draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-04.txt   draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-05.txt 
Network Working Group S. Sivabalan Network Working Group S. Sivabalan
Internet-Draft J. Medved Internet-Draft J. Medved
Intended status: Standards Track C. Filsfils Intended status: Standards Track C. Filsfils
Expires: November 20, 2015 Cisco Systems, Inc. Expires: December 2, 2015 Cisco Systems, Inc.
E. Crabbe E. Crabbe
R. Raszuk R. Raszuk
Mirantis Inc. Mirantis Inc.
V. Lopez V. Lopez
Telefonica I+D Telefonica I+D
J. Tantsura J. Tantsura
Ericsson Ericsson
W. Henderickx W. Henderickx
Alcatel Lucent Alcatel Lucent
J. Hardwick J. Hardwick
Metaswitch Networks Metaswitch Networks
May 19, 2015 May 31, 2015
PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-04.txt draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-05.txt
Abstract Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) enables any head-end node to select any path Segment Routing (SR) enables any head-end node to select any path
without relying on a hop-by-hop signaling technique (e.g., LDP or without relying on a hop-by-hop signaling technique (e.g., LDP or
RSVP-TE). It depends only on "segments" that are advertised by Link- RSVP-TE). It depends only on "segments" that are advertised by Link-
State Interior Gateway Protocols (IGPs). A Segment Routed Path can State Interior Gateway Protocols (IGPs). A Segment Routed Path can
be derived from a variety of mechanisms, including an IGP Shortest be derived from a variety of mechanisms, including an IGP Shortest
Path Tree (SPT), explicit configuration, or a Path Computation Path Tree (SPT), explicit configuration, or a Path Computation
Element (PCE). This document specifies extensions to the Path Element (PCE). This document specifies extensions to the Path
skipping to change at page 1, line 44 skipping to change at page 1, line 44
compute and initiate Traffic Engineering (TE) paths, as well as a PCC compute and initiate Traffic Engineering (TE) paths, as well as a PCC
to request a path subject to certain constraint(s) and optimization to request a path subject to certain constraint(s) and optimization
criteria in SR networks. criteria in SR networks.
Requirements Language Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Status of this Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://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 November 20, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 2, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Overview of PCEP Operation in SR Networks . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Overview of PCEP Operation in SR Networks . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. SR-Specific PCEP Message Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. SR-Specific PCEP Message Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Object Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Object Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. The OPEN Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.1. The OPEN Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1.1. The SR PCE Capability TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.1.1. The SR PCE Capability TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. The RP/SRP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.2. The RP/SRP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.3. ERO Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.3. ERO Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.3.1. SR-ERO Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.3.1. SR-ERO Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.3.2. NAI Associated with SID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.3.2. NAI Associated with SID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3.3. ERO Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.3.3. ERO Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.4. RRO Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.4. RRO Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.4.1. RRO Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.4.1. RRO Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.5. METRIC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.5. METRIC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7. Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.1. Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7.1. Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.2. The PCEP Data Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7.2. The PCEP Data Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.1. PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.2. PCEP-Error Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 9.1. PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.3. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 9.2. PCEP-Error Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.4. New Path Setup Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 9.3. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.5. New Metric Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 9.4. New Path Setup Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9.5. New Metric Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
SR technology leverages the source routing and tunneling paradigms. SR technology leverages the source routing and tunneling paradigms.
A source node can choose a path without relying on hop-by-hop A source node can choose a path without relying on hop-by-hop
signaling protocols such as LDP or RSVP-TE. Each path is specified signaling protocols such as LDP or RSVP-TE. Each path is specified
as a set of "segments" advertised by link-state routing protocols as a set of "segments" advertised by link-state routing protocols
(IS-IS or OSPF). [I-D.filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing] provides an (IS-IS or OSPF). [I-D.filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing] provides an
introduction to SR architecture. The corresponding IS-IS and OSPF introduction to SR architecture. The corresponding IS-IS and OSPF
extensions are specified in extensions are specified in
skipping to change at page 12, line 22 skipping to change at page 11, line 34
format of the NAI is shown in the following figure: format of the NAI is shown in the following figure:
0 1 2 3 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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local IPv4 address | | Local IPv4 address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote IPv4 address | | Remote IPv4 address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: NAI for IPv4 Adjacency Figure 3: NAI for IPv4 Adjacency
'IPv6 Adjacency' is specified as a pair of IPv6 addresses. In this 'IPv6 Adjacency' is specified as a pair of IPv6 addresses. In this
case, ST valie is 4. The Length is 8, 36 or 40 depending on case, ST valie is 4. The Length is 8, 36 or 40 depending on
whether SID or NAI or both included in the subobject,and the whether SID or NAI or both included in the subobject,and the
format of the NAI is shown in the following figure: format of the NAI is shown in the following figure:
0 1 2 3 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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Local IPv6 address (16 bytes) // // Local IPv6 address (16 bytes) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Remote IPv6 address (16 bytes) // // Remote IPv6 address (16 bytes) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: NAI for IPv6 adjacenc y Figure 4: NAI for IPv6 adjacenc y
'Unnumbered Adjacency with IPv4 NodeIDs' is specified as a pair of 'Unnumbered Adjacency with IPv4 NodeIDs' is specified as a pair of
Node ID / Interface ID tuples. In this case, ST value is 5. The Node ID / Interface ID tuples. In this case, ST value is 5. The
Length is 8, 20, or 24 depending on whether SID or NAI or both Length is 8, 20, or 24 depending on whether SID or NAI or both
included in the subobject, and the format of the NAI is shown in included in the subobject, and the format of the NAI is shown in
the following figure: the following figure:
0 1 2 3 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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local Node-ID | | Local Node-ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local Interface ID | | Local Interface ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote Node-ID | | Remote Node-ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote Interface ID | | Remote Interface ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: NAI for Unnumbered adjacency with IPv4 Node IDs Figure 5: NAI for Unnumbered adjacency with IPv4 Node IDs
Editorial Note: We are yet to decide if another SID subobject is Editorial Note: We are yet to decide if another SID subobject is
required for unnumbered adjacency with 128 bit node ID. required for unnumbered adjacency with 128 bit node ID.
5.3.3. ERO Processing 5.3.3. ERO Processing
A PCEP speaker that does not recognize the SR-ERO subobject in PCRep, A PCEP speaker that does not recognize the SR-ERO subobject in PCRep,
PCInitiate, PCUpd or PCRpt messages MUST reject the entire PCEP PCInitiate, PCUpd or PCRpt messages MUST reject the entire PCEP
message and MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type=3 ("Unknown message and MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type=3 ("Unknown
Object") and Error-Value=2 ("Unrecognized object Type") or Error- Object") and Error-Value=2 ("Unrecognized object Type") or Error-
skipping to change at page 16, line 35 skipping to change at page 16, line 16
This document defines a new sub-object type for the PCEP explicit This document defines a new sub-object type for the PCEP explicit
route object (ERO), and a new sub-object type for the PCEP record route object (ERO), and a new sub-object type for the PCEP record
route object (RRO). The code points for sub-object types of these route object (RRO). The code points for sub-object types of these
objects is maintained in the RSVP parameters registry, under the objects is maintained in the RSVP parameters registry, under the
EXPLICIT_ROUTE and ROUTE_RECORD objects. IANA is requested to EXPLICIT_ROUTE and ROUTE_RECORD objects. IANA is requested to
allocate code points in the RSVP Parameters registry for each of the allocate code points in the RSVP Parameters registry for each of the
new sub-object types defined in this document, as follows: new sub-object types defined in this document, as follows:
Object Sub-Object Sub-Object Type Object Sub-Object Sub-Object Type
--------------------- -------------------------- ------------------ --------------------- -------------------------- ------------------
EXPLICIT_ROUTE SR-ERO TBD (recommended 5) EXPLICIT_ROUTE SR-ERO (PCEP-specific) TBD (recommended 5)
ROUTE_RECORD SR-RRO TBD (recommended 6) ROUTE_RECORD SR-RRO (PCEP-specific) TBD (recommended 6)
9.2. PCEP-Error Object 9.2. PCEP-Error Object
IANA is requested to allocate code-points in the PCEP-ERROR Object IANA is requested to allocate code-points in the PCEP-ERROR Object
Error Types and Values registry for the following new error-values: Error Types and Values registry for the following new error-values:
Error-Type Meaning Error-Type Meaning
---------- ------- ---------- -------
10 Reception of an invalid object. 10 Reception of an invalid object.
Error-value = TBD (recommended 2): Bad label value Error-value = TBD (recommended 2): Bad label value
Error-value = TBD (recommended 3): Unsupported number Error-value = TBD (recommended 3): Unsupported number
of Segment ERO of Segment ERO
subobjects subobjects
Error-value = TBD (recommended 4): Bad label format Error-value = TBD (recommended 4): Bad label format
Error-value = TBD (recommended 5): Non-identical ERO Error-value = TBD (recommended 5): Non-identical ERO
subobjects subobjects
Error-value = TBD (recommended 6): Both SID and NAI Error-value = TBD (recommended 6): Both SID and NAI
are absent in ERO are absent in ERO
subobject subobject
skipping to change at page 18, line 12 skipping to change at page 17, line 40
IANA is requested to allocate a new code point in the PCEP METRIC IANA is requested to allocate a new code point in the PCEP METRIC
object T field registry, as follows: object T field registry, as follows:
Value Description Reference Value Description Reference
------------------------- ---------------------------- -------------- ------------------------- ---------------------------- --------------
TBD (recommended 11) Segment-ID (SID) Depth. This document TBD (recommended 11) Segment-ID (SID) Depth. This document
10. Contributors 10. Contributors
The following people contributed to this document: The following people contributed to this document:
- Lakshmi Sharma (Cisco Systems)
- Lakshmi Sharma
11. Acknowledgements 11. Acknowledgements
We like to thank Ina Minei, George Swallow, Marek Zavodsky and Tomas We like to thank Ina Minei, George Swallow, Marek Zavodsky and Tomas
Janciga for the valuable comments. Janciga for the valuable comments.
12. References 12. References
12.1. Normative References 12.1. Normative References
[I-D.filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing] [I-D.filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., Milojevic, I., Shakir, R., Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., Milojevic, I., Shakir, R.,
Ytti, S., Henderickx, W., Tantsura, J., and E. Crabbe, Ytti, S., Henderickx, W., Tantsura, J., and E. Crabbe,
"Segment Routing Architecture", "Segment Routing Architecture", draft-filsfils-rtgwg-
draft-filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing-01 (work in segment-routing-01 (work in progress), October 2013.
progress), October 2013.
[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions] [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Gredler, H., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Gredler, H.,
Litkowski, S., and J. Tantsura, "IS-IS Extensions for Litkowski, S., and J. Tantsura, "IS-IS Extensions for
Segment Routing", Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-
draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-00 (work in extensions-00 (work in progress), April 2014.
progress), April 2014.
[I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions]
Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF
Extensions for Segment Routing", Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-segment-
draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-00 (work in routing-extensions-00 (work in progress), June 2014.
progress), June 2014.
[I-D.ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type] [I-D.ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type]
Sivabalan, S., Medved, J., Minei, I., Crabbe, E., and R. Sivabalan, S., Medved, J., Minei, I., Crabbe, E., and R.
Varga, "Conveying path setup type in PCEP messages", Varga, "Conveying path setup type in PCEP messages",
draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-00 (work in progress), draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-00 (work in progress),
October 2014. October 2014.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]
Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "PCEP Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "PCEP
Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
skipping to change at page 19, line 19 skipping to change at page 18, line 45
progress), June 2014. progress), June 2014.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-mib] [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-mib]
Koushik, K., Stephan, E., Zhao, Q., King, D., and J. Koushik, K., Stephan, E., Zhao, Q., King, D., and J.
Hardwick, "PCE communication protocol (PCEP) Management Hardwick, "PCE communication protocol (PCEP) Management
Information Base", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-mib-04 (work in Information Base", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-mib-04 (work in
progress), February 2013. progress), February 2013.
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]
Crabbe, E., Medved, J., Minei, I., and R. Varga, "PCEP Crabbe, E., Medved, J., Minei, I., and R. Varga, "PCEP
Extensions for Stateful PCE", Extensions for Stateful PCE", draft-ietf-pce-stateful-
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-05 (work in progress), pce-05 (work in progress), July 2013.
July 2013.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP. and JL. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP. and JL. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element
(PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, March
March 2009. 2009.
[RFC5462] Andersson, L. and R. Asati, "Multiprotocol Label Switching [RFC5462] Andersson, L. and R. Asati, "Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic (MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic
Class" Field", RFC 5462, February 2009. Class" Field", RFC 5462, February 2009.
12.2. Informative References 12.2. Informative References
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
 End of changes. 18 change blocks. 
58 lines changed or deleted 56 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/