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

Versions: (draft-fedyk-ccamp-uni-extensions) 01 02 03 04 05 draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity

   CCAMP Working Group                                   Zafar Ali, Ed.
   Internet Draft                                   George Swallow, Ed.
   Intended status: Standard Track                        Cisco Systems
   Expires: April 26, 2015                                F. Zhang, Ed.
                                                                 Huawei
                                                         D. Beller, Ed.
                                                         Alcatel-Lucent
                                                       October 27, 2014

       Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Path
                         Diversity using Exclude Route

                     draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-05.txt


   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 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 April 26, 2015.

   Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 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 (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.





   Ali, Swallow, Zhang, Beller, et al   Expires April 2015   [Page 1]


   Internet Draft      draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-05.txt


   Abstract


   RFC 4874 specifies methods by which path exclusions can be
   communicated during RSVP-TE signaling in networks where precise
   explicit paths are not computed by the LSP source node. This
   document specifies procedures for additional route exclusion
   subobject based on Paths currently existing or expected to exist
   within the network.

   Conventions used in this document

   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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

   Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ..................................................2
         1.1. Client-Initiated Identifier ...........................5
         1.2. PCE-allocated Identifier ..............................6
         1.3. Network-Assigned Identifier ...........................7
   2. RSVP-TE signaling extensions ..................................9
         2.1. Diversity XRO Subobject ...............................9
             2.1.1. IPv4 Diversity XRO Subobject ....................9
             2.1.2. IPv6 Diversity XRO Subobject ...................14
         2.2. Processing rules for the Diversity XRO subobject .....17
         2.3. Diversity EXRS Subobject .............................20
   3. Security Considerations ......................................22
   4. IANA Considerations ..........................................22
         4.1. New XRO subobject types ..............................22
         4.2. New EXRS subobject types .............................23
         4.3. New RSVP error sub-codes .............................23
   5. Acknowledgements .............................................23
   6. References ...................................................24
         6.1. Normative References
.................................24
         6.2. Informative References ...............................24


   1. Introduction

      Path diversity for multiple connections is a well-known Service
      Provider requirement. Diversity constraints ensure that Label-
      Switched Paths (LSPs) can be established without sharing
      resources, thus greatly reducing the probability of simultaneous
      connection failures.

      When a source node has full topological knowledge and is permitted
      to signal an Explicit Route Object, diverse paths for LSPs can be
      computed by this source node. However, there are scenarios when


                       Expires April 2015                 [Page 2]


   Internet Draft      draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-05.txt


      path computations are performed by different nodes, and there is
      therefore a need for relevant diversity constraints to be
      communicated to those nodes. These include (but are not limited
      to):

      .  LSPs with loose hops in the Explicit Route Object (ERO), e.g.
        inter-domain LSPs;

      .  Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) User-
        Network Interface (UNI), where path computation may be
        performed by the core node [RFC4208].

      [RFC4874] introduced a means of specifying nodes and resources to
      be excluded from a route, using the eXclude Route Object (XRO) and
      Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject (EXRS). It facilitates the
      calculation of diverse paths for LSPs based on known properties of
      those paths including addresses of links and nodes traversed, and
      Shared Risk Link Groups (SRLGs) of traversed links. Employing
      these mechanisms requires that the source node that initiates
      signaling knows the relevant properties of the path(s) from which
      diversity is desired. However, there are circumstances under which
      this may not be possible or desirable, including (but not limited
      to):

      .  Exclusion of a path which does not originate, terminate or
         traverse the source node of the diverse LSP, in which case the
         addresses of links and SRLGs of the path from which diversity
         is required are unknown to the source node.

      .  Exclusion of a path which is known to the source node of the
         diverse LSP for which the node has incomplete or no path
         information, e.g. due to operator policy. In this case, the
         existence of the reference path is known to the source node but
         the information required to construct an XRO object to
         guarantee diversity from the reference path is not fully known.
         Inter-domain and GMPLS overlay networks can present such
         restrictions.

      This is exemplified in the Figure 1, where overlay reference
      model from [RFC4208] is shown.









                       Expires April 2015                 [Page 3]


   Internet Draft      draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-05.txt



     Overlay                                                  Overlay
     Network       +----------------------------------+       Network
   +---------+     |                                  |     +---------+
   |  +----+ |     |  +-----+    +-----+    +-----+   |     | +----+  |
   |  |    | | UNI |  |     |    |     |    |     |   | UNI | |    |  |
   | -+ EN1+-+-----+--+ CN1 +----+ CN2 +----+ CN3 +---+-----+-+ EN3+- |
   |  |    | |  +--+--+     |    |     |    |     |   | +---+-|    |  |
   |  +----+ |  |  |  +--+--+    +--+--+    +--+--+   | |   | +----+  |
   +---------+  |  |     |          |          |      | |   +---------+
                |  |     |          |          |      | |
   +---------+  |  |  +--+--+       |       +--+--+   | |   +---------+
   |  +----+ |  |  |  |     |       +-------+     +-----+   | +----+  |
   |  |    +-+--+  |  | CN4 +---------------+ CN5 |   |     | |    |  |
   | -+ EN2+-+-----+--+     |               |     +---+-----+-+ EN4+- |
   |  |    | | UNI |  +-----+               +-----+   | UNI | |    |  |
   |  +----+ |     |                                  |     | +----+  |
   +---------+     +----------------------------------+     +---------+
     Overlay                 Core Network                     Overlay
     Network                                                  Network

                           Legend:   EN  -  Edge Node
                                     CN  -  Core Node

                  Figure 1:  Overlay Reference Model [RFC4208]


      Figure 1 depicts two types of UNI connectivity: single-homed and
      dual-homed ENs (which also applies to higher order multi-homed
      connectivity.). Single-homed EN devices are connected to a single
      CN device via a single UNI link. This single UNI link may
      constitute a single point of failure. UNI connection between EN1
      and CN1 is an example of singled-homed UNI connectivity.

      A single point of failure caused by a single-homed UNI can be
      avoided when the EN device is connected to two different CN
      devices, as depicted for EN2 in Figure 1. For the dual-homing
      case, it is possible to establish two different UNI connections
      from the same source EN device to the same destination EN device.
      For example, two connections from EN2 to EN3 may use the two UNI
      links EN2-CN1 and EN2-CN4. To avoid single points of failure
      within the provider network, it is necessary to also ensure path
      (LSP) diversity within the core network.

      In a UNI network such as that shown in Figure 1, the CNs
      typically perform path computation. Information sharing across


                       Expires April 2015                 [Page 4]


   Internet Draft      draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-05.txt


      the UNI boundary is restricted based on the policy rules imposed
      by the core network. Typically, the core network topology
      information is not exposed to the ENs. In the network shown in
      Figure 1, consider a use case where an LSP from EN2 to EN4 needs
      to be SRLG diverse from an LSP from EN1 to EN3. In this case, EN2
      may not know SRLG attributes of the EN1- EN3 LSP and hence cannot
      construct an XRO to exclude these SRLGs. In this example EN2
      cannot use the procedures described in [RFC4874]. Similarly, an
      LSP from EN2 to EN3 traversing CN1 needs to be diverse from an
      LSP from EN2 to EN3 going via CN4. Again in this case, exclusions
      based on [RFC4874] cannot be used.

      This document addresses these diversity requirements by
      introducing the notion of excluding the path taken by particular
      LSP(s). The reference LSP(s) or route(s) from which diversity is
      required is/are identified by an "identifier". The type of
      identifier to use is highly dependent on the networking
      deployment scenario; it could be client-initiated, allocated by
      the (core) network or managed by a PCE. This document defines
      three different types of identifiers corresponding to these three
      cases: a client initiated identifier, a PCE allocated Identifier
      and CN ingress node (UNI-N) allocated Identifier.

   1.1. Client-Initiated Identifier

      There are scenarios in which the ENs have the following
      requirements for the diversity identifier:

      -  The identifier is controlled by the client side and is
         specified as part of the service request.

      -  Both client and server understand the identifier.

      -  It is necessary to be able to reference the identifier even if
         the LSP referenced by it is not yet signaled.

      -  The identifier is to be stable for a long period of time.

      -  The identifier is to be stable even when the referenced tunnel
         is rerouted.

      -  The identifier is to be human-readable.

      These requirements are met by using the Resource ReserVation
      Protocol (RSVP) tunnel/ LSP Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) as
      the identifier.



                       Expires April 2015                 [Page 5]


   Internet Draft      draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-05.txt


      The usage of the client-initiated identifier is illustrated by
      using Figure 1. Suppose a tunnel from EN2 to EN4 needs to be
      diverse with respect to a tunnel from EN1 to EN3. The tunnel FEC
      of the EN1-EN3 tunnel is FEC1, where FEC1 is defined by the tuple
      (tunnel-id = T1, source address = EN1.ROUTE Identifier (RID),
      destination address = EN3.RID, extended tunnel-id = EN1.RID).
      Similarly, tunnel FEC of the EN2-EN3 tunnel is FEC2, where FEC2
      is defined by the tuple (tunnel-id = T2, source address =
      EN2.RID, destination address = EN4.RID, extended tunnel-id =
      EN2.RID). The EN1-EN3 tunnel is signaled with an exclusion
      requirement from FEC2, and the EN2-EN3 tunnel is signaled with an
      exclusion requirement from FEC1. In order to maintain diversity
      between these two connections within the core network, it is
      assumed that the core network implements Crankback Signaling
      [RFC4920]. Note that crankback signaling is known to lead to
      slower setup times and sub-optimal paths under some circumstances
      as described by [RFC4920].

   1.2. PCE-allocated Identifier

      In scenarios where a PCE is deployed and used to perform path
      computation, the core edge node (e.g., node CN1 in Figure 1)
      could consult a PCE to allocate identifiers, which are used to
      signal path diversity constraints. In other scenarios a PCE is
      deployed in each border node or a PCE is part of a Network
      Management System (NMS). In all these cases, the Path Key as
      defined in [RFC5520] can be used in RSVP signaling as the
      identifier to ensure diversity.

      An example of specifying LSP diversity using a Path Key is shown
      in Figure 2, where a simple network with two domains is shown. It
      is desired to set up a pair of path-disjoint LSPs from the source
      in Domain 1 to the destination in Domain 2, but the domains keep
      strict confidentiality about all path and topology information.

      The first LSP is signaled by the source with ERO {A, B, loose Dst}
      and is set up with the path {Src, A, B, U, V, W, Dst}. However,
      when sending the RRO out of Domain 2, node U would normally strip
      the path and replace it with a loose hop to the destination. With
      this limited information, the source is unable to include enough
      detail in the ERO of the second LSP to avoid it taking, for
      example, the path {Src, C, D, X, V, W, Dst} for path-disjointness.







                       Expires April 2015                 [Page 6]


   Internet Draft      draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-05.txt


          ---------------------    -----------------------------
         | Domain 1            |  |                    Domain 2 |
         |                     |  |                             |
         |        ---    ---   |  |   ---    ---     ---        |
         |       | A |--| B |--+--+--| U |--| V |---| W |       |
         |      / ---    ---   |  |   ---    ---     --- \      |
         |  ---/               |  |          /       /    \---  |
         | |Src|               |  |         /       /     |Dst| |
         |  ---\               |  |        /       /      /---  |
         |      \ ---    ---   |  |   --- /   --- /  --- /      |
         |       | C |--| D |--+--+--| X |---| Y |--| Z |       |
         |        ---    ---   |  |   ---     ---    ---        |
         |                     |  |                             |
          ---------------------    -----------------------------

                Figure 1: A Simple Multi-Domain Network

      In order to improve the situation, node U performs the PCE
      function and replaces the path segment {U, V, W} in the RRO with
      a Path Key Subobject. The Path Key Subobject assigns an
      "identifier" to the key. The PCE ID in the message indicates that
      it was node U that made the replacement.

      With this additional information, the source is able to signal
      the subsequent LSPs with the ERO set to {C, D, exclude Path
      Key(EXRS), loose Dst}. When the signaling message reaches node X,
      it can consult node U to expand the Path Key and know how to
      avoid the path of the first LSP. Alternatively, the source could
      use an ERO of {C, D, loose Dst} and include an XRO containing the
      Path Key.

      This mechanism can work with all the Path-Key resolution
      mechanisms, as detailed in [RFC5553] section 3.1. A PCE, co-
      located or not, may be used to resolve the Path-Key, but the node
      (i.e., a Label Switching Router (LSR)) can also use the Path Key
      information to index a Path Segment previously supplied to it by
      the entity that originated the Path-Key, for example the LSR that
      inserted the Path-Key in the RRO or a management system.


   1.3. Network-Assigned Identifier

      There are scenarios in which the network provides diversity-
      related information for a service that allows the client device
      to include this information in the signaling message. If the
      Shared Resource Link Group (SRLG) identifier information is both
      available and shareable (by policy) with the ENs, the procedure


                       Expires April 2015                 [Page 7]


   Internet Draft      draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-05.txt


      defined in [DRAFT-SRLG-RECORDING] can be used to collect SRLG
      identifiers associated with an LSP (LSP1). When a second LSP
      (LSP2) needs to be diverse with respect to LSP1, the EN
      constructing the RSVP signaling message for setting up LSP2 can
      insert the SRLG identifiers associated with LSP1 as diversity
      constraints into the XRO using the procedure described in
      [RFC4874]. However, if the core network SRLG identifiers are
      either not available or not shareable with the ENs based on
      policies enforced by core network, existing mechanisms cannot be
      used.

      In this draft, a signaling mechanism is defined where information
      signaled to the CN via the UNI does not require shared knowledge
      of core network SRLG information. For this purpose, the concept
      of a Path Affinity Set (PAS) is used for abstracting SRLG
      information. The motive behind the introduction of the PAS is to
      minimize the exchange of diversity information between the core
      network (CNs) and the client devices (ENs). The PAS contains an
      abstract SRLG identifier associated with a given path rather than
      a detailed SRLG list. The PAS is a single identifier that can be
      used to request diversity and associate diversity. The means by
      which the processing node determines the path corresponding to
      the PAS is beyond the scope of this document.

      A CN on the core network boundary interprets the specific PAS
      identifier (e.g. "123") as meaning to exclude the core network
      SRLG information (or equivalent) that has been allocated by LSPs
      associated with this PAS identifier value. For example, if a Path
      exists for the LSP with the identifier "123", the CN would use
      local knowledge of the core network SRLGs associated with the
      "123" LSPs and use those SRLGs as constraints for path
      computation. If a PAS identifier is included for exclusion in the
      connection request, the CN (UNI-N) in the core network is assumed
      to be able to determine the existing core network SRLG
      information and calculate a path that meets the determined
      diversity constraints.

      When a CN satisfies a connection setup for a (SRLG) diverse
      signaled path, the CN may optionally record the core network SRLG
      information for that connection in terms of CN based parameters
      and associates that with the EN addresses in the Path message.
      Specifically for Layer-1 Virtual Private Networks (L1VPNs), Port
      Information Tables (PIT) [RFC5251] can be leveraged to translate
      between client (EN) addresses and core network addresses.

      The PAS and the associated SRLG information can be distributed
      within the core network by an Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) or


                       Expires April 2015                 [Page 8]


   Internet Draft      draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-05.txt


      by other means such as configuration. They can then be utilized
      by other CNs when other ENs are requesting paths to be setup that
      would require path/connection diversity. In the VPN case, this
      information is distributed on a VPN basis and contains a PAS
      identifier, CN addresses and SRLG information. In this way, on a
      VPN basis, the core network can have additional opaque records
      for the PAS values for various Paths along with the SRLG list
      associated with the Path. This information is internal to the
      core network and is known only to the core network.



   2. RSVP-TE signaling extensions

      This section describes the signaling extensions required to
      address the aforementioned requirements and use cases.

   2.1. Diversity XRO Subobject

      New Diversity XRO subobjects are defined by this document as
      follows.

   2.1.1. IPv4 Diversity XRO Subobject

        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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |L|  XRO Type   |     Length    |DI Type|A-Flags|E-Flags| Resvd |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |           IPv4 Diversity Identifier source address            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                  Diversity Identifier Value                   |
      //                            ...                              //
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


        L:
             The L-flag is used as for the XRO subobjects defined in
             [RFC4874], i.e.,

             0 indicates that the attribute specified MUST be excluded.

             1 indicates that the attribute specified SHOULD be avoided.


                       Expires April 2015                 [Page 9]


   Internet Draft      draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-05.txt



        XRO Type

             Type for IPv4 diversity XRO subobject (to be assigned by
             IANA; suggested value: 37).

        Length

             The Length contains the total length of the subobject in
             bytes, including the Type and Length fields. The Length is
             variable, depending on the diversity identifier value.

        Diversity Identifier Type (DI Type)

             Diversity Identifier Type (DI Type) indicates the way the
             reference LSP(s) or route(s) with which diversity is
             required is identified. Three values are defined in this
             document:

             IPv4 Client Initiated Identifier   1 (to be assigned by
             IANA)
             IPv4 PCE Allocated Identifier      2 (to be assigned by
             IANA)
             IPv4 Network Assigned Identifier   3 (to be assigned by
             IANA)

        Attribute Flags (A-Flags):

            The Attribute Flags (A-Flags) are used to communicate
            desirable attributes of the LSP being signaled. The
            following flags are defined. Each flag acts independently.
            Any combination of flags is permitted.

            0x01 = Destination node exception

               Indicates that the exclusion does not apply to the
               destination node of the LSP being signaled.

            0x02 = Processing node exception

               Indicates that the exclusion does not apply to the
               border node(s) performing ERO expansion for the LSP
               being signaled. An ingress UNI-N node is an example of
               such a node.


                       Expires April 2015                 [Page 10]


   Internet Draft      draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-05.txt


            0x04 = Penultimate node exception

               Indicates that the penultimate node of the LSP being
               signaled MAY be shared with the excluded path even when
               this violates the exclusion flags.

            0x08 = LSP ID to be ignored

               This flag is only applicable when the diversity is
               specified using the client-initiated identifier, the
               flag indicates tunnel level exclusion, as detailed in
               section 2.2.

        Exclusion Flags (E-Flags):

             The Exclusion-Flags are used to communicate the desired
             type(s) of exclusion. The following flags are defined. Any
             combination of these flags is permitted.

             0x01 = SRLG exclusion

                  Indicates that the path of the LSP being signaled is
                  requested to be SRLG-diverse from the excluded path
                  specified by the Diversity XRO subobject.

             0x02 = Node exclusion

                  Indicates that the path of the LSP being signaled is
                  requested to be node-diverse from the excluded path
                  specified by the Diversity XRO subobject.

                  (Note: the meaning of this flag may be modified by
                  the value of the Attribute-flags.)

             0x04 = Link exclusion

                  Indicates that the path of the LSP being signaled is
                  requested to be link-diverse from the path specified
                  by the Diversity XRO subobject.


        Resvd




                       Expires April 2015                 [Page 11]


   Internet Draft      draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-05.txt


             This field is reserved. It SHOULD be set to zero on
             transmission, and MUST be ignored on receipt.


        IPv4 Diversity Identifier source address:

            This field is set to the IPv4 address of the node that
            assigns the diversity identifier. Depending on the
            diversity identifier type, the diversity identifier source
            may be a client node, PCE entity or network node.
            Specifically:

           o  When the diversity identifier type is set to "IPv4 Client
              Initiated Identifier", the value is set to IPv4 tunnel
              sender address of the reference LSP against which
              diversity is desired. IPv4 tunnel sender address is as
              defined in [RFC3209].

           o  When the diversity identifier type is set to "IPv4 PCE
              Allocated Identifier", the value indicates the IPv4
              address of the node that assigned the Path Key identifier
              and that can return an expansion of the Path Key or use
              the Path Key as exclusion in a path computation. The Path
              Key is defined in [RFC5553].

           o  When the diversity identifier type is set to "IPv4
              Network Assigned Identifier", the value indicates the IPv4
              address of the node publishing the Path Affinity Set
              (PAS).

        Diversity Identifier Value:

            Encoding for this field depends on the diversity identifier
            type, as defined in the following.


            When the diversity identifier type is set to "IPv4 Client
            Initiated Identifier", the diversity identifier value is
            encoded as follows:




                       Expires April 2015                 [Page 12]


   Internet Draft      draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-05.txt


       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                 IPv4 tunnel end point address                 |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |          Must Be Zero         |     Tunnel ID                 |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                       Extended Tunnel ID                      |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |          Must Be Zero         |            LSP ID             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


            The IPv4 tunnel end point address, Tunnel ID, Extended
            Tunnel ID and LSP ID are as defined in [RFC3209].

            When the diversity identifier type is set to "IPv4 PCE
            Allocated Identifier", the diversity identifier value is
            encoded as follows:

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |         Must Be Zero          |           Path Key            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


            The Path Key is defined in [RFC5553].

            When the diversity identifier type is set to "IPv4 Network
            Assigned Identifier", the diversity identifier value is
            encoded as follows:

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |             Path Affinity Set (PAS) identifier                |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


             The Path affinity Set (PAS) identifier is a single number
             that represents a summarized SRLG for the reference path
             against which diversity is desired. The node identified by
             the "IPv4 Diversity Identifier source address" field of
             the diversity XRO subobject assigns the PAS value.





                       Expires April 2015                 [Page 13]


   Internet Draft      draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-05.txt


   2.1.2. IPv6 Diversity XRO Subobject

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |L|  XRO Type   |     Length    |DI Type|A-Flags|E-Flags| Resvd |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |           IPv6 Diversity Identifier source address            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |         IPv6 Diversity Identifier source address (cont.)      |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |         IPv6 Diversity Identifier source address (cont.)      |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |         IPv6 Diversity Identifier source address (cont.)      |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                  Diversity Identifier Value                   |
      //                            ...                              //
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

        L:
             The L-flag is used as for the XRO subobjects defined in
             [RFC4874], i.e.,

             0 indicates that the attribute specified MUST be excluded.

             1 indicates that the attribute specified SHOULD be avoided.

        XRO Type

             Type for IPv6 diversity XRO subobject (to be assigned by
             IANA; suggested value: 38).

        Length

             The Length contains the total length of the subobject in
             bytes, including the Type and Length fields. The Length is
             variable, depending on the diversity identifier value.

        Attribute Flags (A-Flags):

             As defined in Section 2.1.1 for the IPv4 counterpart.




                       Expires April 2015                 [Page 14]


   Internet Draft      draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-05.txt


        Exclusion Flags (E-Flags):

             As defined in Section 2.1.1 for the IPv4 counterpart.


        Resvd

             This field is reserved. It SHOULD be set to zero on
             transmission, and MUST be ignored on receipt.

        Diversity Identifier Type (DI Type)

             This field is defined in the same fashion as its IPv4
             counter part described in Section 2.1.1.
             The DI Types associated with IPv6 addresses are defined,
             as follows:

             IPv6 Client Initiated Identifier   4 (to be assigned by
             IANA)
             IPv6 PCE Allocated Identifier      5 (to be assigned by
             IANA)
             IPv6 Network Assigned Identifier   6 (to be assigned by
             IANA)

             These idenifier are assigned and used as defined in
             Section 2.1.1.

        IPv4 Diversity Identifier source address:

            This field is set to IPv6 address of the node that assigns
            the diversity identifier. How identity of node for various
            diversity types is determined is as described in Section
            2.1.1 for the IPv4 counterpart.

        Diversity Identifier Value:

            Encoding for this field depends on the diversity identifier
            type, as defined in the following.







                       Expires April 2015                 [Page 15]


   Internet Draft      draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-05.txt


            When the diversity identifier type is set to "IPv6 Client
            Initiated Identifier", the diversity identifier value is
            encoded as follows:

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                 IPv6 tunnel end point address                 |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |             IPv6 tunnel end point address (cont.)             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |             IPv6 tunnel end point address (cont.)             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |             IPv6 tunnel end point address (cont.)             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |          Must Be Zero         |     Tunnel ID                 |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                       Extended Tunnel ID                      |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                   Extended Tunnel ID (cont.)                  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                   Extended Tunnel ID (cont.)                  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                   Extended Tunnel ID (cont.)                  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |          Must Be Zero         |            LSP ID             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


            The IPv6 tunnel end point address, Tunnel ID, IPv6 Extended
            Tunnel ID and LSP ID are as defined in [RFC3209].

            When the diversity identifier type is set to "IPv6 PCE
            Allocated Identifier", the diversity identifier value is
            encoded as follows:

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |         Must Be Zero          |           Path Key            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


            The Path Key is defined in [RFC5553].




                       Expires April 2015                 [Page 16]


   Internet Draft      draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-05.txt


            When the diversity identifier type is set to "IPv6 Network
            Assigned Identifier", the diversity identifier value is
            encoded as follows:

        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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |             Path Affinity Set (PAS) identifier                |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


             The Path affinity Set (PAS) identifier is as defined in
             Section 2.1.1.


   2.2. Processing rules for the Diversity XRO subobject

      The procedure defined in [RFC4874] for processing XRO and EXRS is
      not changed by this document. If the processing node cannot
      recognize the IPv4/ IPv6 Diversity XRO subobject, the node is
      expected to follow the procedure defined in [RFC4874].

      An XRO object MAY contain multiple Diversity subobjects. E.g., In
      order to exclude multiple Path Keys, an EN may include multiple
      Diversity XRO subobjects each with a different Path Key.
      Similarly, in order to exclude multiple PAS identifiers, an EN
      may include multiple Diversity XRO subobjects each with a
      different PAS identifier. However, all Diversity subobjects in an
      XRO SHOULD contain the same Diversity Identifier Type. If a Path
      message contains an XRO with Diversity subobjects with multiple
      Diversity Identifier Types, the processing node SHOULD return a
      PathErr with the error code "Routing Problem" (24) and error sub-
      code "XRO Too Complex" (68).

      The attribute-flags affect the processing of the Diversity XRO
      subobject as follows:

           o  When the "destination node exception" flag is set, the
             exclusion SHOULD be ignored for the destination node.

           o When the "processing node exception" flag is set, the
             exclusion SHOULD be ignored for the processing node. The
             processing node is the node performing path calculation.





                       Expires April 2015                 [Page 17]


   Internet Draft      draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-05.txt


           o  When the "penultimate node exception" flag is set, the
             exclusion SHOULD be ignored for the penultimate node on
             the path of the LSP being established.

           o  The "LSP ID to be ignored" flag is only defined for the
             "IPv4/ IPv6 Client Initiated Identifier" diversity types.
             When the Diversity Identifier Type is set to any other
             value, this flag SHOULD NOT be set on transmission and
             MUST be ignored in processing. When this flag is not set,
             the lsp-id is not ignored and the exclusion applies only
             to the specified LSP (i.e., LSP level exclusion).

      If the L-flag of the diversity XRO subobject is not set, the
      processing node proceeds as follows.

      -  "IPv4/ IPv6 Client Initiated Identifiers" Diversity Type:  the
         processing node MUST ensure that any path calculated for the
         signaled LSP is diverse from the RSVP TE FEC identified by the
         client in the XRO subobject.

      -  "IPv4/ IPv6 PCE Allocated Identifiers" Diversity Type: the
         processing node MUST ensure that any path calculated for the
         signaled LSP is diverse from the route identified by the Path-
         Key. The processing node MAY use the PCE identified by the IPv4
         Diversity Identifier source address in the subobject for route
         computation. The processing node MAY use the Path-Key
         resolution mechanisms described in [RFC5553].

      -   "IPv4/ IPv6 Network Assigned Identifiers" Diversity Type: the
         processing node MUST ensure that the path calculated for the
         signaled LSP respects the requested PAS exclusion. .

      -  Regardless of whether the path computation is performed
         locally or at a remote node (e.g., PCE), the processing node
         MUST ensure that any path calculated for the signaled LSP
         respects the requested exclusion flags with respect to the
         excluded path referenced by the subobject, including local
         resources.

      -  If the excluded path referenced in the XRO subobject is
         unknown to the processing node, the processing node SHOULD
         ignore the diversity XRO subobject and SHOULD proceed with the
         signaling request. After sending the Resv for the signaled LSP,
         the processing node SHOULD return a PathErr with the error code
         "Notify Error" (25) and error sub-code "Route reference in
         diversity XRO identifier unknown" (value to be assigned by
         IANA, suggested value: 13) for the signaled LSP.


                       Expires April 2015                 [Page 18]


   Internet Draft      draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-05.txt


      -  If the processing node fails to find a path that meets the
         requested constraint, the processing node MUST return a PathErr
         with the error code "Routing Problem" (24) and error sub-code
         "Route blocked by Exclude Route" (67).

      If the L-flag of the diversity XRO subobject is set, the
      processing node proceeds as follows:

      -  "IPv4/ IPv6 Client Initiated Identifiers" Diversity Type:  the
         processing node SHOULD ensure that the path calculated for the
         signaled LSP is diverse from the RSVP TE FEC identified by the
         client in the XRO subobject.

      -  "IPv4/ IPv6 PCE Allocated Identifiers" Diversity Type: the
         processing node SHOULD ensure that the path calculated for the
         signaled LSP is diverse from the route identified by the Path-
         Key.

         "IPv4/ IPv6 Network Assigned Identifiers" Diversity Type: the
         processing node SHOULD ensure that the path calculated for the
         signaled LSP respects the requested PAS exclusion. The means by
         which the processing node determines the path corresponding to
         the PAS is beyond the scope of this document.

      -  The processing node SHOULD respect the requested exclusion
         flags with respect to the excluded path to the extent possible.

      -  If the processing node fails to find a path that meets the
         requested constraint, it SHOULD proceed with signaling using a
         suitable path that meets the constraint as far as possible.
         After sending the Resv for the signaled LSP, it SHOULD return a
         PathErr message with error code "Notify Error" (25) and error
         sub-code "Failed to respect Exclude Route" (value: to be
         assigned by IANA, suggest value: 14) to the source node.

      If, subsequent to the initial signaling of a diverse LSP:

      -   An excluded path referenced in the XRO subobject becomes
         known to the processing node, or a change in the excluded path
         becomes known to the processing node, the processing node
         SHOULD re-evaluate the exclusion and diversity constraints
         requested by the diverse LSP to determine whether they are
         still satisfied.

      -  If the requested exclusion constraints for the diverse LSP are
         no longer satisfied and an alternative path for the diverse LSP
         that can satisfy those constraints exists, then:


                       Expires April 2015                 [Page 19]


   Internet Draft      draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-05.txt


           o If the L-flag was not set in the original exclusion, the
              processing node MUST send a PathErr message for the
              diverse LSP with the error code "Routing Problem" (24) and
              error sub-code "Route blocked by Exclude Route" (67). The
              PSR flag SHOULD NOT be set. A source node receiving a
              PathErr message with this error code and sub-code
              combination SHOULD take appropriate actions to migrate the
              compliant path.

           o If the L-flag was set in the original exclusion, the
              processing node SHOULD send a PathErr message for the
              diverse LSP with the error code "Notify Error" (25) and a
              new error sub-code "compliant path exists" (value: to be
              assigned by IANA, suggest value: 15). The PSR flag SHOULD
              NOT be set. A source node receiving a PathErr message with
              this error code and sub-code combination MAY signal a new
              LSP to migrate the compliant path.

      -  If the requested exclusion constraints for the diverse LSP are
         no longer satisfied and no alternative path for the diverse LSP
         that can satisfy those constraints exists, then:

           o If the L-flag was not set in the original exclusion, the
              processing node MUST send a PathErr message for the
              diverse LSP with the error code "Routing Problem" (24) and
              error sub-code "Route blocked by Exclude Route" (67). The
              PSR flag SHOULD be set.

           o If the L-flag was set in the original exclusion, the
              processing node SHOULD send a PathErr message for the
              diverse LSP with the error code error code "Notify Error"
              (25) and error sub-code "Failed to respect Exclude Route"
              (value: to be assigned by IANA, suggest value: 14). The
              PSR flag SHOULD NOT be set.

      The following rules apply whether or not the L-flag is set:

      -  A source node receiving a PathErr message with the error code
         "Notify Error" (25) and error sub-codes "Route of XRO tunnel
         identifier unknown" or "Failed to respect Exclude Route" MAY
         take no action.

   2.3. Diversity EXRS Subobject

      [RFC4874] defines the EXRS ERO subobject. An EXRS is used to
      identify abstract nodes or resources that must not or should not
      be used on the path between two inclusive abstract nodes or


                       Expires April 2015                 [Page 20]


   Internet Draft      draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-05.txt


      resources in the explicit route. An EXRS contains one or more
      subobjects of its own, called EXRS subobjects [RFC4874].

      An EXRS MAY include Diversity subobject as specified in this
      document. In this case, the IPv4 EXRS format is as follows:

      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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |L|    Type     |     Length    |           Reserved            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |L|  XRO Type   |     Length    |DI Type|A-Flags|E-Flags| Resvd |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |           IPv4 Diversity Identifier source address            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                  Diversity Identifier Value                   |
      //                            ...                              //
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


      Similarly, the IPv6 EXRS format is as follows:


      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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |L|    Type     |     Length    |           Reserved            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |L|  XRO Type   |     Length    |DI Type|A-Flags|E-Flags| Resvd |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |           IPv6 Diversity Identifier source address            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |         IPv6 Diversity Identifier source address (cont.)      |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |         IPv6 Diversity Identifier source address (cont.)      |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |         IPv6 Diversity Identifier source address (cont.)      |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                  Diversity Identifier Value                   |
      //                            ...                              //
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+




                       Expires April 2015                 [Page 21]


   Internet Draft      draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-05.txt


      The meanings of respective fields in EXRS header are as defined
      in [RFC4874]. The meanings of respective fields in the Diversity
      subobject are as defined earlier in this document for the XRO
      subobject.

      The processing rules for the EXRS object are unchanged from
      [RFC4874]. When the EXRS contains one or more Diversity
      subobject(s), the processing rules specified in Section 2.2 apply
      to the node processing the ERO with the EXRS subobject.

      If a loose-hop expansion results in the creation of another
      loose-hop in the outgoing ERO, the processing node MAY include
      the EXRS in the newly created loose hop for further processing by
      downstream nodes.

      The processing node exception for the EXRS subobject applies to
      the node processing the ERO.

      The destination node exception for the EXRS subobject applies to
      the explicit node identified by the ERO subobject that identifies
      the next abstract node. This flag is only processed if the L bit
      is set in the ERO subobject that identifies the next abstract
      node.

      The penultimate node exception for the EXRS subobject applies to
      the node before the explicit node identified by the ERO subobject
      that identifies the next abstract node. This flag is only
      processed if the L bit is set in the ERO subobject that
      identifies the next abstract node.

   3. Security Considerations

      This document does not introduce any additional security issues
      above those identified in [RFC5920], [RFC2205], [RFC3209],
      [RFC3473] and [RFC4874].

   4. IANA Considerations

   4.1. New XRO subobject types

      IANA registry: RSVP PARAMETERS
      Subsection: Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types

      This document introduces two new subobjects for the EXCLUDE_ROUTE
      object [RFC4874], C-Type 1.



                       Expires April 2015                 [Page 22]


   Internet Draft      draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-05.txt


      Subobject Description                Subobject Type
      --------------
                    ---------------------
      IPv4 Diversity subobject             To be assigned by IANA
                                          (suggested value: 37)
      IPv6 Diversity subobject             To be assigned by IANA
                                          (suggested value: 38)



   4.2. New EXRS subobject types

      The diversity XRO subobjects are also defined as new EXRS
      subobjects.

   4.3. New RSVP error sub-codes

      IANA registry: RSVP PARAMETERS
      Subsection: Error Codes and Globally Defined Error Value Sub-
      Codes

      For Error Code "Notify Error" (25) (see [RFC3209]) the following
      sub-codes are defined.

         Sub-code                            Value
         --------                            -----

         Route of XRO                        To be assigned by IANA.
         tunnel identifier unknown           Suggested Value: 13.

         Failed to respect Exclude Route     To be assigned by IANA.
                                             Suggested Value: 14.

         Compliant path exists               To be assigned by IANA.
                                             Suggested Value: 15.



   5. Acknowledgements

      The authors would like to thank Luyuan Fang and Walid Wakim for
      their review comments.






                       Expires April 2015                 [Page 23]


   Internet Draft      draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-05.txt


   6. References

   6.1. Normative References

      [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
                Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

      [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.

      [RFC4874] Lee, CY., Farrel, A., and S. De Cnodder, "Exclude
                Routes - Extension to Resource ReserVation Protocol-
                Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 4874, April 2007.

      [RFC5553]   Farrel, A., Ed., Bradford, R., and JP. Vasseur,
      "Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Extensions for Path Key
      Support", RFC 5553, May 2009.



   6.2. Informative References

      [RFC4208] Swallow, G., Drake, J., Ishimatsu, H., and Y. Rekhter,
                "Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
                User-Network Interface (UNI): Resource ReserVation
                Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Support for the
                Overlay Model", RFC 4208, October 2005.

      [RFC4920] Farrel, A., Ed., Satyanarayana, A., Iwata, A., Fujita,
                N., and G. Ash, "Crankback Signaling Extensions for
                MPLS and GMPLS RSVP-TE", RFC 4920, July 2007.

      [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, April 2009.

      [DRAFT-SRLG-RECORDING] F. Zhang, D. Li, O. Gonzalez de Dios, C.
                Margaria, "RSVP-TE Extensions for Collecting SRLG
                Information", draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect.txt,
                work in progress.


                       Expires April 2015                 [Page 24]


   Internet Draft      draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-05.txt


      [RFC2205] Braden, R. (Ed.), Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S. and
                S. Jamin, "Resource ReserVation Protocol -- Version 1
                Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.

      [RFC4026] Andersson, L. and T. Madsen, "Provider Provisioned
                Virtual Private Network (VPN) Terminology", RFC 4026,
                March 2005.

      [RFC5253] Takeda, T., Ed., "Applicability Statement for Layer 1
                Virtual Private Network (L1VPN) Basic Mode", RFC 5253,
                July 2008.



      [RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
                Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.



   Contributors' Addresses

      Igor Bryskin
      ADVA Optical Networking
      Email: ibryskin@advaoptical.com

      Daniele Ceccarelli
      Ericsson
      Email: Daniele.Ceccarelli@ericsson.com

      Dhruv Dhody
      Huawei Technologies
      EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com

      Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
      Telefonica I+D
      Email: ogondio@tid.es

      Don Fedyk
      Hewlett-Packard
      Email: don.fedyk@hp.com

      Clarence Filsfils
      Cisco Systems, Inc.
      Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com

      Xihua Fu
      ZTE


                       Expires April 2015                 [Page 25]


   Internet Draft      draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-05.txt


      Email: fu.xihua@zte.com.cn

      Gabriele Maria Galimberti
      Cisco Systems
      Email: ggalimbe@cisco.com

      Ori Gerstel
      SDN Solutions Ltd.
      Email: origerstel@gmail.com

      Matt Hartley
      Cisco Systems
      Email: mhartley@cisco.com

      Kenji Kumaki
      KDDI Corporation
      Email: ke-kumaki@kddi.com

      Rudiger Kunze
      Deutsche Telekom AG
      Email: Ruediger.Kunze@telekom.de

      Lieven Levrau
      Alcatel-Lucent
      Email: Lieven.Levrau@alcatel-lucent.com

      Cyril Margaria
      cyril.margaria@gmail.com

      Julien Meuric
      France Telecom Orange
      Email: julien.meuric@orange.com

      Yuji Tochio
      Fujitsu
      Email: tochio@jp.fujitsu.com

      Xian Zhang
      Huawei Technologies
      Email: zhang.xian@huawei.com




   Authors' Addresses



                       Expires April 2015                 [Page 26]


   Internet Draft      draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-05.txt


      Zafar Ali
      Cisco Systems.
      Email: zali@cisco.com

      Dieter Beller
      Alcatel-Lucent
      Email: Dieter.Beller@alcatel-lucent.com

      George Swallow
      Cisco Systems
      Email: swallow@cisco.com

      Fatai Zhang
      Huawei Technologies
      Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com


































                       Expires April 2015                 [Page 27]


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