< draft-chen-pce-bier-te-path-02.txt   draft-chen-pce-bier-te-path-03.txt >
Network Working Group H. Chen Network Working Group H. Chen
Internet-Draft M. McBride Internet-Draft M. McBride
Intended status: Standards Track Futurewei Intended status: Standards Track Futurewei
Expires: 20 April 2022 A. Wang Expires: October 20, 2022 A. Wang
China Telecom China Telecom
G. Mishra G. Mishra
Verizon Inc. Verizon Inc.
Y. Liu Y. Liu
China Mobile China Mobile
Y. Fan Y. Fan
Casa Systems Casa Systems
L. Liu L. Liu
Fujitsu Fujitsu
X. Liu X. Liu
Volta Networks Volta Networks
17 October 2021 April 18, 2022
PCE for BIER-TE Path PCE for BIER-TE Path
draft-chen-pce-bier-te-path-02 draft-chen-pce-bier-te-path-03
Abstract Abstract
This document describes extensions to Path Computation Element (PCE) This document describes extensions to Path Computation Element (PCE)
communication Protocol (PCEP) for supporting Bit Index Explicit communication Protocol (PCEP) for supporting Bit Index Explicit
Replication (BIER) Traffic Engineering (TE) paths. Replication (BIER) Traffic Engineering (TE) paths.
Requirements Language Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
skipping to change at page 2, line 4 skipping to change at page 2, line 4
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 20 April 2022. This Internet-Draft will expire on October 20, 2022.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2022 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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights publication of this document. Please review these documents
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Terminologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1. Terminologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Overview of PCE for BIER-TE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Overview of PCE for BIER-TE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Example BIER-TE Topology with PCE . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1. Example BIER-TE Topology with PCE . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. A Brief Flow of PCEP Messages for a BIER-TE Path . . . . 6 2.2. A Brief Flow of PCEP Messages for a BIER-TE Path . . . . 6
2.3. Procedures on Ingress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.3. Procedures on Ingress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3. Extensions to PCEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3. Extensions to PCEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1. BIER-TE Path Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.1. BIER-TE Path Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2. Extensions to SRP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.2. Extensions to SRP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2.1. SRP Object Flag Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.2.1. SRP Object Flag Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2.2. Reuse of Multicast Flow Specification TLV . . . . . . 11 3.2.2. Reuse of Multicast Flow Specification TLV . . . . . . 11
3.3. Ingress Node Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.3. Ingress Node Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.4. Objective Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.4. Objective Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.5. BIER-TE Path Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.5. BIER-TE Path Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.6. BIER-TE Path Subobject in ERO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.6. BIER-TE Path Subobject in ERO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.7. BIER-TE Path Subobject in RRO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.7. BIER-TE Path Subobject in RRO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.1. BIER-TE Path Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.1. BIER-TE Path Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2. BIER-TE Path Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.2. BIER-TE Path Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.3. BIER-TE Path Deletion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.3. BIER-TE Path Deletion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5. The PCEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5. The PCEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.1. The PCRpt Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.1. The PCRpt Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.2. The PCUpd Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.2. The PCUpd Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.3. The PCInitiate Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5.3. The PCInitiate Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.4. The PCReq Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5.4. The PCReq Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.5. The PCRep Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5.5. The PCRep Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.1. PST for BIER-TE Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 6.1. PST for BIER-TE Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.2. PCE-BIER-TE-Path Capability sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 19 6.2. PCE-BIER-TE-Path Capability sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.3. SRP Object Flag Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 6.3. SRP Object Flag Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.4. Ingress Node Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 6.4. Ingress Node Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.5. OF Code Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6.5. OF Code Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.6. PCEP BIER-TE Path Subobjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6.6. PCEP BIER-TE Path Subobjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
skipping to change at page 4, line 21 skipping to change at page 4, line 22
This document proposes a comprehensive solution for computing and This document proposes a comprehensive solution for computing and
establishing BIER-TE P2MP paths. establishing BIER-TE P2MP paths.
1.1. Terminologies 1.1. Terminologies
The following terminologies are used in this document. The following terminologies are used in this document.
PCE: Path Computation Element PCE: Path Computation Element
PCEP: PCE communication Protocol PCEP: PCE communication Protocol
PCC: Path Computation Client PCC: Path Computation Client
CE: Customer Edge CE: Customer Edge
PE: Provider Edge PE: Provider Edge
BIER: Bit Index Explicit Replication. BIER: Bit Index Explicit Replication.
BIER-TE: BIER Traffic/Tree Engineering. BIER-TE: BIER Traffic/Tree Engineering.
BFR: Bit-Forwarding Router. BFR: Bit-Forwarding Router.
BFIR: Bit-Forwarding Ingress Router. BFIR: Bit-Forwarding Ingress Router.
BFER: Bit-Forwarding Egress Router. BFER: Bit-Forwarding Egress Router.
BFR-id: BFR Identifier. It is a number in the range [1,65535]. BFR-id: BFR Identifier. It is a number in the range [1,65535].
BFR-NBR: BFR Neighbor. BFR-NBR: BFR Neighbor.
BFR-prefix: An IP address (either IPv4 or IPv6) of a BFR. BFR-prefix: An IP address (either IPv4 or IPv6) of a BFR.
BIRT: Bit Index Routing Table. It is a table that maps from the BIRT: Bit Index Routing Table. It is a table that maps from the BFR-
BFR-id (in a particular sub-domain) of a BFER to the BFR-prefix id (in a particular sub-domain) of a BFER to the BFR-prefix of
of that BFER, and to the BFR-NBR on the path to that BFER. that BFER, and to the BFR-NBR on the path to that BFER.
BIFT: Bit Index Forwarding Table. BIFT: Bit Index Forwarding Table.
LSP-DB: Label Switching Path DataBase. LSP-DB: Label Switching Path DataBase.
TED: Traffic/Tree Engineering DataBase. TED: Traffic/Tree Engineering DataBase.
2. Overview of PCE for BIER-TE 2. Overview of PCE for BIER-TE
This section briefly describes PCE for BIER-TE and illustrates some This section briefly describes PCE for BIER-TE and illustrates some
details through a simple example BIER-TE topology. details through a simple example BIER-TE topology.
skipping to change at page 9, line 48 skipping to change at page 9, line 48
During a PCEP session establishment, PCEP Speakers (PCE or PCC) During a PCEP session establishment, PCEP Speakers (PCE or PCC)
indicate their ability to support BIER-TE paths. The OPEN object in indicate their ability to support BIER-TE paths. The OPEN object in
the Open message contains the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV, which the Open message contains the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV, which
is defined in [RFC8408]. The TLV contains a list of Path Setup Types is defined in [RFC8408]. The TLV contains a list of Path Setup Types
(PSTs) and optional sub-TLVs associated with the PSTs. The sub-TLVs (PSTs) and optional sub-TLVs associated with the PSTs. The sub-TLVs
convey the parameters that are associated with the PSTs supported by convey the parameters that are associated with the PSTs supported by
a PCEP speaker. a PCEP speaker.
This document defines a new PST value: This document defines a new PST value:
* PST = TBD1: Path is setup using BIER-TE. * PST = TBD1: Path is setup using BIER-TE.
A new sub-TLV associated with this new PST is defined, which is A new sub-TLV associated with this new PST is defined, which is
called PCE-BIER-TE-Path-Capability sub-TLV. The format of this new called PCE-BIER-TE-Path-Capability sub-TLV. The format of this new
sub-TLV is illustrated in the figure below. sub-TLV is illustrated in the figure below.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = TBD2 | Length = 4 | | Type = TBD2 | Length = 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 12, line 17 skipping to change at page 12, line 17
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|ObjectClass=TBD| OT=1 |Res|P|I| Object Length (bytes) | |ObjectClass=TBD| OT=1 |Res|P|I| Object Length (bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Ingress Node IPv4 address | | Ingress Node IPv4 address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Cost to Ingress Node | | Cost to Ingress Node |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Optional TLVs ~ ~ Optional TLVs ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Ingress Node Object for IPv4 Figure 3: Ingress Node Object for IPv4
ObjectClass: TBD is to be assigned by IANA. ObjectClass: TBD is to be assigned by IANA.
OT: 1 for IPv4. OT: 1 for IPv4.
Res, P, I and Object Length: Same as those defined in Common Object Res, P, I and Object Length: Same as those defined in Common Object
Header in [RFC5440]. Header in [RFC5440].
Ingress Node IPv4 address: Indicates an IPv4 address of an ingress Ingress Node IPv4 address: Indicates an IPv4 address of an ingress
node. node.
skipping to change at page 13, line 4 skipping to change at page 13, line 19
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Ingress Node IPv6 address | | Ingress Node IPv6 address |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Cost to Ingress Node | | Cost to Ingress Node |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Optional TLVs ~ ~ Optional TLVs ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Ingress Node Object for IPv6
Figure 4: Ingress Node Object for IPv6
TBD, Res, P, I, Object Length, and Cost to Ingress Node: Same as TBD, Res, P, I, Object Length, and Cost to Ingress Node: Same as
those defined in Ingress Node Object for IPv4. those defined in Ingress Node Object for IPv4.
OT: 2 for IPv6. OT: 2 for IPv6.
Ingress Node IPv6 address: Indicates an IPv6 address of an ingress Ingress Node IPv6 address: Indicates an IPv6 address of an ingress
node. node.
No optional TLV is defined so far. No optional TLV is defined so far.
skipping to change at page 16, line 41 skipping to change at page 17, line 5
For PCE-Initiated BIER-TE path, the stateful PCE MUST compute a BIER- For PCE-Initiated BIER-TE path, the stateful PCE MUST compute a BIER-
TE path per request from network management systems or applications TE path per request from network management systems or applications
automatically based on the network resource availability in the TED automatically based on the network resource availability in the TED
and send a PCInitiate message with the path information to the PCC. and send a PCInitiate message with the path information to the PCC.
After receiving the PCInitiate message, the PCC creates the BIER-TE After receiving the PCInitiate message, the PCC creates the BIER-TE
path. path.
For both PCC-Initiated and PCE-Initiated BIER-TE paths: For both PCC-Initiated and PCE-Initiated BIER-TE paths:
* The stateful PCE MUST update its local LSP-DB and TED with the o The stateful PCE MUST update its local LSP-DB and TED with the
paths. paths.
* Upon receiving the PCUpd message or PCInitiate message for the o Upon receiving the PCUpd message or PCInitiate message for the
path from the PCE with a found path, the PCC determines that it is path from the PCE with a found path, the PCC determines that it is
a BIER-TE path by the PST = TBD1 for path setup using BIER-TE in a BIER-TE path by the PST = TBD1 for path setup using BIER-TE in
the PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV of the SRP object in the message. the PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV of the SRP object in the message.
4.2. BIER-TE Path Update 4.2. BIER-TE Path Update
After a BIER-TE path is created in a BIER-TE domain, when some After a BIER-TE path is created in a BIER-TE domain, when some
network events such as a node failure happen on the path (called old network events such as a node failure happen on the path (called old
path) or a leaf/egress joins/leaves, the PCE computes a new BIER-TE path) or a leaf/egress joins/leaves, the PCE computes a new BIER-TE
path and replaces the old path with the new path. The new path path and replaces the old path with the new path. The new path
skipping to change at page 21, line 30 skipping to change at page 21, line 30
8. Acknowledgements 8. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dhruv Dhody, and others for their The authors would like to thank Dhruv Dhody, and others for their
comments to this work. comments to this work.
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-bier-te-arch] [I-D.ietf-bier-te-arch]
Eckert, T., Cauchie, G., and M. Menth, "Tree Engineering Eckert, T., Menth, M., and G. Cauchie, "Tree Engineering
for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER-TE)", Work in for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER-TE)", draft-ietf-
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-10, 9 bier-te-arch-12 (work in progress), January 2022.
July 2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-
bier-te-arch-10.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec] [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec]
Dhody, D., Farrel, A., and Z. Li, "PCEP Extension for Flow Dhody, D., Farrel, A., and Z. Li, "Path Computation
Specification", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft- Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extension for Flow
ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec-13, 14 October 2021, Specification", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec-13 (work in
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-pcep- progress), October 2021.
flowspec-13.txt>.
[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, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
skipping to change at page 23, line 7 skipping to change at page 22, line 50
[RFC8408] Sivabalan, S., Tantsura, J., Minei, I., Varga, R., and J. [RFC8408] Sivabalan, S., Tantsura, J., Minei, I., Varga, R., and J.
Hardwick, "Conveying Path Setup Type in PCE Communication Hardwick, "Conveying Path Setup Type in PCE Communication
Protocol (PCEP) Messages", RFC 8408, DOI 10.17487/RFC8408, Protocol (PCEP) Messages", RFC 8408, DOI 10.17487/RFC8408,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8408>. July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8408>.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[I-D.chen-pce-bier] [I-D.chen-pce-bier]
Chen, R., Zhang, Z., Chen, H., Dhanaraj, S., Qin, F., and Chen, R., Zhang, Z., Chen, H., Dhanaraj, S., Qin, F., and
A. Wang, "PCEP Extensions for BIER-TE", Work in Progress, A. Wang, "PCEP Extensions for BIER-TE", draft-chen-pce-
Internet-Draft, draft-chen-pce-bier-09, 12 July 2021, bier-09 (work in progress), July 2021.
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-chen-pce-bier-
09.txt>.
[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>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Huaimo Chen Huaimo Chen
Futurewei Futurewei
Boston, MA, Boston, MA
United States of America USA
Email: Huaimo.chen@futurewei.com Email: Huaimo.chen@futurewei.com
Mike McBride Mike McBride
Futurewei Futurewei
Email: michael.mcbride@futurewei.com Email: michael.mcbride@futurewei.com
Aijun Wang Aijun Wang
China Telecom China Telecom
Beiqijia Town, Changping District Beiqijia Town, Changping District
Beijing Beijing 102209
102209
China China
Email: wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn Email: wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn
Gyan S. Mishra Gyan S. Mishra
Verizon Inc. Verizon Inc.
13101 Columbia Pike 13101 Columbia Pike
Silver Spring, MD 20904 Silver Spring MD 20904
United States of America USA
Phone: 301 502-1347 Phone: 301 502-1347
Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com
Yisong Liu Yisong Liu
China Mobile China Mobile
Email: liuyisong@chinamobile.com Email: liuyisong@chinamobile.com
Yanhe Fan Yanhe Fan
Casa Systems Casa Systems
United States of America USA
Email: yfan@casa-systems.com Email: yfan@casa-systems.com
Lei Liu Lei Liu
Fujitsu Fujitsu
United States of America USA
Email: liulei.kddi@gmail.com Email: liulei.kddi@gmail.com
Xufeng Liu Xufeng Liu
Volta Networks Volta Networks
McLean, VA McLean, VA
United States of America USA
Email: xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com Email: xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com
 End of changes. 31 change blocks. 
52 lines changed or deleted 48 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/