecture for Use of PCE and the PCE Communication Architecture for Use of PCE and the PCE Communication
Protocol (PCEP) in a Network with Central Control", Protocol (PCEP) in a Network with Central Control",
RFC 8283, DOI 10.17487/RFC8283, December 2017, RFC 8283, DOI 10.17487/RFC8283, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8283>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8283>.
[RFC8669] Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Lindem, A., Ed., Sreekantiah,
A., and H. Gredler, "Segment Routing Prefix Segment
Identifier Extensions for BGP", RFC 8669,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8669, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8669>.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
Filsfils, C., Sivabalan, S., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and Filsfils, C., Sivabalan, S., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and
P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft- P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft-
ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-03 (work in progress), ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-06 (work in progress),
May 2019. December 2019.
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid]
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Lindem, A., Sreekantiah, A.,
and H. Gredler, "Segment Routing Prefix SID extensions for
BGP", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-27 (work in progress),
June 2018.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller]
Zhao, Q., Li, Z., Negi, M., and C. Zhou, "PCEP Procedures Zhao, Q., Li, Z., Negi, M., Peng, S., and C. Zhou, "PCEP
and Protocol Extensions for Using PCE as a Central Procedures and Protocol Extensions for Using PCE as a
Controller (PCECC) of LSPs", draft-ietf-pce-pcep- Central Controller (PCECC) of LSPs", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-
extension-for-pce-controller-02 (work in progress), July extension-for-pce-controller-04 (work in progress), March
2019. 2020.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]
Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V., and J. Tantsura, "A Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V., and J. Tantsura, "A
YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element
Communications Protocol (PCEP)", draft-ietf-pce-pcep- Communications Protocol (PCEP)", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-
yang-13 (work in progress), October 2019. yang-13 (work in progress), October 2019.
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses Appendix A. Contributor Addresses
Dhruv Dhody Dhruv Dhody
 End of changes. 26 change blocks. 
79 lines changed or deleted 74 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/