< draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-13.txt   draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-14.txt >
IS-IS Working Group J. Tantsura IS-IS Working Group J. Tantsura
Internet-Draft Nuage Networks Internet-Draft Nuage Networks
Intended status: Standards Track U. Chunduri Intended status: Standards Track U. Chunduri
Expires: January 25, 2019 Huawei Technologies Expires: February 20, 2019 Huawei Technologies
S. Aldrin S. Aldrin
Google, Inc Google, Inc
L. Ginsberg L. Ginsberg
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
July 24, 2018 August 19, 2018
Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using IS-IS Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using IS-IS
draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-13 draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-14
Abstract Abstract
This document defines a way for an IS-IS Router to advertise multiple This document defines a way for an Intermediate System to
types of supported Maximum SID Depths (MSDs) at node and/or link Intermediate System (IS-IS) Router to advertise multiple types of
granularity. Such advertisements allow entities (e.g., centralized supported Maximum SID Depths (MSDs) at node and/or link granularity.
controllers) to determine whether a particular SID stack can be Such advertisements allow entities (e.g., centralized controllers) to
supported in a given network. This document only defines one type of determine whether a particular SID stack can be supported in a given
MSD maximum label imposition, but defines an encoding that can network. This document only defines one type of MSD maximum label
support other MSD types. imposition, but defines an encoding that can support other MSD types.
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 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 January 25, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 20, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Node MSD Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Node MSD Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Link MSD Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Link MSD Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Using Node and Link MSD Advertisements . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Using Node and Link MSD Advertisements . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Base MPLS Imposition MSD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Base MPLS Imposition MSD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
When Segment Routing(SR) paths are computed by a centralized When Segment Routing (SR) paths are computed by a centralized
controller, it is critical that the controller learns the Maximum SID controller, it is critical that the controller learns the Maximum SID
Depth(MSD) that can be imposed at each node/link a given SR path to Depth (MSD) that can be imposed at each node/link a given SR path to
insure that the SID stack depth of a computed path doesn't exceed the insure that the Segment Identifier (SID) stack depth of a computed
number of SIDs the node is capable of imposing. path doesn't exceed the number of SIDs the node is capable of
imposing.
PCEP SR extensions draft [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] signals MSD Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) SR extensions draft
in SR PCE Capability TLV and METRIC Object. However, if PCEP is not [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] signals MSD in SR Path Computation
supported/configured on the head-end of an SR tunnel or a Binding-SID Element (PCE) Capability TLV and METRIC Object. However, if PCEP is
anchor node and controller does not participate in IGP routing, it not supported/configured on the head-end of an SR tunnel or a
has no way to learn the MSD of nodes and links. BGP-LS [RFC7752] Binding-SID anchor node and controller does not participate in IGP
defines a way to expose topology and associated attributes and routing, it has no way to learn the MSD of nodes and links. BGP-LS
capabilities of the nodes in that topology to a centralized (Distribution of Link-State and TE Information using Border Gateway
controller. MSD signaling by BGP-LS has been defined in Protocol) [RFC7752] defines a way to expose topology and associated
attributes and capabilities of the nodes in that topology to a
centralized controller. MSD signaling by BGP-LS has been defined in
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd]. Typically, BGP-LS is [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd]. Typically, BGP-LS is
configured on a small number of nodes that do not necessarily act as configured on a small number of nodes that do not necessarily act as
head-ends. In order for BGP-LS to signal MSD for all the nodes and head-ends. In order for BGP-LS to signal MSD for all the nodes and
links in the network MSD is relevant, MSD capabilites should be links in the network MSD is relevant, MSD capabilities should be
advertised by every IS-IS router in the network. advertised by every Intermediate System to Intermediate System(IS-IS)
router in the network.
Other types of MSD are known to be useful. For example, Other types of MSD are known to be useful. For example,
[I-D.ietf-isis-mpls-elc] defines Readable Label Depth Capability [I-D.ietf-isis-mpls-elc] defines Readable Label Depth Capability
(RLDC) that is used by a head-end to insert an Entropy Label (EL) at (RLDC) that is used by a head-end to insert an Entropy Label (EL) at
a depth, that could be read by transit nodes. a depth, that could be read by transit nodes.
This document defines an extension to IS-IS used to advertise one or This document defines an extension to IS-IS used to advertise one or
more types of MSD at node and/or link granularity. It also creates more types of MSD at node and/or link granularity. It also creates
an IANA registry for assigning MSD type identifiers. It also defines an IANA registry for assigning MSD type identifiers. It also defines
the Base MPLS Imposition MSD type. In the future it is expected, the Base MPLS Imposition MSD type. In the future it is expected,
that new MSD types will be defined to signal additional capabilities that new MSD types will be defined to signal additional capabilities
e.g., entropy labels, SIDs that can be imposed through recirculation, e.g., entropy labels, SIDs that can be imposed through recirculation,
or SIDs associated with another dataplane e.g., IPv6. Although MSD or SIDs associated with another dataplane e.g., IPv6. Although MSD
advertisements are associated with Segment Routing, the advertisements are associated with Segment Routing, the
advertisements MAY be present even if Segment Routing itself is not advertisements MAY be present even if Segment Routing itself is not
enabled. enabled. Note that in a non-SR MPLS network, label depth is what is
defined by the MSD advertisements.
1.1. Conventions used in this document
1.1.1. Terminology
BGP-LS: Distribution of Link-State and TE Information using Border 1.1. Terminology
Gateway Protocol
BMI: Base MPLS Imposition is the number of MPLS labels which can be BMI: Base MPLS Imposition is the number of MPLS labels which can be
imposed inclusive of all service/transport/special labels imposed inclusive of all service/transport/special labels
IS-IS: Intermediate System to Intermediate System
MSD: Maximum SID Depth - the number of SIDs a node or a link on a MSD: Maximum SID Depth - the number of SIDs a node or a link on a
node can support node can support
PCC: Path Computation Client
PCE: Path Computation Element
PCEP: Path Computation Element Protocol
SID: Segment Identifier
SR: Segment Routing
1.2. Requirements Language 1.2. 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", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here . capitals, as shown here .
2. Node MSD Advertisement 2. Node MSD Advertisement
skipping to change at page 4, line 20 skipping to change at page 4, line 11
smallest MSD supported by the node on the set of interfaces smallest MSD supported by the node on the set of interfaces
configured for use by the advertising IGP instance. MSD values may configured for use by the advertising IGP instance. MSD values may
be learned via a hardware API or may be provisioned. be learned via a hardware API or may be provisioned.
0 1 0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MSD-Type | MSD Value | | MSD-Type | MSD-Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// ................... // // ................... //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MSD-Type | MSD Value | | MSD-Type | MSD-Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Node MSD Sub-TLV Figure 1: Node MSD Sub-TLV
Type: 23 (allocated by IANA via the early assignment process) Type: 23 (allocated by IANA via the early assignment process)
Length: variable (minimum of 2, multiple of 2 octets) and represents Length: variable (multiple of 2 octets) and represents the total
the total length of value field. length of value field.
Value: field consists of one or more pairs of a 1 octet MSD-Type and Value: field consists of one or more pairs of a 1 octet MSD-Type and
1 octet MSD-Value. 1 octet MSD-Value.
MSD-Type is one of the values defined in the IGP MSD Types registry MSD-Type is a value defined in the IGP MSD Types registry created by
created by the IANA Section of this document. the IANA Section of this document.
MSD-Value is a number in the range of 0-255. For all MSD-Types, 0 MSD-Value is a number in the range of 0-255. For all MSD-Types, 0
represents lack of the ability to support SID stack of any depth; any represents lack of the ability to support SID stack of any depth; any
other value represents that of the node. This value MUST represent other value represents that of the node. This value MUST represent
the lowest value supported by any link configured for use by the the lowest value supported by any link configured for use by the
advertising IS-IS instance. advertising IS-IS instance.
This sub-TLV is optional. The scope of the advertisement is specific This sub-TLV is optional. The scope of the advertisement is specific
to the deployment. to the deployment.
skipping to change at page 5, line 17 skipping to change at page 5, line 11
The link MSD sub-TLV is defined for TLVs 22, 23, 25, 141, 222, and The link MSD sub-TLV is defined for TLVs 22, 23, 25, 141, 222, and
223 to carry the MSD of the interface associated with the link. MSD 223 to carry the MSD of the interface associated with the link. MSD
values may be learned via a hardware API or may be provisioned. values may be learned via a hardware API or may be provisioned.
0 1 0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MSD-Type | MSD Value | | MSD-Type | MSD-Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// ................... // // ................... //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MSD-Type | MSD Value | | MSD-Type | MSD-Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Link MSD Sub-TLV Figure 2: Link MSD Sub-TLV
Type: 15 (allocated by IANA via the early assignment process) Type: 15 (allocated by IANA via the early assignment process)
Length: variable (minimum of 2, multiple of 2 octets) and represents Length: variable (multiple of 2 octets) and represents the total
the total length of value field. length of value field.
Value: consists of one or more pairs of a 1 octet MSD-Type and 1 Value: consists of one or more pairs of a 1 octet MSD-Type and 1
octet Value. octet MSD-Value.
MSD-Type is one of the values defined in the MSD Types registry MSD-Type is a value defined in the MSD Types registry created by the
created by the IANA Section of this document. IANA Section of this document.
MSD-Value is a number in the range of 0-255. For all MSD-Types, 0 MSD-Value is a number in the range of 0-255. For all MSD-Types, 0
represents lack of the ability to support SID stack of any depth; any represents lack of the ability to support SID stack of any depth; any
other value represents that of the link when used as an outgoing other value represents that of the link when used as an outgoing
link. link.
This sub-TLV is optional. The scope of the advertisement is specific This sub-TLV is optional.
to the deployment.
If multiple Link MSD advertisements for the same MSD Type and the If multiple Link MSD advertisements for the same MSD-Type and the
same link are received, the procedure used to select which copy is same link are received, the procedure used to select which copy is
used is undefined. used is undefined.
4. Using Node and Link MSD Advertisements 4. Using Node and Link MSD Advertisements
When Link MSD is present for a given MSD type, the value of the Link When Link MSD is present for a given MSD type, the value of the Link
MSD MUST take preference over the Node MSD. When a Link MSD type is MSD MUST take preference over the Node MSD. When a Link MSD type is
not signalled but the Node MSD type is, then the Node MSD type value not signaled but the Node MSD type is, then the Node MSD type value
MUST be considered as the MSD value for that link. MUST be considered as the MSD value for that link.
In order to increase flooding efficiency, it is RECOMMENDED that In order to increase flooding efficiency, it is RECOMMENDED that
routers with homogenous link MSD values advertise just the Node MSD routers with homogenous link MSD values advertise just the Node MSD
value. value.
The meaning of the absence of both Node and Link MSD advertisements The meaning of the absence of both Node and Link MSD advertisements
for a given MSD type is specific to the MSD type. Generally it can for a given MSD type is specific to the MSD type. Generally it can
only be inferred that the advertising node does not support only be inferred that the advertising node does not support
advertisement of that MSD type. However, in some cases the lack of advertisement of that MSD type. However, in some cases the lack of
skipping to change at page 6, line 49 skipping to change at page 6, line 38
IANA has allocated the following value through the early assignment IANA has allocated the following value through the early assignment
process: process:
Value Description Reference Value Description Reference
----- --------------- ------------- ----- --------------- -------------
23 Node MSD This document 23 Node MSD This document
Figure 3: Node MSD Figure 3: Node MSD
This document requests IANA to allocate a sub-TLV type as defined in This document requests IANA to allocate a sub-TLV type as defined in
Section 3 from Sub-TLVs for TLVs 22, 23, 25, 141, 222 and 223 Section 3 from Sub-TLVs for TLVs 22, 23, 25, 141, 222, and 223
registry. registry.
IANA has allocated the following value through the early assignment IANA has allocated the following value through the early assignment
process: process:
Value Description Reference Value Description Reference
----- --------------- ------------- ----- --------------- -------------
15 Link MSD This document 15 Link MSD This document
Figure 4: Link MSD Figure 4: Link MSD
Per TLV information where Link MSD sub-TLV can be part of: Per TLV information where Link MSD sub-TLV can be part of:
TLV 22 23 25 141 222 223 TLV 22 23 25 141 222 223
--- -------------------- --- --------------------
y y y y y y y y y y y y
Figure 5: TLVs where LINK MSD Sub-TLV can be present Figure 5: TLVs where LINK MSD Sub-TLV can be present
This document requests creation of an IANA managed registry under a This document requests creation of an IANA managed registry under the
new category of "Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Parameters" IANA category of "Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Parameters" IANA
registries to identify MSD types as proposed in Section 2 and registries to identify MSD types as proposed in Section 2 and
Section 3. The registration procedure is "Expert Review" as defined Section 3. The registration procedure is "Expert Review" as defined
in [RFC8126]. Suggested registry name is "IGP MSD Types". Types are in [RFC8126]. Suggested registry name is "IGP MSD Types". Types are
an unsigned 8 bit number. The following values are defined by this an unsigned 8 bit number. The following values are defined by this
document document
Value Name Reference Value Name Reference
----- --------------------- ------------- ----- --------------------- -------------
0 Reserved This document 0 Reserved This document
1 Base MPLS Imposition MSD This document 1 Base MPLS Imposition MSD This document
2-250 Unassigned This document 2-250 Unassigned This document
251-254 Experimental This document 251-254 Experimental This document
255 Reserved This document 255 Reserved This document
Figure 6: MSD Types Codepoints Registry Figure 6: MSD Types Codepoints Registry
Guidance for the Designated Experts is as defined in [RFC7370]
7. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
Security considerations as specified by [RFC7981] are applicable to Security considerations as specified by [RFC7981] are applicable to
this document. this document.
Advertisement of the additional information defined in this document Advertisement of the additional information defined in this document
that is false, e.g., an MSD that is incorrect, may result in a path that is false, e.g., an MSD that is incorrect, may result in a path
computation failing, having a service unavailable, or instantiation computation failing, having a service unavailable, or instantiation
of a path that can't be supported by the head-end (the node of a path that can't be supported by the head-end (the node
performing the imposition). performing the imposition).
The presence of this information also may inform an attacker of how
to induce any of the aforementioned conditions.
8. Contributors 8. Contributors
The following people contributed to this document: The following people contributed to this document:
Peter Psenak Peter Psenak
Email: ppsenak@cisco.com Email: ppsenak@cisco.com
9. Acknowledgements 9. Acknowledgements
skipping to change at page 8, line 28 skipping to change at page 8, line 20
10. References 10. References
10.1. Normative References 10.1. Normative References
[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>.
[RFC7370] Ginsberg, L., "Updates to the IS-IS TLV Codepoints
Registry", RFC 7370, DOI 10.17487/RFC7370, September 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7370>.
[RFC7981] Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and M. Chen, "IS-IS Extensions [RFC7981] Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and M. Chen, "IS-IS Extensions
for Advertising Router Information", RFC 7981, for Advertising Router Information", RFC 7981,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7981, October 2016, DOI 10.17487/RFC7981, October 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7981>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7981>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
10.2. Informative References 10.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd] [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd]
Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Mirsky, G., and S. Sivabalan, Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Mirsky, G., and S. Sivabalan,
"Signaling Maximum SID Depth using Border Gateway Protocol "Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using Border Gateway
Link-State", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-01 Protocol Link-State", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-
(work in progress), October 2017. routing-msd-02 (work in progress), August 2018.
[I-D.ietf-isis-mpls-elc] [I-D.ietf-isis-mpls-elc]
Xu, X., Kini, S., Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., and S. Xu, X., Kini, S., Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., and S.
Litkowski, "Signaling Entropy Label Capability and Litkowski, "Signaling Entropy Label Capability and Entropy
Readable Label-stack Depth Using IS-IS", draft-ietf-isis- Readable Label Depth Using IS-IS", draft-ietf-isis-mpls-
mpls-elc-03 (work in progress), January 2018. elc-05 (work in progress), July 2018.
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing]
Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W., Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,
and J. Hardwick, "PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing", and J. Hardwick, "PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing",
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-12 (work in progress), June draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-12 (work in progress), June
2018. 2018.
[RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and [RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752, Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016, DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Jeff Tantsura Jeff Tantsura
Nuage Networks Nuage Networks
Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com
Uma Chunduri Uma Chunduri
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
 End of changes. 37 change blocks. 
81 lines changed or deleted 76 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/