idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-09.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (October 27, 2014) is 3462 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) No issues found here. Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group F. Zhang, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft Huawei 4 Intended status: Standards Track O. Gonzalez de Dios, Ed. 5 Expires: April 30, 2015 Telefonica Global CTO 6 D. Li 7 Huawei 8 C. Margaria 10 M. Hartley 11 Z. Ali 12 Cisco 13 October 27, 2014 15 RSVP-TE Extensions for Collecting SRLG Information 16 draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-09 18 Abstract 20 This document provides extensions for the Resource ReserVation 21 Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) to support automatic 22 collection of Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) information for the TE 23 link formed by a Label Switched Path (LSP). 25 Status of This Memo 27 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 28 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 30 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 31 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 32 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 33 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 35 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 36 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 37 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 38 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 40 This Internet-Draft will expire on April 30, 2015. 42 Copyright Notice 44 Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 45 document authors. All rights reserved. 47 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 48 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 49 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 50 publication of this document. Please review these documents 51 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 52 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 53 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 54 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 55 described in the Simplified BSD License. 57 Table of Contents 59 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 60 1.1. Applicability Example: Dual Homing . . . . . . . . . . . 3 61 2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 3. RSVP-TE Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 63 3.1. SRLG Collection Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 64 3.2. SRLG Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 65 3.3. SRLG Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 66 4. Encodings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 67 4.1. SRLG Collection Flag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 68 4.2. SRLG sub-object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 69 5. Signaling Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 70 5.1. SRLG Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 71 5.2. SRLG Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 72 5.3. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 73 6. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 74 6.1. Policy Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 75 6.2. Coherent SRLG IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 76 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 77 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 78 8.1. RSVP Attribute Bit Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 79 8.2. ROUTE_RECORD Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 80 8.3. Policy Control Failure Error subcodes . . . . . . . . . . 11 81 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 82 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 83 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 84 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 85 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 87 1. Introduction 89 It is important to understand which TE links in the network might be 90 at risk from the same failures. In this sense, a set of links can 91 constitute a 'shared risk link group' (SRLG) if they share a resource 92 whose failure can affect all links in the set [RFC4202]. 94 On the other hand, as described in [RFC4206] and [RFC6107], H-LSP 95 (Hierarchical LSP) or S-LSP (stitched LSP) can be used for carrying 96 one or more other LSPs. Both of the H-LSP and S-LSP can be formed as 97 a TE link. In such cases, it is important to know the SRLG 98 information of the LSPs that will be used to carry further LSPs. 100 This document provides a mechanism to collect the SRLGs used by a 101 LSP, which can then be advertized as properties of the TE-link formed 102 by that LSP. Note that specification of the the use of the collected 103 SRLGs is outside the scope of this document. 105 1.1. Applicability Example: Dual Homing 107 An interesting use case for the SRLG collection procedures defined in 108 this document is achieving LSP diversity in a dual homing scenario. 109 The use case is illustrated in Figure 1, when the overlay model is 110 applied as defined in RFC 4208 [RFC4208] . In this example, the 111 exchange of routing information over the User-Network Interface (UNI) 112 is prohibited by operator policy. 114 +---+ +---+ 115 | P |....| P | 116 +---+ +---+ 117 / \ 118 +-----+ +-----+ 119 +---+ | PE1 | | PE3 | +---+ 120 |CE1|----| | | |----|CE2| 121 +---+\ +-----+ +-----+ /+---+ 122 \ | | / 123 \ +-----+ +-----+ / 124 \| PE2 | | PE4 |/ 125 | | | | 126 +-----+ +-----+ 127 \ / 128 +---+ +---+ 129 | P |....| P | 130 +---+ +---+ 132 Figure 1: Dual Homing Configuration 134 Single-homed customer edge (CE) devices are connected to a single 135 provider edge (PE) device via a single UNI link (which could be a 136 bundle of parallel links, typically using the same fiber cable). 137 This single UNI link can constitute a single point of failure. Such 138 a single point of failure can be avoided if the CE device is 139 connected to two PE devices via two UNI interfaces as depicted in 140 Figure 1 above for CE1 and CE2, respectively. 142 For the dual-homing case, it is possible to establish two connections 143 (LSPs) from the source CE device to the same destination CE device 144 where one connection is using one UNI link to PE1, for example, and 145 the other connection is using the UNI link to PE2. In order to avoid 146 single points of failure within the provider network, it is necessary 147 to also ensure path (LSP) diversity within the provider network in 148 order to achieve end-to-end diversity for the two LSPs between the 149 two CE devices CE1 and CE2. This use case describes how it is 150 possible to achieve path diversity within the provider network based 151 on collected SRLG information. As the two connections (LSPs) enter 152 the provider network at different PE devices, the PE device that 153 receives the connection request for the second connection needs to 154 know the additional path computation constraints such that the path 155 of the second LSP is disjoint with respect to the already established 156 first connection. 158 As SRLG information is normally not shared between the provider 159 network and the client network, i.e., between PE and CE devices, the 160 challenge is how to solve the diversity problem when a CE is dual- 161 homed. For example, CE1 in Figure 1 may have requested an LSP1 to 162 CE2 via PE1 that is routed via PE3 to CE2. CE1 can then subsequently 163 request an LSP2 to CE2 via PE2 with the constraint that it needs to 164 be maximally SRLG disjoint with respect to LSP1. PE2, however, does 165 not have any SRLG information associated with LSP1, which is needed 166 as input for its constraint-based path computation function. If CE1 167 is capable of retrieving the SRLG information associated with LSP1 168 from PE1, it can pass this information to PE2 as part of the LSP2 169 setup request (RSVP PATH message), and PE2 can now calculate a path 170 for LSP2 that is SRLG disjoint with respect to LSP1. The SRLG 171 information associated with LSP1 can already be retrieved when LSP1 172 is setup or at any time before LSP2 is setup. 174 The RSVP extensions for collecting SRLG information defined in this 175 document make it possible to retrieve SRLG information for an LSP and 176 hence solve the dual-homing LSP diversity problem. When CE1 sends 177 the setup request for LSP2 to PE2, it can also request the collection 178 of SRLG information for LSP2 and send that information to PE1. This 179 will ensure that the two paths for the two LSPs remain mutually 180 diverse, which is important, when the provider network is capable to 181 restore connections that failed due to a network failure (fiber cut) 182 in the provider network. 184 Note that the knowledge of SRLG information even for multiple LSPs 185 does not allow a CE devices to derive the provider network topology 186 based on the collected SRLG information. 188 2. Requirements Language 190 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 191 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 192 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 194 3. RSVP-TE Requirements 196 3.1. SRLG Collection Indication 198 The ingress node of the LSP SHOULD be capable of indicating whether 199 the SRLG information of the LSP is to be collected during the 200 signaling procedure of setting up an LSP. SRLG information SHOULD 201 NOT be collected without an explicit request for it being made by the 202 ingress node. 204 3.2. SRLG Collection 206 If requested, the SRLG information SHOULD be collected during the 207 setup of an LSP. The endpoints of the LSP can use the collected SRLG 208 information, for example, for routing, sharing and TE link 209 configuration purposes. 211 3.3. SRLG Update 213 When the SRLG information of an existing LSP for which SRLG 214 information was collected during signaling changes, the relevant 215 nodes of the LSP SHOULD be capable of updating the SRLG information 216 of the LSP. This means that that the signaling procedure SHOULD be 217 capable of updating the new SRLG information. 219 4. Encodings 221 4.1. SRLG Collection Flag 223 In order to indicate nodes that SRLG collection is desired, this 224 document defines a new flag in the Attribute Flags TLV (see RFC 5420 225 [RFC5420]), which MAY be carried in an LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES or 226 LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object: 228 o Bit Number (temporarily 12, an early allocation has been made by 229 IANA, see Section 8.1 for more details): SRLG Collection flag 231 The SRLG Collection flag is meaningful on a Path message. If the 232 SRLG Collection flag is set to 1, it means that the SRLG information 233 SHOULD be reported to the ingress and egress node along the setup of 234 the LSP. 236 The rules of the processing of the Attribute Flags TLV are not 237 changed. 239 4.2. SRLG sub-object 241 This document defines a new RRO sub-object (ROUTE_RECORD sub-object) 242 to record the SRLG information of the LSP. Its format is modeled on 243 the RRO sub-objects defined in RFC 3209 [RFC3209]. 245 0 1 2 3 246 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 1 247 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 248 | Type | Length | Reserved | 249 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 250 | SRLG ID 1 (4 bytes) | 251 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 252 ~ ...... ~ 253 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 254 | SRLG ID n (4 bytes) | 255 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 257 Type 259 The type of the sub-object. The value is temporarily 34. An early 260 allocation has been made by IANA (see Section 8.2 for more details). 262 Length 264 The Length field contains the total length of the sub-object in 265 bytes, including the Type and Length fields. The Length depends on 266 the number of SRLG IDs. 268 Reserved 270 This 2 byte field is reserved. It SHOULD be set to zero on 271 transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt. 273 SRLG ID 275 This 4 byte field contains one SRLG ID. There is one SRLG ID field 276 per SRLG collected. There MAY be multiple SRLG ID fields in an SRLG 277 sub-object 279 As described in RFC 3209 [RFC3209], the RECORD_ROUTE object is 280 managed as a stack. The SRLG sub-object SHOULD be pushed by the node 281 before the node IP address or link identifier. The SRLG-sub-object 282 SHOULD be pushed after the Attribute subobject, if present, and after 283 the LABEL subobject, if requested. 285 RFC 5553 [RFC5553] describes mechanisms to carry a PKS (Path Key Sub- 286 object) in the RRO so as to facilitate confidentiality in the 287 signaling of inter-domain TE LSPs, and allows the path segment that 288 needs to be hidden (that is, a Confidential Path Segment (CPS)) to be 289 replaced in the RRO with a PKS. If the CPS contains SRLG Sub- 290 objects, these MAY be retained in the RRO by adding them again after 291 the PKS Sub-object in the RRO. The CPS is defined in RFC 5520 292 [RFC5520] 294 A node MUST NOT push a SRLG sub-object in the RECORD_ROUTE without 295 also pushing either a IPv4 sub-object, a IPv6 sub-object, a 296 Unnumbered Interface ID sub-object or a Path Key sub-object. 298 The rules of the processing of the LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES, 299 LSP_ATTRIBUTE and ROUTE_RECORD Objects are not changed. 301 5. Signaling Procedures 303 5.1. SRLG Collection 305 Per RFC 3209 [RFC3209], an ingress node initiates the recording of 306 the route information of an LSP by adding a RRO to a Path message. 307 If an ingress node also desires SRLG recording, it MUST set the SRLG 308 Collection Flag in the Attribute Flags TLV which MAY be carried 309 either in an LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object when the collection is 310 mandatory, or in an LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object when the collection is 311 desired, but not mandatory 313 When a node receives a Path message which carries an 314 LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object and the SRLG Collection Flag set, if 315 local policy determines that the SRLG information is not to be 316 provided to the endpoints, it MUST return a PathErr message with 317 Error Code 2 (policy) and Error subcode "SRLG Recording Rejected" 318 (value 31, an early allocation of the value has been done by IANA, 319 see Section 8.3 for more details) to reject the Path message. 321 When a node receives a Path message which carries an LSP_ATTRIBUTES 322 Object and the SRLG Collection Flag set, if local policy determines 323 that the SRLG information is not to be provided to the endpoints, the 324 Path message SHOULD NOT be rejected due to SRLG recording restriction 325 and the Path message SHOULD be forwarded without any SRLG sub- 326 object(s) in the RRO of the corresponding outgoing Path message. 328 If local policy permits the recording of the SRLG information, the 329 processing node SHOULD add local SRLG information, as defined below, 330 to the RRO of the corresponding outgoing Path message. The 331 processing node MAY add multiple SRLG sub-objects to the RRO if 332 necesary. It then forwards the Path message to the next node in the 333 downstream direction. 335 If the addition of SRLG information to the RRO would result in the 336 RRO exceeding its maximum possible size or becoming too large for the 337 Path message to contain it, the requested SRLGs MUST NOT be added. 338 If the SRLG collection request was contained in an 339 LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object, the processing node MUST behave as 340 specified by RFC 3209 [RFC3209] and drop the RRO from the Path 341 message entirely. If the SRLG collection request was contained in an 342 LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object, the processing node MAY omit some or all of 343 the requested SRLGs from the RRO; otherwise it MUST behave as 344 specified by RFC 3209 [RFC3209] and drop the RRO from the Path 345 message entirely. 347 Following the steps described above, the intermediate nodes of the 348 LSP can collect the SRLG information in the RRO during the processing 349 of the Path message hop by hop. When the Path message arrives at the 350 egress node, the egress node receives SRLG information in the RRO. 352 Per RFC 3209 [RFC3209], when issuing a Resv message for a Path 353 message which contains an RRO, an egress node initiates the RRO 354 process by adding an RRO to the outgoing Resv message. The 355 processing for RROs contained in Resv messages then mirrors that of 356 the Path messages. 358 When a node receives a Resv message for an LSP for which SRLG 359 Collection is specified, then when local policy allows recording SRLG 360 information, the node SHOULD add SRLG information, to the RRO of the 361 corresponding outgoing Resv message, as specified below. When the 362 Resv message arrives at the ingress node, the ingress node can 363 extract the SRLG information from the RRO in the same way as the 364 egress node. 366 Note that a link's SRLG information for the upstream direction cannot 367 be assumed to be the same as that in the downstream. 369 o For Path and Resv messages for a unidirectional LSP, a node SHOULD 370 include SRLG sub-objects in the RRO for the downstream data link 371 only. 373 o For Path and Resv messages for a bidirectional LSP, a node SHOULD 374 include SRLG sub-objects in the RRO for both the upstream data 375 link and the downstream data link from the local node. In this 376 case, the node MUST include the information in the same order for 377 both Path messages and Resv messages. That is, the SRLG sub- 378 object for the upstream link is added to the RRO before the SRLG 379 sub-object for the downstream link. 381 Based on the above procedure, the endpoints can get the SRLG 382 information automatically. Then the endpoints can for instance 383 advertise it as a TE link to the routing instance based on the 384 procedure described in [RFC6107] and configure the SRLG information 385 of the FA automatically. 387 5.2. SRLG Update 389 When the SRLG information of a link is changed, the LSPs using that 390 link need to be aware of the changes. The procedures defined in 391 Section 4.4.3 of RFC 3209 [RFC3209] MUST be used to refresh the SRLG 392 information if the SRLG change is to be communicated to other nodes 393 according to the local node's policy. If local policy is that the 394 SRLG change SHOULD be suppressed or would result in no change to the 395 previously signaled SRLG-list, the node SHOULD NOT send an update. 397 5.3. Compatibility 399 A node that does not recognize the SRLG Collection Flag in the 400 Attribute Flags TLV is expected to proceed as specified in RFC 5420 401 [RFC5420]. It is expected to pass the TLV on unaltered if it appears 402 in a LSP_ATTRIBUTES object, or reject the Path message with the 403 appropriate Error Code and Value if it appears in a 404 LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object. 406 A node that does not recognize the SRLG RRO sub-object is expected to 407 behave as specified in RFC 3209 [RFC3209]: unrecognized subobjects 408 are to be ignored and passed on unchanged. 410 6. Manageability Considerations 412 6.1. Policy Configuration 414 In a border node of inter-domain or inter-layer network, the 415 following SRLG processing policy SHOULD be capable of being 416 configured: 418 o Whether the SRLG IDs of the domain or specific layer network can 419 be exposed to the nodes outside the domain or layer network, or 420 whether they SHOULD be summarized, mapped to values that are 421 comprehensible to nodes outside the domain or layer network, or 422 removed entirely. 424 A node using RFC 5553 [RFC5553] and PKS MAY apply the same policy. 426 6.2. Coherent SRLG IDs 428 In a multi-layer multi-domain scenario, SRLG ids can be configured by 429 different management entities in each layer/domain. In such 430 scenarios, maintaining a coherent set of SRLG IDs is a key 431 requirement in order to be able to use the SRLG information properly. 432 Thus, SRLG IDs SHOULD be unique. Note that current procedure is 433 targeted towards a scenario where the different layers and domains 434 belong to the same operator, or to several coordinated administrative 435 groups. Ensuring the aforementioned coherence of SRLG IDs is beyond 436 the scope of this document. 438 Further scenarios, where coherence in the SRLG IDs cannot be 439 guaranteed are out of the scope of the present document and are left 440 for further study. 442 7. Security Considerations 444 This document builds on the mechanisms defined in [RFC3473], which 445 also discusses related security measures. In addition, [RFC5920] 446 provides an overview of security vulnerabilities and protection 447 mechanisms for the GMPLS control plane. The procedures defined in 448 this document permit the transfer of SRLG data between layers or 449 domains during the signaling of LSPs, subject to policy at the layer 450 or domain boundary. It is recommended that domain/layer boundary 451 policies take the implications of releasing SRLG information into 452 consideration and behave accordingly during LSP signaling. 454 8. IANA Considerations 456 8.1. RSVP Attribute Bit Flags 458 IANA has created a registry and manages the space of the Attribute 459 bit flags of the Attribute Flags TLV, as described in section 11.3 of 460 RFC 5420 [RFC5420], in the "Attribute Flags" section of the "Resource 461 Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Parameters" 462 registry located in http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te- 463 parameters". IANA has made an early allocation in the "Attribute 464 Flags" section of the mentioned registry that expires on 2015-09-11. 466 This document introduces a new Attribute Bit Flag: 468 Bit No Name Attribute Attribute RRO Reference 469 Flags Path Flags Resv 470 ----------- ---------- ---------- ----------- --- --------- 471 12 (tempo- SRLG Yes Yes Yes This I-D 472 rary expires collection 473 2015-09-11) Flag 475 8.2. ROUTE_RECORD Object 477 IANA manages the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at 478 http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters. IANA has made an 479 early allocation in the Sub-object type 21 ROUTE_RECORD - Type 1 480 Route Record registry. The early allocation expires on 2015-09-11. 482 This document introduces a new RRO sub-object: 484 Value Description Reference 485 --------------------- ------------------- --------- 486 34 (temporary, SRLG sub-object This I-D 487 expires 2015-09-11) 489 8.3. Policy Control Failure Error subcodes 491 IANA manages the assignments in the "Error Codes and Globally-Defined 492 Error Value Sub-Codes" section of the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry 493 located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters. IANA has 494 made an early allocation in the "Sub-Codes - 2 Policy Control 495 Failure" subsection of the the "Error Codes and Globally-Defined 496 Error Value Sub-Codes" section of the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry. 497 The early allocation expires on 2015-09-11. 499 This document introduces a new Policy Control Failure Error sub-code: 501 Value Description Reference 502 --------------------- ----------------------- --------- 503 21 (temporary, SRLG Recording Rejected This I-D 504 expires 2015-09-11) 506 9. Acknowledgements 508 The authors would like to thank Igor Bryskin, Ramon Casellas, Lou 509 Berger, Alan Davey, Dhruv Dhody and Dieter Beller for their useful 510 comments and improvements to the document. 512 10. References 514 10.1. Normative References 516 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 517 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 519 [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., 520 and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP 521 Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. 523 [RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 524 (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic 525 Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. 527 [RFC5420] Farrel, A., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, JP., and A. 528 Ayyangarps, "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP 529 Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic 530 Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 5420, February 2009. 532 [RFC5520] Bradford, R., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel, "Preserving 533 Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path Computation 534 Using a Path-Key-Based Mechanism", RFC 5520, April 2009. 536 [RFC5553] Farrel, A., Bradford, R., and JP. Vasseur, "Resource 537 Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Extensions for Path Key 538 Support", RFC 5553, May 2009. 540 10.2. Informative References 542 [RFC4202] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Routing Extensions in 543 Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 544 (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005. 546 [RFC4206] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths (LSP) 547 Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 548 (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206, October 2005. 550 [RFC4208] Swallow, G., Drake, J., Ishimatsu, H., and Y. Rekhter, 551 "Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) User- 552 Network Interface (UNI): Resource ReserVation Protocol- 553 Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Support for the Overlay 554 Model", RFC 4208, October 2005. 556 [RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS 557 Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010. 559 [RFC6107] Shiomoto, K. and A. Farrel, "Procedures for Dynamically 560 Signaled Hierarchical Label Switched Paths", RFC 6107, 561 February 2011. 563 Authors' Addresses 564 Fatai Zhang (editor) 565 Huawei 566 F3-5-B RD Center 567 Bantian, Longgang District, Shenzhen 518129 568 P.R.China 570 Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com 572 Oscar Gonzalez de Dios (editor) 573 Telefonica Global CTO 574 Distrito Telefonica, edificio sur, Ronda de la Comunicacion 28045 575 Madrid 28050 576 Spain 578 Phone: +34 913129647 579 Email: oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com 581 Dan Li 582 Huawei 583 F3-5-B RD Center 584 Bantian, Longgang District, Shenzhen 518129 585 P.R.China 587 Email: danli@huawei.com 589 Cyril Margaria 590 Suite 4001, 200 Somerset Corporate Blvd. 591 Bridgewater, NJ 08807 592 US 594 Email: cyril.margaria@gmail.com 596 Matt Hartley 597 Cisco 599 Email: mhartley@cisco.com 601 Zafar Ali 602 Cisco 604 Email: zali@cisco.com