[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits] [IPR]
Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11
draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-egress-protection
Internet Engineering Task Force H. Chen
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Standards Track N. So
Expires: June 1, 2014 Tata Communications
A. Liu
Ericsson
F. Xu
Verizon
M. Toy
Comcast
L. Huang
China Mobile
L. Liu
UC Davis
November 28, 2013
Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Egress Local Protection
draft-chen-mpls-p2mp-egress-protection-10.txt
Abstract
This document describes extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol -
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for locally protecting egress nodes of
a Traffic Engineered (TE) Label Switched Path (LSP) in a Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) network.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF 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 http://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 June 1, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Chen, et al. Expires June 1, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft P2MP LSP Egress Protection November 2013
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. An Example of Egress Local Protection . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Egress Local Protection with FRR . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. EGRESS_BACKUP_SUB_LSP IPv4/IPv6 Object . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. EGRESS_BACKUP_SECONDARY_EXPLICIT_ROUTE Object . . . . . . 5
2.3. Path Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Egress Protection Behaviors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Ingress Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Intermediate Node and PLR Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.1. Signaling for One-to-One Protection . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.2. Signaling for Facility Protection . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.3. Signaling for S2L Sub LSP Protection . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.4. PLR Procedures during Local Repair . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Considering Application Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1. A Typical Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. PLR Procedure for Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.3. Egress Procedures for Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Chen, et al. Expires June 1, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft P2MP LSP Egress Protection November 2013
1. Introduction
RFC 4090 describes two methods for protecting the transit nodes of a
P2P LSP: one-to-one protection and facility bypass protection. RFC
4875 specifies how to use them to protect the transit nodes of a P2MP
LSP. However, there is no mention of locally protecting any egress
of a protected P2P or P2MP LSP in these RFCs.
To protect the egresses of an LSP (P2P or P2MP), an existing approach
sets up a backup LSP from a backup ingress (or the ingress of the
LSP) to the backup egresses, where each egress is paired with a
backup egress and protected by the backup egress.
The main disadvantage of this approach is that more network resources
such as double bandwidths may be used.
This document specifies extensions to RSVP-TE for locally protecting
an egress of a P2MP or P2P LSP, which overcome this disadvantage.
1.1. An Example of Egress Local Protection
Figure 1 illustrates an example of using backup LSPs to locally
protect egress nodes of a primary P2MP LSP, which is from ingress
node R1 to two egress nodes: L1 and L2. The primary LSP is
represented by star(*) lines and backup LSPs by hyphen(-) lines.
La and Lb are the designated backup egress nodes for egress nodes L1
and L2 of the P2MP LSP respectively. To distinguish between an
egress (e.g., L1 in the figure) and a backup egress (e.g., La in the
figure), an egress is called a primary egress if necessary.
The backup LSP for protecting primary egress L1 is from its upstream
node R3 to backup egress La. The backup LSP for protecting primary
egress L2 is from its upstream node R5 to backup egress Lb.
During normal operations, the traffic carried by the P2MP LSP is sent
through R3 to L1, which delivers the traffic to its destination CE1.
When R3 detects the failure of L1, R3 switches the traffic to the
backup LSP to backup egress La, which delivers the traffic to CE1.
The time for switching the traffic is within tens of milliseconds.
The failure of a primary egress (e.g., L1 in the figure) MAY be
detected by its upstream node (e.g., R3 in the figure) through a BFD
session between the upstream node and the egress in MPLS networks.
Exactly how the failure is detected is out of scope for this
document.
Chen, et al. Expires June 1, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft P2MP LSP Egress Protection November 2013
[R2]*****[R3]*****[L1]
* \ :.....: $ **** Primary LSP
* \ $ ---- Backup LSP
* \ [CE1] .... BFD Session
* \ $ $ Link
* \ $ $
* [La] $
*
[R1]******[R4]*******[R5]*****[L2]
$ \ :.....: $
$ \ $
[S] \ [CE2]
\ $
\ $
[Lb]
Figure 1: Backup LSP for Locally Protecting Egress
1.2. Egress Local Protection with FRR
Using the egress local protection and the FRR, we can locally protect
the egresses, the links and the intermediate nodes of an LSP. The
traffic switchover time is within tens of milliseconds whenever an
egress, any of the links and the intermediate nodes of the LSP fails.
The egress nodes of the LSP can be locally protected via the egress
local protection. All the links and the intermediate nodes of the
LSP can be locally protected through using the FRR.
2. Protocol Extensions
A new object EGRESS_BACKUP_SUB_LSP is defined for signaling egress
local protection. It contains a backup egress for a primary egress.
2.1. EGRESS_BACKUP_SUB_LSP IPv4/IPv6 Object
The class of the EGRESS_BACKUP_SUB_LSP IPv4/IPv6 object is 50, which
is the same as that of the S2L_SUB_LSP IPv4/IPv6 object defined in
RFC 4875. The C-Type of the EGRESS_BACKUP_SUB_LSP IPv4 object is a
new number 3 or another number assigned by IANA.
Chen, et al. Expires June 1, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft P2MP LSP Egress Protection November 2013
EGRESS_BACKUP_SUB_LSP_IPv4 C-Type = 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Egress Backup Sub LSP destination IPv4 address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Egress Primary Sub LSP destination IPv4 address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| (Subobjects) |
~ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Egress Backup Sub LSP destination IPv4 address
IPv4 address of the backup egress node
Egress Primary Sub LSP destination IPv4 address
IPv4 address of the primary egress node
Subobjects are optional
The C-Type of the EGRESS_BACKUP_SUB_LSP IPv6 object is a new number 4
or another number assigned by IANA.
EGRESS_BACKUP_SUB_LSP_IPv6 C-Type = 4
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Egress Backup Sub LSP destination IPv6 address |
~ (16 bytes) ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Egress Primary Sub LSP destination IPv6 address |
~ (16 bytes) ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| (Subobjects) |
~ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Egress Backup Sub LSP destination IPv6 address
IPv6 address of the backup egress node
Egress Primary Sub LSP destination IPv6 address
IPv6 address of the primary egress node
Subobjects are optional
2.2. EGRESS_BACKUP_SECONDARY_EXPLICIT_ROUTE Object
An EGRESS_BACKUP_SECONDARY_EXPLICIT_ROUTE (EB-SERO) object is defined
for signaling protection for a primary egress of a P2MP LSP in a new
S2L Sub LSP backup protection method. It contains a path from the
Chen, et al. Expires June 1, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft P2MP LSP Egress Protection November 2013
upstream node of the primary egress to a backup egress. Its format
is identical to an ERO's.
The class of an EB-SERO is the same as that of a SERO defined in RFC
4873. The EB-SERO uses a new C-Type 3, or another number assigned by
IANA. The formats of sub-objects in an EB-SERO are identical to
those of sub-objects in an ERO defined in RFC 3209.
2.3. Path Message
A Path message is enhanced to carry the information about a backup
egress for a primary egress of an LSP through including an egress
backup sub LSP descriptor list. The format of the enhanced Path
message is illustrated below.
<Path Message> ::= <Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ]
[ [<MESSAGE_ID_ACK> | <MESSAGE_ID_NACK>] ...]
[ <MESSAGE_ID> ]
<SESSION> <RSVP_HOP> <TIME_VALUES>
[ <EXPLICIT_ROUTE> ]
<LABEL_REQUEST> [ <PROTECTION> ]
[ <LABEL_SET> ... ]
[ <SESSION_ATTRIBUTE> ] [ <NOTIFY_REQUEST> ]
[ <ADMIN_STATUS> ] [ <POLICY_DATA> ... ]
<sender descriptor>
[<S2L sub-LSP descriptor list>]
[<egress backup sub LSP descriptor list>]
The egress backup sub LSP descriptor list in the message is defined
below. It is a sequence of EGRESS_BACKUP_SUB_LSP objects, each of
which describes a pair of a primary egress and a backup egress.
<egress backup sub LSP descriptor list> ::=
<egress backup sub LSP descriptor>
[ <egress backup sub LSP descriptor list> ]
<egress backup sub LSP descriptor> ::=
<EGRESS_BACKUP_SUB_LSP>
[ <EGRESS_BACKUP_SECONDARY_EXPLICIT_ROUTE> ]
3. Egress Protection Behaviors
Chen, et al. Expires June 1, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft P2MP LSP Egress Protection November 2013
3.1. Ingress Behavior
To protect a primary egress of an LSP, a backup egress must be
configured on the ingress of the LSP.
The ingress initiates a Path message for the LSP with an egress
backup sub LSP descriptor list. For each primary egress of the LSP
to be protected, the ingress MUST add an EGRESS_BACKUP_SUB_LSP object
into the list. The object contains the primary egress and the backup
egress for protecting the primary egress.
To protect a primary egress of an LSP via one-to-one backup or
facility backup method, the ingress SHOULD include a FAST_REROUTE
object and set the One-to-One Backup Desired or Facility Backup
Desired flag.
To protect a primary egress of a P2MP LSP via S2L Sub LSP backup
method, the ingress SHOULD add an EB-SERO object following the
EGRESS_BACKUP_SUB_LSP object into the list. The EB-SERO object
contains a path from the upstream node of the primary egress to the
backup egress. The ingress computes the path if the P2MP LSP is in
one area; otherwise, the path may be computed by the Path Computation
Element (PCE).
3.2. Intermediate Node and PLR Behavior
If an intermediate node of an LSP receives the Path message with an
egress backup sub LSP descriptor list and it is not an upstream node
of any primary egress of the LSP, it forwards the list in the message
unchanged.
If the intermediate node is the upstream node of a primary egress to
be protected, it gets the backup egress for the primary egress from
the EGRESS_BACKUP_SUB_LSP object in the list. It acts as a PLR to
provide one-to-one or facility backup protection for the primary
egress. It provides one-to-one backup protection if the One-to-One
Backup Desired flag is set in the message; it provides facility
backup protection if the Facility Backup Desired flag is set.
The PLR (upstream node of the primary egress) sets the protection
flags in the RRO Sub-object for the primary egress in the Resv
message according to the status of the primary egress and the backup
LSP protecting the primary egress. For example, it will set the
"local protection available" and the "node protection" flag to one
indicating that the primary egress is protected when the backup LSP
to the backup egress is set up for protecting the primary egress.
Chen, et al. Expires June 1, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft P2MP LSP Egress Protection November 2013
3.2.1. Signaling for One-to-One Protection
The behavior of the upstream node of a primary egress of an LSP as a
PLR is the same as that of a PLR for one-to-one backup method
described in RFC 4090 except for that the upstream node creates a
backup LSP from itself to a backup egress.
In the case that the LSP is a P2MP LSP and a primary egress of the
LSP is a transit node (i.e., bud node), the upstream node of the
primary egress as a PLR also creates a backup LSP from itself to each
of the next hops of the primary egress.
When the PLR detects a failure in the primary egress, it MUST rapidly
switch the packets from the primary LSP to the backup LSP to the
backup egress. For a failure in the bud node of an P2MP LSP, the PLR
MUST also rapidly switch the packets to the backup LSPs to the bud
node's next hops, where the packets are merged into the primary LSP.
3.2.2. Signaling for Facility Protection
Except for backup LSP and downstream label, the behavior of the
upstream node of the primary egress as a PLR follows the PLR behavior
for facility backup method described in RFC 4090.
For a number of primary P2P LSPs going through the same PLR to the
same primary egress, the primary egress of these LSPs may be
protected by one backup LSP from the PLR to the backup egress
designated for protecting the primary egress.
The PLR selects or creates a backup LSP from itself to the backup
egress. If there exists a backup LSP that satisfies the constraints
given in the Path message, then this one is selected; otherwise, a
new backup LSP to the backup egress will be created.
For a primary LSP carrying IP packets, the PLR does not need any
downstream label as an inner label for the LSP when binding the
primary LSP with the backup LSP. When the PLR detects a failure in
the primary egress, it redirects the IP packets from the primary LSP
into the backup LSP to the backup egress, where the IP packets are
forwarded according to IP destinations in the packets.
For a primary LSP carrying packets with application or service
labels, the PLR may not need any downstream label as an inner label
for the LSP either when binding the primary LSP with the backup LSP.
When the PLR detects a failure in the primary egress, it redirects
the packets from the primary LSP into the backup LSP to backup egress
through switching the top label with the backup LSP label. The
backup egress delivers the packets to the same destinations as the
Chen, et al. Expires June 1, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft P2MP LSP Egress Protection November 2013
primary egress (see details in section "Considering Application
Traffic" below).
3.2.3. Signaling for S2L Sub LSP Protection
The S2L Sub LSP Protection is used to protect a primary egress of a
P2MP LSP. Its major advantage is that the application traffic
carried by the P2MP LSP may be easily protected against the egress
failure.
The PLR determines to protect a primary egress of a P2MP LSP via S2L
sub LSP protection when it receives a Path message with an EB-SERO
object following the EGRESS_BACKUP_SUB_LSP containing the primary
egress and a backup egress.
The PLR sets up the backup S2L sub LSP to the backup egress, creates
and maintains its state in the same way as of setting up a source to
leaf (S2L) sub LSP defined in RFC 4875 from the signaling's point of
view. It constructs and sends a PATH message along the path given in
the EB-SERO for the backup LSP, receives and processes a RESV message
that responses to the PATH message.
After receiving the RESV message for the backup LSP, the PLR creates
a forwarding entry with an inactive state or flag called inactive
forwarding entry. This inactive forwarding entry is not used to
forward any data traffic during normal operations.
When the PLR detects a failure in the primary egress failure, it
changes the forwarding entry for the backup LSP to active. Thus, the
PLR forwards the traffic to the backup egress through the backup LSP,
which sends the traffic to its destination.
3.2.4. PLR Procedures during Local Repair
When the upstream node of a primary egress of an LSP as a PLR detects
a failure in the primary egress, it follows the procedures defined in
section 6.5 of RFC 4090.
The PLR (i.e., the upstream node of the primary egress) SHOULD notify
the ingress about the failure of the primary egress in the same way
as a PLR notifies the ingress about the failure of an intermediate
node.
In the local revertive mode, the PLR re-signals each of the primary
LSPs that used to be routed over the restored resource once it
detects that the resource is restored. Every primary LSP
successfully re-signaled along the restored resource is switched
back.
Chen, et al. Expires June 1, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft P2MP LSP Egress Protection November 2013
Moreover, the PLR lets the upstream part of the primary LSP stay
after the primary egress fails. The downstream part of the primary
LSP from the PLR to the primary egress SHOULD be removed.
4. Considering Application Traffic
This section focuses on the application traffic carried by P2P LSPs.
When a primary egress of a P2MP LSP fails, the application traffic
carried by the P2MP LSP may be delivered to the same destination by
the backup egress since the inner label if any for the traffic is a
upstream assigned label for every egress of the P2MP LSP.
4.1. A Typical Application
L3VPN is a typical application that an LSP carries. An existing
solution (refer to Figure 2) for protecting L3VPN traffic against
egress failure includes: 1) A multi-hop BFD session between ingress
R1 and egress L1 of primary LSP; 2) A backup LSP from ingress R1 to
backup egress La; 3) La sends R1 VPN backup label and related
information via BGP; 4) R1 has a VRF with two sets of routes: one
uses primary LSP and L1 as next hop; the other uses backup LSP and La
as next hop.
CE1,CE2 in [R2]*****[R3]*****[L1] **** Primary LSP
one VPN * : $ ---- Backup LSP
* .................: $ .... BFD Session
[R1] ..: [CE2] $ Link
$ \ $ $
$ \ $
[CE1] [R4]-----[R5]-----[La](BGP sends R1 VPN backup label)
Figure 2: Protect Egress for L3VPN Traffic
In normal operations, R1 sends the traffic from CE1 through primary
LSP with VPN label received from L1 as inner label to L1, which
delivers the traffic to CE2 using VPN label.
When R1 detects a failure in L1, R1 sends the traffic from CE1 via
backup LSP with VPN bakup label received from La as inner label to
La, which delivers the traffic to CE2 using VPN backup label.
A new solution (refer to Figure 3) with egress local protection for
protecting L3VPN traffic includes: 1) A BFD session between R3 and
egress L1 of primary LSP; 2) A backup LSP from R3 to backup egress
La; 3) L1 sends La VPN label as UA label and related information via
BGP or another protocol; 4) L1 and La is virtualized as one from R1's
Chen, et al. Expires June 1, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft P2MP LSP Egress Protection November 2013
point of view.
CE1,CE2 in [R2]*****[R3]*****[L1] **** Primary LSP
one VPN * \ :.....: $ ---- Backup LSP
* \ $ .... BFD Session
[R1] \ [CE2] $ Link
$ \ $ $
$ \ $
[CE1] [La](VPN label from L1 as UA label)
Figure 3: Locally Protect Egress for L3VPN Traffic
When R3 detects a failure in L1, R3 sends the traffic from primary
LSP via backup LSP to La, which delivers the traffic to CE2 using VPN
label under the backup LSP label as a context label.
4.2. PLR Procedure for Applications
When the PLR creates a backup LSP from itself to a backup egress for
protecting a primary egress, it includes an EGRESS_BACKUP_SUB_LSP
object in the Path message for the LSP. The object contains the
primary egress and the backup egress and indicates that the backup
egress SHOULD consider the backup LSP label as a context label and
the inner label as application traffic label when needed.
4.3. Egress Procedures for Applications
When a primary egress of an LSP sends the ingress of the LSP a label
for an application such as a VPN, it SHOULD sends the backup egress
for protecting the primary egress the label as a upstream assigned
label via BGP or another protocol. Exactly how the label is sent is
out of scope for this document.
When the backup egress receives a upstream assigned label from the
primary egress, it adds a forwarding entry with the label into the
LFIB for the primary egress. Using this entry, the backup egress
delivers the traffic with this label as inner label from the backup
LSP to the same destination as the primary egress.
When the backup egress receives a packet from the backup LSP, it uses
the top label as a context label to find the LFIB for the primary
egress and the inner label to deliver the packet to the same
destination as the primary egress according to the LFIB.
Chen, et al. Expires June 1, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft P2MP LSP Egress Protection November 2013
5. Security Considerations
In principle this document does not introduce new security issues.
The security considerations pertaining to RFC 4090, RFC 4875 and
other RSVP protocols remain relevant.
6. IANA Considerations
TBD
7. Contributors
Boris Zhang
Telus Communications
200 Consilium Pl Floor 15
Toronto, ON M1H 3J3
Canada
Email: Boris.Zhang@telus.com
Zhenbin Li
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China
Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com
Vic Liu
China Mobile
No.32 Xuanwumen West Street, Xicheng District
Beijing, 100053
China
8. Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Richard Li, Tarek Saad, Lizhong Jin,
Ravi Torvi, Eric Gray, Olufemi Komolafe, Michael Yue, Rob Rennison,
Neil Harrison, Kannan Sampath, Yimin Shen, Ronhazli Adam and Quintin
Zhao for their valuable comments and suggestions on this draft.
Chen, et al. Expires June 1, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft P2MP LSP Egress Protection November 2013
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3692] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers
Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, January 2004.
[RFC2205] Braden, B., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.
[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC4090] Pan, P., Swallow, G., and A. Atlas, "Fast Reroute
Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090,
May 2005.
[RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Papadimitriou, D., and S. Yasukawa,
"Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE Label
Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875, May 2007.
[RFC5331] Aggarwal, R., Rekhter, Y., and E. Rosen, "MPLS Upstream
Label Assignment and Context-Specific Label Space",
RFC 5331, August 2008.
[P2MP FRR]
Le Roux, J., Aggarwal, R., Vasseur, J., and M. Vigoureux,
"P2MP MPLS-TE Fast Reroute with P2MP Bypass Tunnels",
draft-leroux-mpls-p2mp-te-bypass , March 1997.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC4461] Yasukawa, S., "Signaling Requirements for Point-to-
Multipoint Traffic-Engineered MPLS Label Switched Paths
(LSPs)", RFC 4461, April 2006.
Chen, et al. Expires June 1, 2014 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft P2MP LSP Egress Protection November 2013
Authors' Addresses
Huaimo Chen
Huawei Technologies
Boston, MA
USA
Email: huaimo.chen@huawei.com
Ning So
Tata Communications
2613 Fairbourne Cir.
Plano, TX 75082
USA
Email: ning.so@tatacommunications.com
Autumn Liu
Ericsson
CA
USA
Email: autumn.liu@ericsson.com
Fengman Xu
Verizon
2400 N. Glenville Dr
Richardson, TX 75082
USA
Email: fengman.xu@verizon.com
Mehmet Toy
Comcast
1800 Bishops Gate Blvd.
Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
USA
Email: mehmet_toy@cable.comcast.com
Chen, et al. Expires June 1, 2014 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft P2MP LSP Egress Protection November 2013
Lu Huang
China Mobile
No.32 Xuanwumen West Street, Xicheng District
Beijing, 100053
China
Email: huanglu@chinamobile.com
Lei Liu
UC Davis
USA
Email: liulei.kddi@gmail.com
Chen, et al. Expires June 1, 2014 [Page 15]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/