[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02

LSR Working Group                                            U. Chunduri
Internet-Draft                                                 T. Eckert
Intended status: Standards Track                              Huawei USA
Expires: April 26, 2019                                 October 23, 2018


                  Preferred Path Route Graph Structure
                       draft-ce-lsr-ppr-graph-01

Abstract

   This document defines a graph structure for the Preferred Path Route
   (PPR) for IS-IS, OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 protocols.  This structure helps
   further scale of the PPR and reduce domain level global entries
   needed in some data planes.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [RFC2119],
   RFC8174 [RFC8174] when, and only when they appear in all capitals, as
   shown here.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 26, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents



Chunduri & Eckert        Expires April 26, 2019                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft    Preferred Path Route Graph Structure      October 2018


   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Acronyms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  PPR Graph TLVs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  IS-IS TLVs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       2.1.1.  Branch-ID Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       2.1.2.  PPR PDE Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.2.  OSPF TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       2.2.1.  OSPFv2 TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       2.2.2.  OSPFv3 TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   3.  Encoding and Processing details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.1.  S And D bits in PDEs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.2.  Graph processing procedure example  . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   4.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.1.  IS-IS IANA  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.2.  OSPFv2 IANA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.3.  OSPFv3 IANA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.4.  IGP Parameter IANA  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11

1.  Introduction

   Preferred Path Routing (PPR) is a routing protocol mechanism
   concerned with the creation of a routing path as specified in the
   PPR-Path objects.  These can be signaled via appropriate IGPs (IS-IS,
   OSPFv2, OSPFv3) and indicate the path for a data plane identifier
   (PPR-ID).  With this, all PPR capable nodes along that path establish
   forwarding state for the PPR-ID and any packet destined to the PPR-ID
   would use that path instead of the IGP computed shortest path to the
   destination.

   PPR-Paths and relevant IGP extensions are defined in
   [I-D.chunduri-lsr-isis-preferred-path-routing] and
   [I-D.chunduri-lsr-ospf-preferred-path-routing].  In these IGP



Chunduri & Eckert        Expires April 26, 2019                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft    Preferred Path Route Graph Structure      October 2018


   extensions, PPR-Paths are described as a path structure, which is an
   ordered linear list of Path Description Elements (PDEs) starting with
   a sender PDE followed by zero or more transit PDE and finishing with
   the destination PED.  PDEs can indicate the node, a link to the node
   and services on a node.

   A separate PPR-ID is required for every possible PPR-Path, even if
   one is just a subset of another path with the same destination.  To
   provide PPR-Paths from N possible source nodes to one destination
   node, N PPR-IDs are therefore necessary.  To create full-mesh
   connectivity via PPR-Paths between N nodes, N^2 PPR-Paths and N^2
   PPR-IDs would be needed.  Even if PPR-Paths would only be used for a
   subset of connections, such as for high-value traffic in larger
   networks, this scale behavior is less than ideal.

   To allow better scale in-terms of number of PPR-IDs needed on the
   destination nodes, number of forwarding entries needed on the nodes
   in the paths (for overlapping paths), and to minimize the amount of
   PPR information needed in the control plane, this document introduces
   a PPR-Tree structure in Section 2.

   The terminology in this document uses the more generic term of PPR
   Graphs instead of PPR Trees because it is extensible.

1.1.  Acronyms

   MPLS     -  Multi Protocol Label Switching

   MSD      -  Maximum SID Depth

   PDE      -  Path Description Element

   PPG      -  Preferred Path Graph

   PPR      -  Preferred Path Routing/Route

   PPR-ID   -  Preferred Path Route Identifier, a data plane identifier

   SID      -  Segment Identifier

   SPF      -  Shortest Path First

   SR-MPLS  -  Segment Routing with MPLS data plane

   SRH      -  Segment Routing Header - IPv6 routing Extension header

   SRv6     -  Segment Routing with Ipv6 data plane with SRH




Chunduri & Eckert        Expires April 26, 2019                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft    Preferred Path Route Graph Structure      October 2018


   TE       -  Traffic Engineering

2.  PPR Graph TLVs

2.1.  IS-IS TLVs

   This section describes the encoding of IS-IS PPR Tree TLV.  This TLV
   can be seen as having 4 logical section viz., encoding of the PPR-
   Prefix (IS-IS Prefix), encoding of PPG-ID, encoding of path
   description with an ordered PDE (Path Description Element) Sub-TLVs,
   belonging to one or more Branch-IDs and a set of optional PPR
   attribute Sub-TLVs, which can be used to describe PPR Graph common
   parameters.  Multiple instances of this TLV MAY be advertised in IS-
   IS LSPs with different PPG-ID Type and with corresponding Branch-ID/
   PDE Sub-TLVS.  The PPR Graph TLV has Type TBD (suggested value xxx),
   and has the following format:

        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     |     Length    |  Graph-Type    | Graph-Flags  |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |          PPR-Prefix Sub-TLV (variable size)                   |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |L| Frag-ID     |               PPG-ID                          |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       //     Branch-ID Sub-TLV and PPR-PDE Sub-TLVs (variable)       //
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                 PPR-Attribute Sub-TLVs(variable)              |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                       Figure 1: PPR Tree TLV Format

   o  Type - TBD (IANA) from IS-IS top level TLV registry.

   o  Length - Total length of the value field in bytes (variable).

   o  Graph-Type - 1 Octet value (0-255, IANA Registry TBD).  Value 0
      defines a PPR Tree structure (this document).  PPR-Paths can also
      be encoded as PPR-Trees with a single branch.

   o  Graph-Flags - 1 Octet flags for this TLV are described below.

   o  Frag-ID - 1 Octet TLV Fragment-ID, with 7-bit Identifier value
      (0-127).  L bit MUST be set if a graph has only one fragment or if
      it is the last Fragment of the graph.  PPG-ID value for all
      fragments MUST be the same.




Chunduri & Eckert        Expires April 26, 2019                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft    Preferred Path Route Graph Structure      October 2018


   o  PPG-ID - 3 byte Preferred Path Graph Identifier.  Originator of
      the graph MUST ensure uniqueness across the domain.

   o  Branch-ID Sub-TLV is defined in Section 2.1.1.  This represents
      the branch-id of the structure followed by PDE Sub-TLVs in that
      branch.  Different branches of the graph can be in different
      fragments of this TLV.  However, a complete set of PDE Sub-TLVs
      MUST be specified in one TLV fragment.

   o  PPR-PDE Sub-TLV defined in
      [I-D.chunduri-lsr-isis-preferred-path-routing].  Additional
      information in the PPR-PDE Sub-TLV is described in Section 2.1.2.

   o  PPR-Attribute Sub-TLVs defined in
      [I-D.chunduri-lsr-isis-preferred-path-routing] are applicable
      here.

   PPR-Flags field of PPR TLV has the following flag bits defined.
   These flags, at this point mostly related to applicability of this
   TLV in an L1 area or entire IS-IS domain or from where the PPR-Prefix
   is being originated:

        PPR Graph-Flags Format

            0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
           +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
           |S|D| Reserved  |
           +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   1.  S - If set, the PPR Graph TLV MUST be flooded across the entire
       routing domain.  If the S flag is not set, the PPR Graph TLV MUST
       NOT be leaked between IS-IS levels.  This bit MUST NOT be altered
       during the TLV leaking

   2.  D - when the PPR Graph TLV is leaked from IS-IS level-2 to level-
       1, the D bit MUST be set.  Otherwise, this bit MUST be clear.
       PPR TLVs with the D bit set MUST NOT be leaked from level-1 to
       level-2.  This is to prevent TLV looping across levels.

   3.  Reserved - reserved bits for future use.  Reserved bits MUST be
       reset on transmission and ignored on receive.

2.1.1.  Branch-ID Sub-TLV

   Branch-ID Sub-TLVs represent the branch of the graph described.  This
   is a new Sub-TLV type (IANA TBD) in PPR TLV
   [I-D.chunduri-lsr-isis-preferred-path-routing].  Type TBD (Suggested



Chunduri & Eckert        Expires April 26, 2019                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft    Preferred Path Route Graph Structure      October 2018


   Value - IANA TBD), with a length of 1 byte, and Value is the branch
   identification number in the range of 0 to 255.

2.1.2.  PPR PDE Sub-TLV

   PPR PDE Sub-TLV is defined in
   [I-D.chunduri-lsr-isis-preferred-path-routing].  This document
   extends the same with the following:

   1.  PPR-PDE Flags (Bit position 2), S: Source Bit. Indicates the PPR
       head-end and MUST be set if this PDE corresponds to the same.

   2.  PPR-ID Sub-Sub-TLV: Type 1 (Suggested Value, TBD IANA from the
       PDE Sub-TLV Registry), length and value fields would be same as
       PPR-ID Sub-TLV defined in
       [I-D.chunduri-lsr-isis-preferred-path-routing].  This Sub-Sub-TLV
       MUST be present only when 'D' flag is set in the PPR-PDE Flags
       field.

   PPR-PDE Flags field is defined in PPR-PDE Sub-TLV
   [I-D.chunduri-lsr-isis-preferred-path-routing].

2.2.  OSPF TLVs

2.2.1.  OSPFv2 TLVs

   TBD.

2.2.2.  OSPFv3 TLVs

   TBD.

3.  Encoding and Processing details

   [I-D.chunduri-lsr-isis-preferred-path-routing] describes how a PPR
   path can be established.  This document builds on the same base
   concept but expands the same with a graph structure as defined in
   Section 2.  The key new encoding element here over prior PPR Paths is
   the existence of multiple Branches in the PPR Graph description.

   Each Branch-ID sub-TLV is followed by ordered sequence of PDEs.  A
   PPR Graph can be constructed from one or more PPR Branches.  Branches
   are stitched together by using the same PDE in two branches.  To
   simplify parsing of branches, only the last PDE of a branch can be
   stitched to another branch.  In result, any PDE can only be a non-
   last PDE in one Branch but last PDE in more than one branch.  A PPG-
   ID field is defined in this document.  This MUST be unique in the
   domain and represents the graph structure as whole.



Chunduri & Eckert        Expires April 26, 2019                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft    Preferred Path Route Graph Structure      October 2018


   A complete Graph may not fit into maximum allowable size of the IS-IS
   TLV.  To overcome this a 7 bit Frag-ID field is defined (Section 2).
   With this, a single PPR Graph is represented via one or more
   fragmented PPR Graph TLVs all having the same PPG-ID.  Each Fragment
   carries the PPG-ID as well as a numeric Frag-ID from 0 to (N-1), when
   N fragments are needed to describe the PPR Graph (where N>1).  In
   this case Fragment (N-1) MUST set the L bit to indicate it is the
   last fragment.  The optional PPR Attribute Sub-TLVs which describe
   the Graph overall MUST be included in the last fragment only.

3.1.  S And D bits in PDEs

   In PPR Paths as defined in
   [I-D.chunduri-lsr-isis-preferred-path-routing], currently only a
   simple linear path structure for a destination node is possible.
   However, with a bit on path element source and a bit for destination
   (refer section) - same path ID/PPR-ID can be used to represent
   multiple paths if some of the nodes are also sources and terminating
   on the same destination node.

      1. A Linear Path structure:
         PDE1 --> PDE2 --> PDE3 --> PDE4 --> PDE5
         [First PDE always Source and last PDE is always Destination]

      2. A PPR Graph with S and D bits:
         PDE1(with-S-bit-set)-->PDE2-->PDE3(with-S-bit-set)..
         ..-->PDE4(with-D-bit-set)-->PDE5(with-D-bit-Set)

              ==>  PDE1 --> PDE2 --> PDE3 --> PDE4
              ==>  PDE1 --> PDE2 --> PDE3 --> PDE4 --> PDE5
              ==>  PDE3 --> PDE4
              ==>  PDE3 --> PDE4 --> PDE5


                   Figure 2: PPR Graph with S and D bits

   In the above Figure 2 example, in (1) a linear path list of 5 nodes
   are described where PDE1 is the source/ingress-point and PDE5 is the
   destination/egress point of the path.  In (2), the path can be
   defined in this document, where some PDEs can have S(ource) and/or
   D(estination) bit or both can be set.  Here, PDE1 and PDE3 have the
   Source bit set, PDE4 and PDE5 the Destination bit set.  This Branch
   structure is equivalent to the set of 4 PPR-PDE lists as shown:
   PDE1->PDE5, PDE1->PDE45, PDE3->PDE4, PDE3->PDE5.  This reduces the
   amount of information that needs to be sent across the IGP and that
   needs to be processed by each node.





Chunduri & Eckert        Expires April 26, 2019                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft    Preferred Path Route Graph Structure      October 2018


   If the bits and branch structure were not used, the 4 PPR PDE lists
   would have required each a unique PPR-ID (and the resulting
   forwarding entries created), but the Branch requires only 2 PPR-IDs:
   one for both paths terminating in PDE4, and one for both paths
   terminating in PDE5.

3.2.  Graph processing procedure example


            Brach0    Branch1      Branch2

            PDE1      PDE12(S-bit) PDE6
              \        \          /
              PDE2     PDE11     PDE7
                \        \      /
                PDE3     PDE10 PDE8 (S-bit)
                  \        \  /
                  PDE4    PDE9
                    \     /
                     \   /
                     PDE5
                    (D-bit)

                    Figure 3: PPR Graph (Tree) Example

   With a PPR Tree structure both flooding optimization and reduction in
   the number of SIDs needed at the destination can be achieved.  To do
   this encoding as specified in Section 2 (a) Every PDE-ID can be non-
   last-PDE in at most one Branch.  It can be last-PDE in one or more
   Branches (ex: PDE9).  (b) Branches form a tree by joining nodes with
   same PDE-ID (PDE9 and PDE5 in the above example).  Leafs of the tree
   must be S(ources), e.g.: PDE1, PDE12, PDE6.  Root of the tree must be
   the only D(estination) of the tree (e.g.: PDE5).

   How to build forwarding entry (referring to the Figure 3 above):

   1.  If PPR-ID in PDE of PPR Graph is indicating this node (example:
       PDE5): This node is D(estination) of this tree.  Forwarding state
       is built for this PPR-Tree like for PPR-Path, no changes.

   2.  If PPR-ID is NOT indicating this node, then this node MAY be
       source (PDE12, PDE8) or midpoint (PDE9, neither source nor
       destination):

   a.  Node sequentially examines all branches until it finds a PDE with
       its own PDE-ID.  It then establishes a forwarding entry for the
       PPR-ID indicated in the PPR header with the next-hop being the
       next PDE in the current branch.



Chunduri & Eckert        Expires April 26, 2019                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft    Preferred Path Route Graph Structure      October 2018


   b.  This nodes PDE may be the last PDE in a Branch, for example PDE9
       in Branch1.  In this case, the node ignores this branch because
       it cannot build a complete forwarding entry from it.  Instead, it
       will build the forwarding entry from another branch, e.g.: Node
       with PDE9 will build forwarding entry for destination PDE5 when
       it examines Branch2 because there it will have a next hop PDE5.
       After forwarding entry is built, node can stop examining rest of
       Branch or further Branches.

   c.  If node does not find its own PDE in any branch it is not on the
       graph and ignores this PPR-Graph.

4.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks to Yingzhen Qu and Richard Li for multiple discussions on this
   topic.

5.  IANA Considerations

5.1.  IS-IS IANA

   This document requests the following new TLV in IANA IS-IS TLV code-
   point registry.

        TLV #   Name
        -----   --------------
        TBD     PPR Graph TLV


   This document requests IANA to create a new Sub-TLV registry for PPR
   TLV Section 2 with the following initial entries (suggested values):

   Sub-TLV #   Sub-TLV Name
   ---------   ---------------------------------------------------------

    TBD          Branch-ID (Section 2)

5.2.  OSPFv2 IANA

5.3.  OSPFv3 IANA

5.4.  IGP Parameter IANA

   This document requests additional IANA registries in an IANA managed
   registry "Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Parameters" for various PPR
   TLV parameters.  The registration procedure is based on the "Expert
   Review" as defined in [RFC8126].  The suggested registry names are:




Chunduri & Eckert        Expires April 26, 2019                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft    Preferred Path Route Graph Structure      October 2018


   o  "Graph-Type" - Types are an unsigned 8 bit numbers.  Values are as
      defined in Section 2 of this document.

   o  "Graph-Flags" - 1 Octet.  Bits as described in Section 2 of this
      document.

6.  Security Considerations

   Security concerns for IS-IS are addressed in [RFC5304] and [RFC5310].
   Further security analysis for IS-IS protocol is done in [RFC7645]
   with detailed analysis of various security threats and why [RFC5304]
   should not be used in the deployments.

   OSPF security extensions are described in [RFC2328] and [RFC7684] and
   these apply to the extensions specified in this document.  While OSPF
   is under a single administrative domain, there can be deployments
   where potential attackers have access to one or more networks in the
   OSPF routing domain.  In these deployments, stronger authentication
   mechanisms such as those specified in [RFC7474] SHOULD be used.

   Advertisement of the additional information defined in this document
   introduces no new security concerns in IS-IS or OSPF protocols.

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.chunduri-lsr-isis-preferred-path-routing]
              Chunduri, U., Li, R., White, R., Tantsura, J., Contreras,
              L., and Y. Qu, "Preferred Path Routing (PPR) in IS-IS",
              draft-chunduri-lsr-isis-preferred-path-routing-01 (work in
              progress), July 2018.

   [I-D.chunduri-lsr-ospf-preferred-path-routing]
              Chunduri, U., Qu, Y., White, R., Tantsura, J., and L.
              Contreras, "Preferred Path Routing (PPR) in OSPF", draft-
              chunduri-lsr-ospf-preferred-path-routing-01 (work in
              progress), July 2018.

   [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>.








Chunduri & Eckert        Expires April 26, 2019                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft    Preferred Path Route Graph Structure      October 2018


7.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2328]  Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.

   [RFC5304]  Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "IS-IS Cryptographic
              Authentication", RFC 5304, DOI 10.17487/RFC5304, October
              2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5304>.

   [RFC5305]  Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
              Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October
              2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5305>.

   [RFC5310]  Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Li, T., Atkinson, R., White, R.,
              and M. Fanto, "IS-IS Generic Cryptographic
              Authentication", RFC 5310, DOI 10.17487/RFC5310, February
              2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5310>.

   [RFC7474]  Bhatia, M., Hartman, S., Zhang, D., and A. Lindem, Ed.,
              "Security Extension for OSPFv2 When Using Manual Key
              Management", RFC 7474, DOI 10.17487/RFC7474, April 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7474>.

   [RFC7645]  Chunduri, U., Tian, A., and W. Lu, "The Keying and
              Authentication for Routing Protocol (KARP) IS-IS Security
              Analysis", RFC 7645, DOI 10.17487/RFC7645, September 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7645>.

   [RFC7684]  Psenak, P., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W.,
              Tantsura, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute
              Advertisement", RFC 7684, DOI 10.17487/RFC7684, November
              2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7684>.

   [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>.

Authors' Addresses







Chunduri & Eckert        Expires April 26, 2019                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft    Preferred Path Route Graph Structure      October 2018


   Uma Chunduri
   Huawei USA
   2330 Central Expressway
   Santa Clara, CA  95050
   USA

   Email: uma.chunduri@huawei.com


   Toerless Eckert
   Huawei USA
   2330 Central Expressway
   Santa Clara, CA  95050
   USA

   Email: tte+ietf@cs.fau.de



































Chunduri & Eckert        Expires April 26, 2019                [Page 12]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/