RFC 8745
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Associating Working and Protection Label Switched Paths (LSPs) with Stateful PCE
RFC 8745: Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Associating Working and Protection Label Switched Paths (LSPs) with Stateful PCE 🦋
Who wrote it: H. Ananthakrishnan (Netflix), S. Sivabalan (Cisco), C. Barth (Juniper Networks), I. Minei (Google, Inc), and M. Negi (Huawei Technologies) 🫶
Category: Standards Track ✨
Published by: Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) 🌈
Request for Comments: 8745 💜
ISSN: 2070-1721
Date: March 2020 🌸
Obsoletes and updates: The header doesn't list anything this RFC obsoletes or updates, so it stands on its own. 🧚
Abstract 📝
Okay so, an active stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) is giving main character energy 👑. It can compute paths and control Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) through the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP). And it's not just controlling them, either. An active stateful PCE can also create, maintain, and delete LSPs 🔥. This doc defines the PCEP extension for associating two or more LSPs so you get end-to-end path protection 🛡️.
Status of This Memo 📜
This is an Internet Standards Track doc, bestie ✨.
This doc is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), so it represents the consensus of the IETF community 🫶. It got public review and was approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). If you want more on Internet Standards, check out Section 2 of RFC 7841 💅.
For the current status of this doc, any errata, and how to send feedback, head to https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8745 🎀.
Copyright Notice ©️
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved 💖.
This doc is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), as in effect on the date this doc was published. Please read these carefully, because they spell out your rights and restrictions for this doc 🙈. Code Components pulled out of this doc must include the Simplified BSD License text described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions, and they come without warranty, as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents 🗂️
1. Introduction
1.1. Requirements Language
2. Terminology
3. PCEP Extensions
3.1. Path Protection Association Type
3.2. Path Protection Association TLV
4. Operation
4.1. State Synchronization
4.2. PCC-Initiated LSPs
4.3. PCE-Initiated LSPs
4.4. Session Termination
4.5. Error Handling
5. Other Considerations
6. IANA Considerations
6.1. Association Type
6.2. Path Protection Association TLV
6.3. PCEP Errors
7. Security Considerations
8. Manageability Considerations
8.1. Control of Function and Policy
8.2. Information and Data Models
8.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
8.4. Verify Correct Operations
8.5. Requirements on Other Protocols
8.6. Impact on Network Operations
9. References
9.1. Normative References
9.2. Informative References
Acknowledgments
Contributors
Authors' Addresses1. Introduction ✨
Let's start here. [RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) 💖. It's for communication between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a PCE, or between a pair of PCEs as per [RFC4655]. And a PCE's whole personality is computing paths for MPLS-TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs) based on various constraints and optimization criteria 🧚.
Stateful PCE [RFC8231] is the upgrade. It specifies a set of PCEP extensions for stateful control of paths, such as MPLS-TE LSPs, between and across PCEP sessions, in compliance with [RFC4657] 🔥. It covers mechanisms for LSP state synchronization between PCCs and PCEs, delegating control of LSPs to PCEs, and PCE control over the timing and sequence of path computations within and across PCEP sessions. The main focus is a model where LSPs are configured on the PCC and control over them is delegated to the stateful PCE. Then [RFC8281] adds a mechanism to dynamically instantiate LSPs on a PCC, based on requests from a stateful PCE or from a controller using stateful PCE 👑.
Path protection [RFC4427] is when a working LSP is protected by one or more protection LSP(s). If the working LSP fails, the protection LSP(s) get activated 🛡️. When the PCE computes and controls the working LSPs, it's a win to have the protection LSPs computed and controlled by that same PCE too. [RFC8051] covers how path protection applies to PCE deployments 🦋.
This doc specifies a stateful PCEP extension for associating two or more LSPs to set up path protection. It covers these scenarios:
- A PCC initiates a protection LSP and keeps control of it. The PCC computes the path itself or asks a PCE to compute it. After setup, it reports the information and state of the path to the PCE. That includes the association group identifying the working and protection LSPs. This is the passive stateful mode [RFC8051] 🌸.
- A PCC initiates a protection LSP and delegates control of it to a stateful PCE. During delegation, the association group identifying the working and protection LSPs is included. The PCE computes the path for the protection LSP and updates the PCC with the path information for as long as it controls the LSP. This is the active stateful mode [RFC8051] 💅.
- A stateful PCE could initiate a protection LSP and keep control of it. The PCE is responsible for computing the LSP's path and updating the PCC with the path information. This is the PCE-Initiated mode [RFC8281] ✨.
Here's the timing tea ☕. A protection LSP can be established (signaled) before the failure, in which case the LSP is in standby mode [RFC4427] or is a primary LSP [RFC4872]. Or it can be established after the corresponding working LSP fails, in which case it's known as a secondary LSP [RFC4872]. Whether to set it up before or after the failure is up to operator choice or policy 🙈.
[RFC8697] introduces a generic mechanism for grouping LSPs, which can then be used to define associations between a set of LSPs 🎀. It works equally well for stateful PCE (active and passive modes) and stateless PCE 🫶.
This doc specifies a PCEP extension for associating one working LSP with one or more protection LSPs, using the generic association mechanism 💜.
Finally, this doc describes a PCEP extension for associating protection LSPs. It does this by creating the Path Protection Association Group (PPAG) and encoding the association in PCEP messages for stateful PCEP sessions 🌈.
1.1. Requirements Language 🔑
Quick vibe check on the BCP 14 key words! The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this doc are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174], but only when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here 💅.
2. Terminology 📖
Here are the terms we'll be throwing around in this doc:
- ERO: Explicit Route Object
- LSP: Label Switched Path
- PCC: Path Computation Client
- PCE: Path Computation Element
- PCEP: Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
- PPAG: Path Protection Association Group
- TLV: Type, Length, and Value
3. PCEP Extensions 🎀
3.1. Path Protection Association Type 🦋
Okay, here's how LSPs get grouped. As per [RFC8697], LSPs don't get linked by listing the other LSPs they interact with. Instead, each LSP joins an association group individually 💖. The generic ASSOCIATION object is how two or more LSPs get associated, as specified in [RFC8697] ✨.
This doc defines a new Association type called "Path Protection Association Type", with value 1, plus a "Path Protection Association Group" (PPAG) 🔥. A member LSP of a PPAG can take the role of working LSP or protection LSP. A PPAG can have one working LSP and/or one or more protection LSPs 👑.
Now the big rule 🚨. The source, destination, Tunnel ID (as carried in the LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV [RFC8231], with the description as per [RFC3209]), and Protection Type (PT) (in the Path Protection Association TLV) of all LSPs within a PPAG MUST be the same 💅. As per [RFC3209], a TE tunnel is used to associate a set of LSPs during reroute or to spread a traffic trunk over multiple paths 🧚.
The format of the ASSOCIATION object used for PPAG is specified in [RFC8697] 🌸.
[RFC8697] also sets up capability advertisement for the Association types a PCEP speaker supports. It does this by defining an ASSOC-Type-List TLV, carried within an OPEN object 🫶. The capability exchange for the Association type in this doc (i.e., Path Protection Association Type) MAY be done before the association gets used. That means the PCEP speaker MAY include the Path Protection Association Type (1) in the ASSOC-Type-List TLV before using the PPAG in PCEP messages 🌈.
This Association type is dynamic in nature. It's created by the PCC or PCE for LSPs that belong to the same TE tunnel (as described in [RFC3209]), originating at the same head node and terminating at the same destination 💜. These associations get conveyed to the PCEP peer through PCEP messages 🎀. As per [RFC8697], the association source is set to the local PCEP speaker address that created the association, unless local policy dictates otherwise ✨.
One last bit of tea 🍓: the Operator-configured Association Range MUST NOT be set for this Association type, and it MUST be ignored 🙈.
3.2. Path Protection Association TLV ✨
okay so the Path Protection Association TLV is an optional TLV that rides along in the ASSOCIATION object when the type is Path Protection Association 🎀 it can only show up once. It MUST NOT be present more than once. If it does appear twice, only the first one gets processed and any others MUST be ignored 🙈
This TLV follows the PCEP TLV format of [RFC5440] 💅
The Type is 16 bits and the TLV's Type is 38 🌸 The Length field is also 16 bits and it's always 4 🧚
The value is one single field, the Path Protection Association Flags (32 bits), and each bit is its own flag option 🦋
Here's the layout (Figure 1) 👑
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 38 | Length = 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PT | Unassigned Flags |S|P|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 1: Path Protection Association TLV FormatPath Protection Association Flags (32 bits)
these are the flags that are currently defined 🍓
- Protecting (P): 1 bit - This bit is as defined in Section 14.1 of [RFC4872] to indicate if the LSP is a working (0) or protection (1) LSP. 🛡️
- Secondary (S): 1 bit - This bit is as defined in Section 14.1 of [RFC4872] to indicate if the LSP is a primary (0) or secondary (1) LSP. The S flag is ignored if the P flag is not set. 🙃
- Protection Type (PT): 6 bits - This field is as defined in Section 14.1 of [RFC4872] (as "LSP (Protection Type) Flags") to indicate the LSP protection type in use. Any type already defined or that could be defined in the future for use in the RSVP-TE PROTECTION object is acceptable in this TLV unless explicitly stated otherwise. 💖
- Unassigned bits: are considered reserved. They MUST be set to 0 on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt. 🫶
If the TLV is missing in the PPAG ASSOCIATION object, it is considered that the LSP is a working LSP (i.e., as if the P bit is unset) 💜
4. Operation ✨
okay this is the main part of the whole thing 🔥 An LSP gets associated with the other LSPs it interacts with by being added to a common association group via the ASSOCIATION object. All procedures and error handling for the ASSOCIATION object are as per [RFC8697] 💅
4.1. State Synchronization
during state synchronization, a PCC reports all the existing LSP states as described in [RFC8231] 🦋 The association group membership for an LSP also gets reported as per [RFC8697]. This includes PPAGs 🌈
4.2. PCC-Initiated LSPs
a PCC can associate a set of LSPs under its control for path protection purposes 🎀 It can also remove one or more of those LSPs from the corresponding PPAG 🙈 In both cases, the PCC reports the change in association to PCE(s) via a Path Computation Report (PCRpt) message 📣 A PCC can also delegate the working and protection LSPs to an active stateful PCE, and then the PCE would control the LSPs 👑 The stateful PCE could update the paths and attributes of the LSPs in the association group via a Path Computation Update (PCUpd) message 💅 A PCE could also update the association to the PCC via a PCUpd message ✨ These procedures are described in [RFC8697] 🧚
It is expected that both working and protection LSPs are delegated together (and to the same PCE) to avoid any race conditions 🫣 Refer to [STATE-PCE-SYNC] for the problem description 🌸
4.3. PCE-Initiated LSPs
a PCE can create or update working and protection LSPs independently 🦋 As specified in [RFC8697], Association Groups can be created by both the PCE and the PCC 💖 Furthermore, a PCE can remove a protection LSP from a PPAG as specified in [RFC8697] 😭 The PCE uses PCUpd or Path Computation Initiate (PCInitiate) messages to communicate the association information to the PCC 📮
4.4. Session Termination
as per [RFC8697], the association information gets cleared along with the LSP state information 🧹 When a PCEP session is terminated, after expiry of State Timeout Interval at the PCC, the LSP state associated with that PCEP session is reverted to operator-defined default parameters or behaviors as per [RFC8231] 🔄 The same procedure is also followed for the association information 🎀 On session termination at the PCE, when the LSP state reported by PCC is cleared, the association information is also cleared as per [RFC8697] 💜 Where there are no LSPs in an association group, the association is considered to be deleted 💀
4.5. Error Handling
okay error handling time, bestie 😭 As per the processing rules specified in Section 6.4 of [RFC8697], if a PCEP speaker does not support this Path Protection Association Type, it would return a PCErr message with Error-Type 26 "Association Error" and Error-Value 1 "Association type is not supported" 🙅♀️
All LSPs (working or protection) within a PPAG MUST belong to the same TE tunnel (as described in [RFC3209]) and have the same source and destination 🎀 If a PCEP speaker attempts to add or update an LSP to a PPAG and the Tunnel ID (as carried in the LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV [RFC8231], with a description as per [RFC3209]) or source or destination of the LSP is different from the LSP(s) in the PPAG, the PCEP speaker MUST send PCErr with Error-Type 26 (Association Error) [RFC8697] and Error-Value 9 (Tunnel ID or endpoints mismatch for Path Protection Association) 🚫 In case of Path Protection, an LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV SHOULD be included for all LSPs (including Segment Routing (SR) [RFC8664]) 🌈 If the Protection Type (PT) (in the Path Protection Association TLV) is different from the LSPs in the PPAG, the PCEP speaker MUST send PCErr with Error-Type 26 (Association Error) [RFC8697] and Error-Value 6 (Association information mismatch) as per [RFC8697] 💅
When the PCEP peer does not support the protection type set in PPAG, the PCEP peer MUST send PCErr with Error-Type 26 (Association Error) [RFC8697] and Error-Value 11 (Protection type is not supported) 🙈
A given LSP MAY belong to more than one PPAG 🦋 If there is a conflict between any of the two PPAGs, the PCEP peer MUST send PCErr with Error-Type 26 (Association Error) [RFC8697] and Error-Value 6 (Association information mismatch) as per [RFC8697] 💀
When the protection type is set to 1+1 (i.e., protection type=0x08 or 0x10), there MUST be at maximum only one working LSP and one protection LSP within a PPAG 👑 If a PCEP speaker attempts to add another working/protection LSP, the PCEP peer MUST send PCErr with Error-Type 26 (Association Error) [RFC8697] and Error-Value 10 (Attempt to add another working/protection LSP for Path Protection Association) 😤
When the protection type is set to 1:N (i.e., protection type=0x04), there MUST be at maximum only one protection LSP, and the number of working LSPs MUST NOT be more than N within a PPAG 🧮 If a PCEP speaker attempts to add another working/protection LSP, the PCEP peer MUST send PCErr with Error-Type 26 (Association Error) [RFC8697] and Error-Value 10 (Attempt to add another working/protection LSP for Path Protection Association) 🙃
During the make-before-break (MBB) procedure, two paths will briefly coexist 🦋 The error handling related to the number of LSPs allowed in a PPAG MUST NOT be applied during MBB 🫶
All processing as per [RFC8697] continues to apply 🌸
5. Other Considerations ✨
the working and protection LSPs are typically resource disjoint (e.g., node, Shared Risk Link Group [SRLG] disjoint) 🧠 This ensures that a single failure will not affect both the working and protection LSPs 🛡️ The disjoint requirement for a group of LSPs is handled via another Association type called "Disjointness Association" as described in [PCEP-LSP-EXT] 💜 The diversity requirements for the protection LSP are also handled by including both ASSOCIATION objects, identifying both the protection association group and the disjoint association group for the group of LSPs 🌈 The relationship between the Synchronization VECtor (SVEC) object and the Disjointness Association is described in Section 5.4 of [PCEP-LSP-EXT] 🎀
[RFC4872] introduces the concept and mechanisms to support the association of one LSP to another LSP across different RSVP Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) sessions using the ASSOCIATION and PROTECTION object 🦋 The information in the Path Protection Association TLV in PCEP, as received from the PCE, is used to trigger the signaling of the working LSP and protection LSP, with the Path Protection Association Flags mapped to the corresponding fields in the PROTECTION object in RSVP-TE 🔥
6. IANA Considerations 📋
6.1. Association Type
this document defines a new Association type, originally defined in [RFC8697], for path protection 🌸 IANA has assigned a new value in the "ASSOCIATION Type Field" subregistry (created by [RFC8697]) as follows 🧁
+------+-----------------------------+-----------+
| Type | Name | Reference |
+======+=============================+===========+
| 1 | Path Protection Association | RFC 8745 |
+------+-----------------------------+-----------+
Table 1: ASSOCIATION Type Field6.2. Path Protection Association TLV
this document defines a new TLV for carrying the additional information of LSPs within a path protection association group 💖 IANA has assigned a new value in the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" subregistry as follows ✨
+-------+---------------------------------------+-----------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+=======+=======================================+===========+
| 38 | Path Protection Association Group TLV | RFC 8745 |
+-------+---------------------------------------+-----------+
Table 2: PCEP TLV Type Indicatorsper this document, a new subregistry named "Path protection Association Group TLV Flag Field" has been created within the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry to manage the Flag field in the Path Protection Association Group TLV 🗂️ New values are to be assigned by Standards Action [RFC8126] 📜 Each bit should be tracked with the following qualities 👀
- Bit number (count from 0 as the most significant bit)
- Name of the flag
- Reference
+------+-----------------------+-----------+
| Bit | Name | Reference |
+======+=======================+===========+
| 31 | P - PROTECTION-LSP | RFC 8745 |
+------+-----------------------+-----------+
| 30 | S - SECONDARY-LSP | RFC 8745 |
+------+-----------------------+-----------+
| 6-29 | Unassigned | RFC 8745 |
+------+-----------------------+-----------+
| 0-5 | Protection Type Flags | RFC 8745 |
+------+-----------------------+-----------+
Table 3: Path Protection Association
Group TLV Flag Field6.3. PCEP Errors 🎀
Okay bestie, errors time 🙈 This document adds new Error-Values for path protection associations under Error-type 26 "Association Error" from [RFC8697]. IANA gave out new error values in the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" subregistry of the PCEP Numbers registry, and here they are 💅
+------------+-------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| Error-Type | Meaning | Error-value | Reference |
+============+=============+===========================+===========+
| 26 | Association | | [RFC8697] |
| | Error | | |
+------------+-------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| | | 9: Tunnel ID or endpoints | RFC 8745 |
| | | mismatch for Path | |
| | | Protection Association | |
+------------+-------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| | | 10: Attempt to add | RFC 8745 |
| | | another working/ | |
| | | protection LSP for Path | |
| | | Protection Association | |
+------------+-------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| | | 11: Protection type is | RFC 8745 |
| | | not supported | |
+------------+-------------+---------------------------+-----------+
Table 4: PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values7. Security Considerations ✨
Okay, this section is serious business, so no skipping 😭 The security considerations in [RFC8231], [RFC8281], and [RFC5440] apply to everything in this document too. Associations come with their own extra concerns: a malicious PCEP speaker could get spoofed and then use associations as an attack vector by creating them. Those are described in [RFC8697].
Here's the big one. Adding a spurious protection LSP to the Path Protection Association group can give a false sense of network reliability. That's giving "we're totally safe" when we're not 💀 It causes real problems when the working LSP goes down and the protection LSP fails too. So securing the PCEP session with Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8253], following the recommendations and best current practices in BCP 195 [RFC7525], is RECOMMENDED 🔐🫶
8. Manageability Considerations 🌸
8.1. Control of Function and Policy
Okay, good news: the mechanisms here don't add any control or policy requirements beyond the ones already in [RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC8281] 💖
8.2. Information and Data Models
[RFC7420] describes the PCEP MIB. There are no new MIB Objects for this document, so nothing new to set up there 🧚
The PCEP YANG module [PCEP-YANG] supports associations ✨
8.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
No new liveness detection or monitoring requirements here either. Everything you need is already listed in [RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC8281] 🦋
8.4. Verify Correct Operations
Same vibe for verification: no new operation verification requirements beyond what's in [RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC8281] 💅
8.5. Requirements on Other Protocols
This document doesn't add any new requirements on other protocols. Main character energy for the other protocols 👑
8.6. Impact on Network Operations
No impact on network operations beyond what's already listed in [RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC8281] 🍓
9. References 📚
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209.
[RFC4872] Lang, J.P., Ed., Rekhter, Y., Ed., and D. Papadimitriou, Ed., "RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery", RFC 4872, DOI 10.17487/RFC4872, May 2007, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4872.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440.
[RFC7525] Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre, "Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 7525, DOI 10.17487/RFC7525, May 2015, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7525.
[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 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174.
[RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231, DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231.
[RFC8253] Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody, "PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253.
[RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281.
[RFC8697] Minei, I., Crabbe, E., Sivabalan, S., Ananthakrishnan, H., Dhody, D., and Y. Tanaka, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Establishing Relationships between Sets of Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 8697, DOI 10.17487/RFC8697, January 2020, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8697.
9.2. Informative References
[PCEP-LSP-EXT] Litkowski, S., Sivabalan, S., Barth, C., and M. Negi, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extension for LSP Diversity Constraint Signaling", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity-14, 26 January 2020, https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity-14.
[PCEP-YANG] Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V., and J. Tantsura, "A YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element Communications Protocol (PCEP)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-13, 31 October 2019, https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-13.
[RFC4427] Mannie, E., Ed. and D. Papadimitriou, Ed., "Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4427, DOI 10.17487/RFC4427, March 2006, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4427.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655.
[RFC4657] Ash, J., Ed. and J.L. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic Requirements", RFC 4657, DOI 10.17487/RFC4657, September 2006, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4657.
[RFC7420] Koushik, A., Stephan, E., Zhao, Q., King, D., and J. Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Management Information Base (MIB) Module", RFC 7420, DOI 10.17487/RFC7420, December 2014, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7420.
[RFC8051] Zhang, X., Ed. and I. Minei, Ed., "Applicability of a Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)", RFC 8051, DOI 10.17487/RFC8051, January 2017, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8051.
[RFC8664] Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W., and J. Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8664, DOI 10.17487/RFC8664, December 2019, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8664.
[STATE-PCE-SYNC] Litkowski, S., Sivabalan, S., Li, C., and H. Zheng, "Inter Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Procedures.", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-litkowski-pce-state-sync-07, 11 January 2020, https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-litkowski-pce-state-sync-07.
Acknowledgments 🫶
We would like to thank Jeff Tantsura, Xian Zhang, and Greg Mirsky for their contributions to this document 💜
Thanks to Ines Robles for the RTGDIR review.
Thanks to Pete Resnick for the GENART review.
Thanks to Donald Eastlake for the SECDIR review.
Thanks to Barry Leiba, Benjamin Kaduk, Éric Vyncke, and Roman Danyliw for the IESG review.
Contributors 🌈
Dhruv Dhody
Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore 560066
Karnataka
India
Email: dhruv.ietf@gmail.comRaveendra Torvi
Juniper Networks
1194 N Mathilda Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
United States of America
Email: rtorvi@juniper.netEdward Crabbe
Individual Contributor
Email: edward.crabbe@gmail.comAuthors' Addresses 💌
Hariharan Ananthakrishnan
Netflix
United States of America
Email: hari@netflix.comSiva Sivabalan
Cisco
2000 Innovation Drive
Kanata Ontario K2K 3E8
Canada
Email: msiva@cisco.comColby Barth
Juniper Networks
1194 N Mathilda Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
United States of America
Email: cbarth@juniper.netIna Minei
Google, Inc
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043
United States of America
Email: inaminei@google.comMahendra Singh Negi
Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore 560066
Karnataka
India
Email: mahend.ietf@gmail.comThat's the whole RFC, bestie! 🌈✨ Go forth and build those protection paths 💖
📦 where this page comes from
- ietf: rfc8745 2020-03
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms