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

Versions: (draft-dhody-pce-srlg-collection) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

PCE Working Group                                               D. Dhody
Internet-Draft                                                  F. Zhang
Intended status: Standards Track                                X. Zhang
Expires: April 25, 2019                                          M. Negi
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                                V. Lopez
                                                     O. Gonzalez de Dios
                                                          Telefonica I+D
                                                        October 22, 2018


             PCEP Extensions for Receiving SRLG Information
                      draft-dhody-pce-recv-srlg-07

Abstract

   The Path Computation Element (PCE) provides functions of path
   computation in support of traffic engineering (TE) in networks
   controlled by Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized
   MPLS (GMPLS).

   This document provides extensions for the Path Computation Element
   Protocol (PCEP) to receive Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) information
   during path computation via encoding this information in the path
   computation reply message.

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 25, 2019.

Copyright Notice

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




Dhody, et al.            Expires April 25, 2019                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                  PCE-SRLG                    October 2018


   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (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.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Usage of SRLG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  PCEP Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Extension to PCEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.1.  SRLG Information TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.2.  SRLG Subobject in ERO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Other Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     6.1.  Other Path Setup Types  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     6.2.  Backward Compatibility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     6.3.  Confidentiality via PathKey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     6.4.  Coherent SRLG IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  Manageability Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     8.1.  Control of Function and Policy  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     8.2.  Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     8.3.  Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     8.4.  Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     8.5.  Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     8.6.  Impact On Network Operations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     9.1.  New TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     9.2.  New Subobjects for the ERO Object . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Appendix A.  Contributor Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14

1.  Introduction

   As per [RFC4655], PCE based path computation model is deployed in
   large, multi-domain, multi-region, or multi-layer networks.  In such




Dhody, et al.            Expires April 25, 2019                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                  PCE-SRLG                    October 2018


   case PCEs may cooperate with each other to provide end to end optimal
   path.

   It is important to understand which TE links in the network might be
   at risk from the same failures.  In this sense, a set of links can
   constitute a 'shared risk link group' (SRLG) if they share a resource
   whose failure can affect all links in the set [RFC4202].  H-LSP
   (Hierarchical LSP) or S-LSP (Stitched LSP) can be used for carrying
   one or more other LSPs as described in [RFC4206] and [RFC6107].
   H-LSP and S-LSP may be computed by PCE(s) and further form as a TE
   link.  The SRLG information of such LSPs can be obtained during path
   computation itself and encoded in the PCEP Path Computation Reply
   (PCRep) message.  [I-D.zhang-ccamp-gmpls-uni-app] describes the use
   of a PCE for end to end User-Network Interface (UNI) path
   computation.

   Note that [RFC8001] specifies a extension to Resource ReserVation
   Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) where SRLG information is
   collected at the time of signaling.  But in case a PCE or cooperating
   PCEs are used for path computation it is recommended that SRLG
   information is provided by the PCE(s) during the path computation
   itself to the ingress (PCC) rather than receiving this information
   during signaling.

   Further, for other path setup types (PST), (such as segment routing
   (SR), PCE as central controller (PCECC)) using a PCEP based approach
   for SRLG information is useful.

   [RFC7926] describes a scaling problem with SRLGs in multi-layer
   environment and introduce a concept of Macro SRLG (MSRLG).  Lower
   layer SRLG are abstracted at the time of path computation and can be
   the basis to generate such a Macro SRLG at the PCE.

1.1.  Requirements Language

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

2.  Terminology

   The following terminology is used in this document.

   CPS:  Confidential Path Segment.  A segment of a path that contains
      nodes and links that the policy requires not to be disclosed
      outside the domain.



Dhody, et al.            Expires April 25, 2019                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                  PCE-SRLG                    October 2018


   PCE:  Path Computation Element.  An entity (component, application,
      or network node) that is capable of computing a network path or
      route based on a network graph and applying computational
      constraints.

   SRLG:  Shared Risk Link Group.

   UNI:  User-Network Interface.

3.  Usage of SRLG

   [RFC4202] states that a set of links can constitute a 'shared risk
   link group' (SRLG) if they share a resource whose failure can affect
   all links in the set.  For example, two fibers in the same conduit
   would be in the same SRLG.  If an LSR is required to have multiple
   diversely routed LSPs to another LSR, the path computation should
   attempt to route the paths so that they do not have any links in
   common, and such that the path SRLGs are disjoint.

   In case a PCE or cooperating PCEs are used for path computation, the
   SRLG information is provided by the PCE(s).  For example, disjoint
   paths for inter-domain or inter-layer LSPs.  In order to achieve path
   computation for a secondary (backup) path, a PCC may request the PCE
   for a route that must be SRLG disjoint from the primary (working)
   path.  The Exclude Route Object (XRO) [RFC5521] is used to specify
   SRLG information to be explicitly excluded.

4.  PCEP Requirements

   Following key requirements are identified for PCEP to receive SRLG
   information during path computation:

   SRLG Indication:  The PCEP speaker SHOULD be capable of indicating
      whether the SRLG information of the path is to be received during
      the path computation procedure to PCE.

   SRLG:  If requested, the SRLG information SHOULD be received during
      the path computation and encoded in the PCEP message from PCE.

   Cooperating PCEs [RFC4655] with inter-PCE communication work together
   to provide the end to end optimal path as well as the SRLG
   information of this path.  During inter-domain or inter-layer path
   computation, the aggregating PCE (Parent PCE [RFC6805] or Ingress
   PCE(1) [RFC5441] or Higher-Layer PCE [RFC5623]) should receive the
   SRLG information of path segments from other PCEs and provide the end
   to end SRLG information of the optimal path to the Path Computation
   Client (PCC).




Dhody, et al.            Expires April 25, 2019                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                  PCE-SRLG                    October 2018


5.  Extension to PCEP

   This document defines a new TLV that can be carried in the LSPA (LSP
   Attributes) object [RFC5440] so that a PCEP speaker can request SRLG
   information along with the path from the PCE.  The SRLG subobject
   maybe carried inside the Explicit Route Object (ERO) in the PCEP
   message from PCE.

5.1.  SRLG Information TLV

   This document specify a new TLV for the LSPA Object to indicate that
   the PCE SHOULD provide the SRLG information along with the path.  Its
   format is shown in the following figure:

      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              |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |          Reserved             |            Flags            |S|
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                               SRLG-INFO TLV

   The Type for the TLV is TBD.  The length is fixed value of 4.  The
   value portion consist of -

      Reserved (16-bit): MUST be set to zero while sending and ignored
      on receipt.

      Flags (16-bit): Currently one flag is defined -

      S (SRLG - 1 bit):  when set, in a PCReq message, this indicates
         that the SRLG information of the path SHOULD be provided in the
         PCRep message.  Otherwise, when cleared, this indicates that
         the SRLG information SHOULD NOT be included in the PCRep
         message.  In a PCRep message, when the S bit is set this
         indicates that the returned path in ERO also carry the SRLG
         information; otherwise (when the S bit is cleared), the
         returned path does not carry SRLG information.  Further incase
         of PCRpt [RFC8231] message for delegated LSP the flag indicates
         that when PCE computes the path, it SHOULD provide the SRLG
         information in PCUpd [RFC8231] message.  Incase of PCUpd and
         PCInitiate [RFC8281] message, the flag indicates that the ERO
         also carry the SRLG information.






Dhody, et al.            Expires April 25, 2019                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                  PCE-SRLG                    October 2018


5.2.  SRLG Subobject in ERO

   As per [RFC5440], ERO is used to encode the path and is carried
   within a PCRep message to provide the computed path when computation
   was successful.  Further as per [RFC8231] and [RFC8281], the ERO is
   also encoded in PCUpd and PCInitiate message for stateful operations.

   The SRLG of a path is the union of the SRLGs of the links in the path
   [RFC4202].  The SRLG subobject is defined in [RFC8001] for
   ROUTE_RECORD object (RRO).  The same subobject format (reproduced
   below) can be used by the ERO object in the PCEP messages.

      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    |D|          Reserved           |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                 SRLG ID 1 (4 octets)                          |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     ~                           ......                              ~
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                 SRLG ID n (4 octets)                          |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The meaning and description of Type, Length, D-Bit and SRLG ID can be
   found in [RFC8001].  Reserved field MUST be set to zero on
   transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.

   The SRLG subobject should be encoded inside the ERO object in the
   PCEP messages by the PCE when the S-Bit is set in the SRLG-INFO TLV
   (inside LSPA object).  Incase no SRLG information is present for the
   path, an empty SRLG subobject with Length as 4 (and no SRLG-IDs) is
   included.

6.  Other Considerations

6.1.  Other Path Setup Types

   Initially PCEP was used for LSPs that are set up using the RSVP-TE
   signaling protocol.  However, other TE path setup methods are
   possible within the PCE architecture such as SR
   [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing].

   [RFC8001] describes SRLG information collection via RSVP-TE
   extension, which can not be used for Segment Routing (SR), making PCE
   the best source for the SRLG information for SR.





Dhody, et al.            Expires April 25, 2019                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                  PCE-SRLG                    October 2018


6.2.  Backward Compatibility

   If a PCE receives a PCEP message and the PCE does not understand the
   new TLV in the LSPA object, then as per [RFC5440], it would ignore
   the TLV.  In which case, the PCC will receive ERO with no SRLG
   subobject and can determine that the PCE does not support the PCEP
   extention as defined in this document.

   If PCEP speaker receives a PCEP message with SRLG subobject that it
   does not support or recognize, it would act according to the existing
   processing rules of the ERO as per [RFC5440].

6.3.  Confidentiality via PathKey

   [RFC5520] defines a mechanism to hide the contents of a segment of a
   path, called the Confidential Path Segment (CPS).  The CPS may be
   replaced by a path-key that can be conveyed in the PCEP and signaled
   within in a RSVP-TE ERO.

   When path-key confidentiality is used, encoding SRLG information in
   PCRep along with the path-key could be useful to compute a SRLG
   disjoint backup path at the later instance.

   The path segment that needs to be hidden (that is, CPS) MAY be
   replaced in the ERO with a PKS.  The PCE MAY use the SRLG Sub-objects
   in the ERO along with the PKS sub-object.

6.4.  Coherent SRLG IDs

   In a multi-layer multi-domain scenario, SRLG ids may be configured by
   different management entities in each layer/domain.  In such
   scenarios, maintaining a coherent set of SRLG IDs is a key
   requirement in order to be able to use the SRLG information properly.
   Thus, SRLG IDs must be unique.  Note that current procedure is
   targeted towards a scenario where the different layers and domains
   belong to the same operator, or to several coordinated administrative
   groups.  Ensuring the aforementioned coherence of SRLG IDs is beyond
   the scope of this document.  Further scenarios, where coherence in
   the SRLG IDs cannot be guaranteed are out of the scope of the present
   document and are left for further study.

7.  Security Considerations

   The procedures defined in this document permit the transfer of SRLG
   data between layers or domains during the path computation of LSPs,
   subject to policy at the PCE.  It is recommended that PCE policies
   take the implications of releasing SRLG information into
   consideration and behave accordingly during path computation.  Other



Dhody, et al.            Expires April 25, 2019                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                  PCE-SRLG                    October 2018


   security concerns are discussed in [RFC5440].  An analysis of the
   security issues for routing protocols that use TCP (including PCEP)
   is provided in [RFC6952], while [RFC8253] discusses a TLS based
   approach to provide secure transport for PCEP.

8.  Manageability Considerations

8.1.  Control of Function and Policy

   A PCE involved in inter-domain or inter-layer path computation should
   be capable of being configured with a SRLG processing policy to
   specify if the SRLG IDs of the domain or specific layer network can
   be exposed to the PCEP peer outside the domain or layer network, or
   whether they should be summarized, mapped to values that are
   comprehensible to PCC outside the domain or layer network, or removed
   entirely.

8.2.  Information and Data Models

   [RFC7420] describes the PCEP MIB and [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] specify
   PCEP YANG, there are no new MIB Objects or YANG changes for this
   document.

8.3.  Liveness Detection and Monitoring

   Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness
   detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already
   listed in [RFC5440].

8.4.  Verify Correct Operations

   Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new operation
   verification requirements in addition to those already listed in
   [RFC5440] and [RFC8231].

8.5.  Requirements On Other Protocols

   Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new requirements
   on other protocols.  Note that, [RFC8001] provide similar
   requirements for signaling protocol.

8.6.  Impact On Network Operations

   Mechanisms defined in this document do not have any impact on network
   operations in addition to those already listed in [RFC5440] and
   [RFC8231].





Dhody, et al.            Expires April 25, 2019                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                  PCE-SRLG                    October 2018


9.  IANA Considerations

   IANA assigns values to PCEP parameters in registries defined in
   [RFC5440].  IANA is requested to make the following additional
   assignments.

9.1.  New TLV

   IANA maintains the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers"
   registry and the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" sub-registry.  IANA is
   requested to allocate a codepoint for -

                 Type         Meaning                 Reference
                 TBD          SRLG-INFO               This document

   This document requests that a new sub-registry, named "SRLG-INFO TLV
   Flag Field", is created within the "Path Computation Element Protocol
   (PCEP) Numbers" registry to manage the Flag field of the this TLV.
   New values are to be assigned by Standards Action [RFC8126].  Each
   bit should be tracked with the following qualities:

   o  Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit)

   o  Capability description

   o  Defining RFC

   The following values are defined in this document:

                 Bit          Description             Reference
                  31          SRLG (S-bit)            This document

9.2.  New Subobjects for the ERO Object

   PCEP uses the ERO registry maintained for RSVP at
   http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters/rsvp-
   parameters.xhtml.  Within this registry IANA maintains sub-registry
   for ERO subobject at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters/
   rsvp-parameters.xhtml#rsvp-parameters-25

   Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to make identical
   additions to the registry as follows (which is un-assigned right
   now):

       Subobject Type                          Reference
       34        SRLG sub-object               [This I.D.]





Dhody, et al.            Expires April 25, 2019                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                  PCE-SRLG                    October 2018


   Note that, an allocation for SRLG sub-object for RRO in RSVP-TE is
   made for [RFC8001].

10.  Acknowledgments

   Special thanks to the authors of [RFC8001].  This document borrows
   some of text from it.

11.  References

11.1.  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>.

   [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>.

   [RFC8001]  Zhang, F., Ed., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Ed., Margaria, C.,
              Hartley, M., and Z. Ali, "RSVP-TE Extensions for
              Collecting Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) Information",
              RFC 8001, DOI 10.17487/RFC8001, January 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8001>.

   [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>.

   [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>.



Dhody, et al.            Expires April 25, 2019                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                  PCE-SRLG                    October 2018


11.2.  Informative References

   [RFC4202]  Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing Extensions
              in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
              (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, DOI 10.17487/RFC4202, October 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4202>.

   [RFC4206]  Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths (LSP)
              Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
              (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4206, October 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4206>.

   [RFC4655]  Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., 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>.

   [RFC5441]  Vasseur, JP., Ed., Zhang, R., Bitar, N., and JL. Le Roux,
              "A Backward-Recursive PCE-Based Computation (BRPC)
              Procedure to Compute Shortest Constrained Inter-Domain
              Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths", RFC 5441,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5441, April 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5441>.

   [RFC5520]  Bradford, R., Ed., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel,
              "Preserving Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path
              Computation Using a Path-Key-Based Mechanism", RFC 5520,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5520, April 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5520>.

   [RFC5521]  Oki, E., Takeda, T., and A. Farrel, "Extensions to the
              Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for
              Route Exclusions", RFC 5521, DOI 10.17487/RFC5521, April
              2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5521>.

   [RFC5623]  Oki, E., Takeda, T., Le Roux, JL., and A. Farrel,
              "Framework for PCE-Based Inter-Layer MPLS and GMPLS
              Traffic Engineering", RFC 5623, DOI 10.17487/RFC5623,
              September 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5623>.

   [RFC6107]  Shiomoto, K., Ed. and A. Farrel, Ed., "Procedures for
              Dynamically Signaled Hierarchical Label Switched Paths",
              RFC 6107, DOI 10.17487/RFC6107, February 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6107>.






Dhody, et al.            Expires April 25, 2019                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                  PCE-SRLG                    October 2018


   [RFC6805]  King, D., Ed. and A. Farrel, Ed., "The Application of the
              Path Computation Element Architecture to the Determination
              of a Sequence of Domains in MPLS and GMPLS", RFC 6805,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6805, November 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6805>.

   [RFC6952]  Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of
              BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying
              and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design
              Guide", RFC 6952, DOI 10.17487/RFC6952, May 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6952>.

   [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>.

   [RFC7926]  Farrel, A., Ed., Drake, J., Bitar, N., Swallow, G.,
              Ceccarelli, D., and X. Zhang, "Problem Statement and
              Architecture for Information Exchange between
              Interconnected Traffic-Engineered Networks", BCP 206,
              RFC 7926, DOI 10.17487/RFC7926, July 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7926>.

   [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>.

   [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing]
              Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,
              and J. Hardwick, "PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing",
              draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-14 (work in progress),
              October 2018.

   [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]
              Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V., and J. Tantsura, "A
              YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element
              Communications Protocol (PCEP)", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-
              yang-09 (work in progress), October 2018.









Dhody, et al.            Expires April 25, 2019                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                  PCE-SRLG                    October 2018


   [I-D.zhang-ccamp-gmpls-uni-app]
              Zhang, F., Dios, O., Farrel, A., Zhang, X., and D.
              Ceccarelli, "Applicability of Generalized Multiprotocol
              Label Switching (GMPLS) User-Network Interface (UNI)",
              draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-uni-app-05 (work in progress),
              February 2014.













































Dhody, et al.            Expires April 25, 2019                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                  PCE-SRLG                    October 2018


Appendix A.  Contributor Addresses

   Udayasree Palle

   EMail: udayasreereddy@gmail.com

   Avantika
   India

   EMail: s.avantika.avantika@gmail.com

Authors' Addresses

   Dhruv Dhody
   Huawei Technologies
   Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
   Bangalore, Karnataka  560066
   India

   EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com


   Fatai Zhang
   Huawei Technologies
   Bantian, Longgang District
   Shenzhen, Guangdong  518129
   P.R.China

   EMail: zhangfatai@huawei.com


   Xian Zhang
   Huawei Technologies
   Bantian, Longgang District
   Shenzhen, Guangdong  518129
   P.R.China

   EMail: zhang.xian@huawei.com


   Mahendra Singh Negi
   Huawei Technologies
   Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
   Bangalore, Karnataka  560066
   India

   EMail: mahend.ietf@gmail.com




Dhody, et al.            Expires April 25, 2019                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                  PCE-SRLG                    October 2018


   Victor Lopez
   Telefonica I+D
   Distrito Telefonica
   Edificio Sur 3, 3rd floor
   Madrid  28050
   Spain

   EMail: victor.lopezalvarez@telefonica.com


   Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
   Telefonica I+D
   Distrito Telefonica
   Edificio Sur 3, 3rd floor
   Madrid    28050
   Spain

   EMail: oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com

































Dhody, et al.            Expires April 25, 2019                [Page 15]


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