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

Versions: (draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 RFC 8232

PCE Working Group                                              E. Crabbe
Internet-Draft                                                    Oracle
Intended status: Standards Track                                I. Minei
Expires: September 28, 2017                                 Google, Inc.
                                                               J. Medved
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                                R. Varga
                                               Pantheon Technologies SRO
                                                                X. Zhang
                                                                D. Dhody
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                          March 27, 2017


 Optimizations of Label Switched Path State Synchronization Procedures
                           for a Stateful PCE
             draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-10

Abstract

   A stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) has access to not only the
   information disseminated by the network's Interior Gateway Protocol
   (IGP), but also the set of active paths and their reserved resources
   for its computation.  The additional Label Switched Path (LSP) state
   information allows the PCE to compute constrained paths while
   considering individual LSPs and their interactions.  This requires a
   state synchronization mechanism between the PCE and the network, PCE
   and path computation clients (PCCs), and between cooperating PCEs.
   The basic mechanism for state synchronization is part of the stateful
   PCE specification.  This document presents motivations for
   optimizations to the base state synchronization procedure and
   specifies the required Path Computation Element Communication
   Protocol (PCEP) extensions.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

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




Crabbe, et al.         Expires September 28, 2017               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft   Optimizations of state synchronization       March 2017


   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 September 28, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  State Synchronization Avoidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Motivation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  State Synchronization Avoidance Procedure . . . . . . . .   4
       3.2.1.  IP Address change during session re-establishment . .   9
     3.3.  PCEP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       3.3.1.  LSP State Database Version Number TLV . . . . . . . .  10
       3.3.2.  Speaker Entity Identifier TLV . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   4.  Incremental State Synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.1.  Motivation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.2.  Incremental Synchronization Procedure . . . . . . . . . .  13
   5.  PCE-triggered Initial Synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     5.1.  Motivation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     5.2.  PCE-triggered Initial State Synchronization Procedure . .  17
   6.  PCE-triggered Re-synchronization  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     6.1.  Motivation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     6.2.  PCE-triggered State Re-synchronization Procedure  . . . .  18
   7.  Advertising Support of Synchronization Optimizations  . . . .  19
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     8.1.  PCEP-Error Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20



Crabbe, et al.         Expires September 28, 2017               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft   Optimizations of state synchronization       March 2017


     8.2.  PCEP TLV Type Indicators  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     8.3.  STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   9.  Manageability Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     9.1.  Control of Function and Policy  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     9.2.  Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     9.3.  Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     9.4.  Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     9.5.  Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     9.6.  Impact On Network Operations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   12. Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   13. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     13.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     13.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24

1.  Introduction

   The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides
   mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path
   computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests.

   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] describes a set of extensions to PCEP to
   provide stateful control.  A stateful PCE has access to not only the
   information carried by the network's Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP),
   but also the set of active paths and their reserved resources for its
   computations.  The additional state allows the PCE to compute
   constrained paths while considering individual LSPs and their
   interactions.  This requires a state synchronization mechanism
   between the PCE and the network, PCE and PCC, and between cooperating
   PCEs.  [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] describes the basic mechanism for
   state synchronization.  This document specifies following
   optimizations for state synchronization and the corresponding PCEP
   procedures and extensions:

   o  State Synchronization Avoidance: To skip state synchronization if
      the state has survived and not changed during session restart.
      (See Section 3.)

   o  Incremental State Synchronization: To do incremental (delta) state
      synchronization when possible.  (See Section 4.)

   o  PCE-triggered Initial Synchronization: To let PCE control the
      timing of the initial state synchronization.  (See Section 5.)

   o  PCE-triggered Re-synchronization: To let PCE re-synchronize the
      state for sanity check.  (See Section 6.)



Crabbe, et al.         Expires September 28, 2017               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft   Optimizations of state synchronization       March 2017


   Support for each of the synchronization optimization capabilities is
   advertised during the PCEP initialization phase.  See Section 7 for
   the new flags defined in this document.  The handling of each flag is
   described in the relevant section.

2.  Terminology

   This document uses the following terms defined in [RFC5440]: PCC,
   PCE, PCEP Peer.

   This document uses the following terms defined in [RFC8051]: Stateful
   PCE, Delegation, LSP State Database.

   This document uses the following terms defined in
   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]: Redelegation Timeout Interval, LSP State
   Report, LSP Update Request.

   Within this document, when describing PCE-PCE communications, one of
   the PCEs fills the role of a PCC.  This provides a saving in
   documentation without loss of function.

3.  State Synchronization Avoidance

3.1.  Motivation

   The purpose of state synchronization is to provide a checkpoint-in-
   time state replica of a PCC's LSP state in a stateful PCE.  State
   synchronization is performed immediately after the initialization
   phase ([RFC5440]).  [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] describes the basic
   mechanism for state synchronization.

   State synchronization is not always necessary following a PCEP
   session restart.  If the state of both PCEP peers did not change, the
   synchronization phase may be skipped.  This can result in significant
   savings in both control-plane data exchanges and the time it takes
   for the stateful PCE to become fully operational.

3.2.  State Synchronization Avoidance Procedure

   State synchronization MAY be skipped following a PCEP session restart
   if the state of both PCEP peers did not change during the period
   prior to session re-initialization.  To be able to make this
   determination, state must be exchanged and maintained by both PCE and
   PCC during normal operation.  This is accomplished by keeping track
   of the changes to the LSP state database, using a version tracking
   field called the LSP State Database Version Number.





Crabbe, et al.         Expires September 28, 2017               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft   Optimizations of state synchronization       March 2017


   The INCLUDE-DB-VERSION (S) bit in the stateful PCE capability TLV
   (Section 7) is advertised on a PCEP session during session startup to
   indicate that the LSP State Database Version Number is to be included
   when the LSPs are reported to the PCE.  The LSP State Database
   Version Number, carried in LSP-DB-VERSION TLV (see Section 3.3.1), is
   owned by a PCC and it MUST be incremented by 1 for each successive
   change in the PCC's LSP state database.  The LSP State Database
   Version Number MUST start at 1 and may wrap around.  Values 0 and
   0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF are reserved.  If either of the two values are
   used during LSP state (re)-synchronization, the PCE speaker receiving
   this value MUST send back a PCErr with Error-type 20 Error-value TBD6
   (suggested value - 6) 'Received an invalid LSP DB Version Number',
   and close the PCEP session.  Operations that trigger a change to the
   local LSP state database include a change in the LSP operational
   state, delegation of an LSP, removal or setup of an LSP or change in
   any of the LSP attributes that would trigger a report to the PCE.

   If the include LSP DB version capability is enabled, a PCC MUST
   increment its LSP State Database Version Number when the
   'Redelegation Timeout Interval' timer expires (see
   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] for the use of the Redelegation Timeout
   Interval).

   If both PCEP speakers set the S flag in the OPEN object's STATEFUL-
   PCE-CAPABILITY TLV to 1, the PCC MUST include the LSP-DB-VERSION TLV
   in each LSP object of the PCRpt message.  If the LSP-DB-VERSION TLV
   is missing in a PCRpt message, the PCE will generate an error with
   Error-Type 6 (mandatory object missing) and Error-Value TBD1
   (suggested value - 12) 'LSP-DB-VERSION TLV missing' and close the
   session.  If the include LSP DB version capability has not been
   enabled on a PCEP session, the PCC SHOULD NOT include the LSP-DB-
   VERSION TLV in the LSP Object and the PCE MUST ignore it were it to
   receive one.

   If a PCE's LSP state database survived the restart of a PCEP session,
   the PCE will include the LSP-DB-VERSION TLV in its OPEN object, and
   the TLV will contain the last LSP State Database Version Number
   received on an LSP State Report from the PCC in the previous PCEP
   session.  If a PCC's LSP State Database survived the restart of a
   PCEP session, the PCC will include the LSP-DB-VERSION TLV in its OPEN
   object and the TLV will contain the latest LSP State Database Version
   Number.  If a PCEP speaker's LSP state database did not survive the
   restart of a PCEP session or at startup when the database is empty,
   the PCEP speaker MUST NOT include the LSP-DB-VERSION TLV in the OPEN
   object.

   If both PCEP speakers include the LSP-DB-VERSION TLV in the OPEN
   Object and the TLV values match, the PCC MAY skip state



Crabbe, et al.         Expires September 28, 2017               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft   Optimizations of state synchronization       March 2017


   synchronization and the PCE does not wait for the end of
   synchronization marker [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce].  Otherwise, the
   PCC MUST perform full state synchronization (see
   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]) or incremental state synchronization
   (see Section 4 if this capability is advertised) to the stateful PCE.
   In other words, if the incremental state synchronization capability
   is not advertised by the peers, based on the LSP database version
   number match either the state synchronization is skipped or a full
   state synchronization is performed.  If the PCC attempts to skip
   state synchronization, by setting the SYNC Flag to 0 and PLSP-ID to a
   non-zero value on the first LSP State Report from the PCC as per
   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce], the PCE MUST send back a PCErr with
   Error-Type 20 Error-Value TBD2 (suggested value - 2) 'LSP Database
   version mismatch', and close the PCEP session.

   If state synchronization is required, then prior to completing the
   initialization phase, the PCE MUST mark any LSPs in the LSP database
   that were previously reported by the PCC as stale.  When the PCC
   reports an LSP during state synchronization, if the LSP already
   exists in the LSP database, the PCE MUST update the LSP database and
   clear the stale marker from the LSP.  When it has finished state
   synchronization, the PCC MUST immediately send an end of
   synchronization marker.  The end of synchronization marker is a Path
   Computation State Report (PCRpt) message with an LSP object
   containing a PLSP-ID of 0 and with the SYNC flag set to 0
   ([I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]).  The LSP-DB-VERSION TLV MUST be
   included in this PCRpt message.  On receiving this state report, the
   PCE MUST purge any LSPs from the LSP database that are still marked
   as stale.

   Note that a PCE/PCC MAY force state synchronization by not including
   the LSP-DB-VERSION TLV in its OPEN object.

   Since a PCE does not make changes to the LSP State Database Version
   Number, a PCC should never encounter this TLV in a message from the
   PCE (other than the OPEN message).  A PCC SHOULD ignore the LSP-DB-
   VERSION TLV, were it to receive one from a PCE.

   Figure 1 shows an example sequence where the state synchronization is
   skipped.











Crabbe, et al.         Expires September 28, 2017               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft   Optimizations of state synchronization       March 2017


                     +-+-+                    +-+-+
                     |PCC|                    |PCE|
                     +-+-+                    +-+-+
                       |                        |
                       |--Open--,               |
                       |  DBv=42 \    ,---Open--|
                       |    S=1   \  /   DBv=42 |
                       |           \/      S=1  |
                       |           /\           |
                       |          /   `-------->| (OK to skip sync)
           (Skip sync) |<--------`              |
                       |            .           |
                       |            .           |
                       |            .           |
                       |                        |
                       |--PCRpt,DBv=43,SYNC=0-->| (Regular
                       |                        |  LSP State Report)
                       |--PCRpt,DBv=44,SYNC=0-->| (Regular
                       |                        |  LSP State Report)
                       |--PCRpt,DBv=45,SYNC=0-->|
                       |                        |




                  Figure 1: State Synchronization Skipped

   Figure 2 shows an example sequence where the state synchronization is
   performed due to LSP state database version mismatch during the PCEP
   session setup.  Note that the same state synchronization sequence
   would happen if either the PCC or the PCE would not include the LSP-
   DB-VERSION TLV in their respective Open messages.



















Crabbe, et al.         Expires September 28, 2017               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft   Optimizations of state synchronization       March 2017


                     +-+-+                    +-+-+
                     |PCC|                    |PCE|
                     +-+-+                    +-+-+
                       |                        |
                       |--Open--,               |
                       |  DBv=46 \    ,---Open--|
                       |    S=1   \  /   DBv=42 |
                       |           \/      S=1  |
                       |           /\           |
                       |          /   `-------->| (Expect sync)
             (Do sync) |<--------`              |
                       |                        |
                       |--PCRpt,DBv=46,SYNC=1-->| (Sync start)
                       |            .           |
                       |            .           |
                       |            .           |
                       |--PCRpt,DBv=46,SYNC=0-->| (Sync done)
                       |            .           |(Purge LSP State
                       |            .           | if applicable)
                       |            .           |
                       |--PCRpt,DBv=47,SYNC=0-->| (Regular
                       |                        |  LSP State Report)
                       |--PCRpt,DBv=48,SYNC=0-->| (Regular
                       |                        |  LSP State Report)
                       |--PCRpt,DBv=49,SYNC=0-->|
                       |                        |




                 Figure 2: State Synchronization Performed

   Figure 3 shows an example sequence where the state synchronization is
   skipped, but because one or both PCEP speakers set the S Flag to 0,
   the PCC does not send LSP-DB-VERSION TLVs in subsequent PCRpt
   messages to the PCE.  If the current PCEP session restarts, the PCEP
   speakers will have to perform state synchronization, since the PCE
   does not know the PCC's latest LSP State Database Version Number
   information.












Crabbe, et al.         Expires September 28, 2017               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft   Optimizations of state synchronization       March 2017


                     +-+-+                    +-+-+
                     |PCC|                    |PCE|
                     +-+-+                    +-+-+
                       |                        |
                       |--Open--,               |
                       |  DBv=42 \    ,---Open--|
                       |    S=0   \  /   DBv=42 |
                       |           \/      S=0  |
                       |           /\           |
                       |          /   `-------->| (OK to skip sync)
           (Skip sync) |<--------`              |
                       |            .           |
                       |            .           |
                       |            .           |
                       |------PCRpt,SYNC=0----->| (Regular
                       |                        |  LSP State Report)
                       |------PCRpt,SYNC=0----->| (Regular
                       |                        |  LSP State Report)
                       |------PCRpt,SYNC=0----->|
                       |                        |




   Figure 3: State Synchronization Skipped, no LSP-DB-VERSION TLVs sent
                                 from PCC

3.2.1.  IP Address change during session re-establishment

   There could be a case during PCEP session re-establishment when the
   PCC's or PCE's IP address can change.  This includes, but is not
   limited to, the following cases:

   o  A PCC could use a physical interface IP address to connect to the
      PCE.  In this case, if the line card that the PCC connects from
      changes, then the PCEP session goes down and comes back up again,
      with a different IP address associated with a new line card.

   o  The PCC or PCE may move in the network, either physically or
      logically, which may cause its IP address to change.  For example,
      the PCE may be deployed as a virtual network function (VNF) and
      another virtualized instance of the PCE may be populated with the
      original PCE instance's state, but be given a different IP
      address.

   To ensure that a PCEP peer can recognize a previously connected peer,
   each PCEP peer includes the SPEAKER-ENTITY-ID TLV described in
   Section 3.3.2, in the OPEN message.



Crabbe, et al.         Expires September 28, 2017               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft   Optimizations of state synchronization       March 2017


   This TLV is used during the state synchronization procedure to
   identify the PCEP session as a re-establishment of a previous session
   that went down.  Then state synchronization optimizations such as
   state sync avoidance can be applied to this session.  Note that this
   usage is only applicable within the State Timeout Interval
   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce].  After the State Timeout Interval
   expires, all state associated with the PCEP session is removed, which
   includes the SPEAKER-ENTITY-ID received.  Note that the PCEP session
   initialization [RFC5440] procedure remains unchanged.

3.3.  PCEP Extensions

   A new INCLUDE-DB-VERSION (S) bit is added in the stateful
   capabilities TLV (see Section 7 for details).

3.3.1.  LSP State Database Version Number TLV

   The LSP State Database Version Number (LSP-DB-VERSION) TLV is an
   optional TLV that MAY be included in the OPEN object and the LSP
   object.

   This TLV is included in the LSP object in the PCRpt message to
   indicate the LSP DB version at the PCC.  This TLV SHOULD NOT be
   included in other PCEP messages (PCUpd, PcReq, PCRep) and MUST be
   ignored if received.

   The format of the LSP-DB-VERSION TLV 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=TBD5           |            Length=8           |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                 LSP State DB Version Number                   |
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+




                    Figure 4: LSP-DB-VERSION TLV format

   The type of the TLV is TBD5 and it has a fixed length of 8 octets.
   The value contains a 64-bit unsigned integer, carried in network byte
   order, representing the LSP State DB Version Number.




Crabbe, et al.         Expires September 28, 2017              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft   Optimizations of state synchronization       March 2017


3.3.2.  Speaker Entity Identifier TLV

   The Speaker Entity Identifier TLV (SPEAKER-ENTITY-ID) is an optional
   TLV that MAY be included in the OPEN Object when a PCEP speaker
   wishes to determine if state synchronization can be skipped when a
   PCEP session is restarted.  It contains a unique identifier for the
   node that does not change during the lifetime of the PCEP speaker.
   It identifies the PCEP speaker to its peers even if the speaker's IP
   address is changed.

   In case of a remote peer IP address change, a PCEP speaker would
   learn the speaker entity identifier on receiving the open message but
   it MAY have already sent its open message without realizing that it
   is a known PCEP peer.  In such a case, either a full synchronization
   is done or PCEP session is terminated.  This may be a local policy
   decision.  The new IP address is associated with the speaker entity
   identifier for future either way.  In the latter case when PCEP
   session is re-established, it would be correctly associated with
   speaker entity identifier and not be considered as an unknown peer.

   The format of the SPEAKER-ENTITY-ID TLV 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=TBD13          |       Length (variable)       |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                                               |
     //                 Speaker Entity Identifier                    //
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+




                  Figure 5: SPEAKER-ENTITY-ID TLV format

   The type of the TLV is TBD13 and it has a variable length, which MUST
   be greater than 0.  The Value is padded to 4-octet alignment.  The
   padding is not included in the Length field.  The value contains the
   entity identifier of the speaker transmitting this TLV.  This
   identifier is required to be unique within its scope of visibility,
   which is usually limited to a single domain.  It MAY be configured by
   the operator.  Alternatively, it can be derived automatically from a
   suitably-stable unique identifier, such as a MAC address, serial
   number, Traffic Engineering Router ID, or similar.  In the case of



Crabbe, et al.         Expires September 28, 2017              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft   Optimizations of state synchronization       March 2017


   inter-domain connections, the speaker SHOULD prefix its usual
   identifier with the domain identifier of its residence, such as
   Autonomous System number, IGP area identifier, or similar to make
   sure it remains unique.

   The relationship between this identifier and entities in the Traffic
   Engineering database is intentionally left undefined.

   From a manageability point of view, a PCE or PCC implementation
   SHOULD allow the operator to configure this Speaker Entity
   Identifier.

   If a PCEP speaker receives the SPEAKER-ENTITY-ID on a new PCEP
   session, that matches with an existing alive PCEP session, the PCEP
   speaker MUST send a PCErr with Error-type 20 Error-value TBD7
   (suggested value - 7) 'Received an invalid Speaker Entity
   Identifier', and close the PCEP session.

4.  Incremental State Synchronization

   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] describes the LSP state synchronization
   mechanism between PCCs and stateful PCEs.  During the state
   synchronization, a PCC sends the information of all its LSPs (i.e.,
   the full LSP-DB) to the stateful PCE.  In order to reduce the state
   synchronization overhead when there is a small number of LSP state
   change in the network between PCEP session restart, this section
   defines a mechanism for incremental (Delta) LSP Database (LSP-DB)
   synchronization.

4.1.  Motivation

   According to [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce], if a PCE restarts and its
   LSP-DB survived, PCCs with mismatched LSP State Database Version
   Number will send all their LSPs information (full LSP-DB) to the
   stateful PCE, even if only a small number of LSPs underwent state
   change.  It can take a long time and consume large communication
   channel bandwidth.

   Figure 6 shows an example of LSP state synchronization.












Crabbe, et al.         Expires September 28, 2017              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft   Optimizations of state synchronization       March 2017


                                       +-----+
                                       | PCE |
                                       +-----+
                                      /
                                     /
                                    /
                                   /
                            +------+            +------+
                            | PCC1 |------------| PCC2 |
                            +------+            +------+
                               |                   |
                               |                   |
                            +------+            +------+
                            | PCC3 |------------| PCC4 |
                            +------+            +------+




                        Figure 6: Topology Example

   Assuming there are 320 LSPs in the network, with each PCC having 80
   LSPs.  During the time when the PCEP session is down, 20 LSPs of each
   PCC (i.e., 80 LSPs in total), are changed.  Hence when PCEP session
   restarts, the stateful PCE needs to synchronize 320 LSPs with all
   PCCs.  But actually, 240 LSPs stay the same.  If performing full LSP
   state synchronization, it can take a long time to carry out the
   synchronization of all LSPs.  It is especially true when only a low
   bandwidth communication channel is available (e.g., in-band control
   channel for optical transport networks) and there is a substantial
   number of LSPs in the network.  Another disadvantage of full LSP
   synchronization is that it is a waste of communication bandwidth to
   perform full LSP synchronization given the fact that the number of
   LSP changes can be small during the time when PCEP session is down.

   An incremental (Delta) LSP Database (LSP-DB) state synchronization is
   described in this section, where only the LSPs underwent state change
   are synchronized between the session restart.  This may include
   new/modified/deleted LSPs.

4.2.  Incremental Synchronization Procedure

   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] describes state synchronization and
   Section 3 of this document, describes state synchronization avoidance
   by using LSP-DB-VERSION TLV in its OPEN object.  This section extends
   this idea to only synchronize the delta (changes) in case of version
   mismatch.




Crabbe, et al.         Expires September 28, 2017              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft   Optimizations of state synchronization       March 2017


   If both PCEP speakers include the LSP-DB-VERSION TLV in the OPEN
   object and the LSP-DB-VERSION TLV values match, the PCC MAY skip
   state synchronization.  Otherwise, the PCC MUST perform state
   synchronization.  Incremental State synchronization capability is
   advertised on a PCEP session during session startup using the DELTA-
   LSP-SYNC-CAPABILITY (D) bit in the capabilities TLV (see Section 7).
   Instead of dumping full LSP-DB to the stateful PCE again, the PCC
   synchronizes the delta (changes) as described in Figure 7 when D flag
   and S flag is set to 1 by both PCC and PCE.  Other combinations of D
   and S flags setting by PCC and PCE result in full LSP-DB
   synchronization procedure as described in
   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce].  By setting the D flag to zero in the
   OPEN message, a PCEP speaker can skip the incremental synchronization
   optimization, resulting in a full LSP DB synchronization.





































Crabbe, et al.         Expires September 28, 2017              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft   Optimizations of state synchronization       March 2017


                       +-+-+                    +-+-+
                       |PCC|                    |PCE|
                       +-+-+                    +-+-+
                         |                        |
                         |--Open--,               |
                         |  DBv=46 \    ,---Open--|
                         |    S=1   \  /   DBv=42 |
                         |    D=1    \/      S=1  |
                         |           /\      D=1  |
                         |          /  \          |
                         |         /    `-------->| (Expect Delta sync)
                (Do sync)|<--------`              | (DONOT Purge LSP
                (Delta)  |                        | State)
                         |                        |
     (Delta Sync starts) |--PCRpt,DBv=46,SYNC=1-->|
                         |            .           |
                         |            .           |
                         |            .           |
                         |            .           |
                         |--PCRpt,DBv=46,SYNC=0-->| (Sync done,
                         |                        | PLSP-ID=0)
                         |                        |
                         |--PCRpt,DBv=47,SYNC=0-->| (Regular
                         |                        |  LSP State Report)
                         |--PCRpt,DBv=48,SYNC=0-->| (Regular
                         |                        |  LSP State Report)
                         |--PCRpt,DBv=49,SYNC=0-->|
                         |                        |





              Figure 7: Incremental Synchronization Procedure

   As per Section 3, the LSP State Database Version Number is
   incremented each time a change is made to the PCC's local LSP State
   Database.  Each LSP is associated with the DB version at the time of
   its state change.  This is needed to determine which LSP and what
   information needs to be synchronized in incremental state
   synchronization.  The incremental state sync is done from the last
   LSP DB version received by the PCE to the latest DB version at the
   PCC.  Note that the LSP State Database Version Number can wrap
   around, and in which case the incremental state sync would also wrap
   till the latest DB version number at the PCC.

   In order to carry out incremental state synchronization, it is not
   necessary for a PCC to store a complete history of LSP Database



Crabbe, et al.         Expires September 28, 2017              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft   Optimizations of state synchronization       March 2017


   change for all time, but remember the LSP state changes (including
   LSP modification, setup and deletion), that the PCE did not get to
   process during the session down.  Note that, a PCC would be unaware
   that a particular LSP report has been processed by the PCE before the
   session to PCE went down.  So a PCC implementation MAY choose to
   store the LSP State Database Version Number with each LSP at the time
   its status changed, so that when a session is re-established an
   incremental synchronization can be attempted based on the PCE's last
   LSP State Database Version Number.  For an LSP that is deleted at the
   PCC, the PCC implementation would need to remember the deleted LSP in
   some way to make sure this could be reported as part of incremental
   synchronization later.  The PCC would discard this information based
   on a local policy, or when it determines that this information is no
   longer needed with sufficient confidence.  In the example shown in
   Figure 7, the PCC needs to store the LSP state changes that happened
   between DB Version 43 to 46 and synchronizes these changes, when
   performing incremental LSP state update.

   If a PCC finds out it does not have sufficient information to
   complete incremental synchronization after advertising incremental
   LSP state synchronization capability, it MUST send a PCErr with
   Error-Type 20 and Error-Value 5 'A PCC indicates to a PCE that it can
   not complete the state synchronization' (defined in
   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]) and terminate the session.  The PCC
   SHOULD re-establish the session with the D bit set to 0 in the OPEN
   message.

   The other procedures and error checks remain unchanged from the full
   state synchronization ([I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]).

5.  PCE-triggered Initial Synchronization

5.1.  Motivation

   In networks such as optical transport networks, the control channel
   between network nodes can be realized through in-band overhead thus
   has limited bandwidth.  With a stateful PCE connected to the network
   via one network node, it is desirable to control the timing of PCC
   state synchronization so as not to overload the low communication
   channel available in the network during the initial synchronization
   (be it incremental or full) when the session restarts , when there is
   comparatively large amount of control information needing to be
   synchronized between the stateful PCE and the network.  The method
   proposed, i.e., allowing PCE to trigger the state synchronization, is
   similar to the function proposed in Section 6 but is used in
   different scenarios and for different purposes.





Crabbe, et al.         Expires September 28, 2017              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft   Optimizations of state synchronization       March 2017


5.2.  PCE-triggered Initial State Synchronization Procedure

   Support of PCE-triggered initial state synchronization is advertised
   during session startup using the TRIGGERED-INITIAL-SYNC (F) bit in
   the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV (see Section 7).

   In order to allow a stateful PCE to control the LSP-DB
   synchronization after establishing a PCEP session, both PCEP speakers
   MUST set F bit to 1 in the OPEN message.  If the LSP-DB-VERSION TLV
   is included by both PCEP speakers and the TLV value matches, the
   state synchronization can be skipped as described in Section 3.2.  If
   the TLV is not included or the LSP-DB Version is mis-matched, the PCE
   can trigger the state synchronization process by sending a PCUpd
   message with PLSP-ID = 0 and SYNC = 1.  The PCUpd message SHOULD
   include an empty ERO (with no ERO sub-object and object length of 4)
   as its intended path and SHOULD NOT include the optional objects for
   its attributes for any parameter update.  The PCC MUST ignore such an
   update when the SYNC flag is set.  If the TRIGGERED-INITIAL-SYNC
   capability is not advertised by a PCE and the PCC receives a PCUpd
   with the SYNC flag set to 1, the PCC MUST send a PCErr with the SRP-
   ID-number of the PCUpd, Error-Type 20 and Error-Value TBD4 (suggested
   value - 4) 'Attempt to trigger synchronization when the TRIGGERED-
   SYNC capability has not been advertised' (see Section 8.1).  If the
   TRIGGERED-INITIAL-SYNC capability is advertised by a PCE and the PCC,
   the PCC MUST NOT trigger state synchronization on its own.  If the
   PCE receives a PCRpt message before the PCE has triggered the state
   synchronization, the PCE MUST send a PCErr with Error-Type 20 and
   Error-Value TBD3 (suggested value - 3) 'Attempt to trigger
   synchronization before PCE trigger' (see Section 8.1).

   In this way, the PCE can control the sequence of LSP synchronization
   among all the PCCs that are re-establishing PCEP sessions with it.
   When the capability of PCE control is enabled, only after a PCC
   receives this message, it will start sending information to the PCE.
   This PCE-triggering capability can be applied to both full and
   incremental state synchronization.  If applied to the latter, the
   PCCs only send information that PCE does not possess, which is
   inferred from the LSP-DB version information exchanged in the OPEN
   message (see Section 4.2 for detailed procedure).

   Once the initial state synchronization is triggered by the PCE, the
   procedures and error checks remain unchanged
   ([I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]).

   If a PCC implementation that does not implement this extension should
   not receive a PCUpd message to trigger state synchronization as per
   the capability advertisement, but if it were to receive it, it will
   behave as per [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce].



Crabbe, et al.         Expires September 28, 2017              [Page 17]


Internet-Draft   Optimizations of state synchronization       March 2017


6.  PCE-triggered Re-synchronization

6.1.  Motivation

   The accuracy of the computations performed by the PCE is tied to the
   accuracy of the view the PCE has on the state of the LSPs.
   Therefore, it can be beneficial to be able to re-synchronize this
   state even after the session has been established.  The PCE may use
   this approach to continuously sanity check its state against the
   network, or to recover from error conditions without having to tear
   down sessions.

6.2.  PCE-triggered State Re-synchronization Procedure

   Support of PCE-triggered state re-synchronization is advertised by
   both PCEP speakers during session startup using the TRIGGERED-RESYNC
   (T) bit in the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV (see Section 7).  The PCE
   can choose to re-synchronize its entire LSP database or a single LSP.

   To trigger re-synchronization for an LSP, the PCE sends a Path
   Computation State Update (PCUpd) for the LSP, with the SYNC flag in
   the LSP object set to 1.  The PCE SHOULD NOT include any parameter
   updates for the LSP, and the PCC MUST ignore such an update when the
   SYNC flag is set.  The PCC MUST respond with a PCRpt message with the
   LSP state, SYNC Flag set to 0 and MUST include the SRP-ID-number of
   the PCUpd message that triggered the resynchronization.  If the PCC
   cannot find the LSP in its database, PCC MUST also set the R (remove)
   flag [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] in the LSP object in the PCRpt
   message.

   The PCE can also trigger re-synchronization of the entire LSP
   database.  The PCE MUST first mark all LSPs in the LSP database that
   were previously reported by the PCC as stale and then send a PCUpd
   with an LSP object containing a PLSP-ID of 0 and with the SYNC flag
   set to 1.  The PCUpd message MUST include an empty ERO (with no ERO
   sub-object and object length of 4) as its intended path and SHOULD
   NOT include the optional objects for its attributes for any parameter
   update.  The PCC MUST ignore such update if the SYNC flag is set.
   This PCUpd message is the trigger for the PCC to enter the
   synchronization phase as described in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] and
   start sending PCRpt messages.  After the receipt of the end-of-
   synchronization marker, the PCE will purge LSPs which were not
   refreshed.  The SRP-ID-number of the PCUpd that triggered the re-
   synchronization SHOULD be included in each of the PCRpt messages.  If
   the PCC cannot re-synchronize the entire LSP database, the PCC MUST
   respond with PCErr message with Error-type 20 Error-value 5 'cannot
   complete the state synchronization' [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce], and
   MAY terminate the session.  The PCE MUST remove the stale mark for



Crabbe, et al.         Expires September 28, 2017              [Page 18]


Internet-Draft   Optimizations of state synchronization       March 2017


   the LSP that were previously reported by the PCC.  Based on the local
   policy, the PCE MAY reattempt synchronization at a later time.

   If the TRIGGERED-RESYNC capability is not advertised by a PCE and the
   PCC receives a PCUpd with the SYNC flag set to 1, it MUST send a
   PCErr with the SRP-ID-number of the PCUpd, Error-Type 20 and Error-
   Value TBD4 (suggested value - 4) 'Attempt to trigger synchronization
   when the TRIGGERED-SYNC capability has not been advertised' (see
   Section 8.1).

   Once the state re-synchronization is triggered by the PCE, the
   procedures and error checks remain unchanged from the full state
   synchronization ([I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]).  This would also
   include PCE triggering multiple state re-synchronization requests
   while synchronization is in progress.

   If a PCC implementation that does not implement this extension should
   not receive a PCUpd message to trigger re-synchronization as per the
   capability advertisement, but if it were to receive it, it will
   behave as per [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce].

7.  Advertising Support of Synchronization Optimizations

   Support for each of the optimizations described in this document
   requires advertising the corresponding capabilities during session
   establishment time.

   The STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV is defined in
   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce].  This document defines following new
   flags in the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV:

       Bit                        Description
       TBD9 (suggested value 30)  S bit (INCLUDE-DB-VERSION)
       TBD10 (suggested value 27) D bit (DELTA-LSP-SYNC-CAPABILITY)
       TBD11 (suggested value 26) F bit (TRIGGERED-INITIAL-SYNC)
       TBD12 (suggested value 28) T bit (TRIGGERED-RESYNC)

   If the S (INCLUDE-DB-VERSION) bit is set to 1 by both PCEP Speakers,
   the PCC will include the LSP-DB-VERSION TLV in each LSP Object.  See
   Section 3.2 for details.

   If the D (DELTA-LSP-SYNC-CAPABILITY) bit is set to 1 by a PCEP
   speaker, it indicates that the PCEP speaker allows incremental
   (delta) state synchronization.  See Section 4.2 for details.

   If the F (TRIGGERED-INITIAL-SYNC) bit is set to 1 by both PCEP
   Speakers, the PCE SHOULD trigger initial (first) state
   synchronization.  See Section 5.2 for details.



Crabbe, et al.         Expires September 28, 2017              [Page 19]


Internet-Draft   Optimizations of state synchronization       March 2017


   If the T (TRIGGERED-RESYNC) bit is set to 1 by both PCEP Speakers,
   the PCE can trigger re-synchronization of LSPs at any point in the
   life of the session.  See Section 6.2 for details.

   See Section 8.3 for IANA allocations.

8.  IANA Considerations

   This document requests IANA actions to allocate code points for the
   protocol elements defined in this document.

8.1.  PCEP-Error Object

   IANA is requested to make the following allocation in the "PCEP-ERROR
   Object Error Types and Values" registry.


   Error-Type Meaning                        Reference
       6      Mandatory Object missing       [RFC5440]
              Error-Value= TBD1(suggested    This document
              value 12): LSP-DB-VERSION TLV
              missing
       20     LSP State synchronization      [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]
              error
              Error-Value= TBD2(suggested    This document
              value 2): LSP Database version
              mismatch.
              Error-Value=TBD3(suggested     This document
              value 3): Attempt to trigger
              synchronization before PCE
              trigger.
              Error-Value=TBD4(suggested     This document
              value 4): Attempt to trigger a
              synchronization when the
              PCE triggered synchronization
              capability has not been
              advertised.
              Error-Value=TBD6(suggested      This document
              value 6): Received an invalid
              LSP DB Version Number.
              Error-Value=TBD7(suggested      This document
              value 7): Received an invalid
              Speaker Entity Identifier.








Crabbe, et al.         Expires September 28, 2017              [Page 20]


Internet-Draft   Optimizations of state synchronization       March 2017


8.2.  PCEP TLV Type Indicators

   IANA is requested to make the following allocation in the "PCEP TLV
   Type Indicators" registry.

       Value                     Meaning               Reference
       TBD5(suggested value 23)  LSP-DB-VERSION        This document
       TBD13(suggested value 24) SPEAKER-ENTITY-ID     This document

8.3.  STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV

   The STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV is defined in
   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]  and a registry is requested to be
   created to manage the flags in the TLV.  IANA is requested to make
   the following allocation in the aforementioned registry.

    Bit                        Description               Reference
    TBD11 (suggested value 26) TRIGGERED-INITIAL-SYNC    This document
    TBD10 (suggested value 27) DELTA-LSP-SYNC-CAPABILITY This document
    TBD12 (suggested value 28) TRIGGERED-RESYNC          This document
    TBD9 (suggested value 30)  INCLUDE-DB-VERSION        This document

9.  Manageability Considerations

   All manageability requirements and considerations listed in [RFC5440]
   and [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] apply to PCEP protocol extensions
   defined in this document.  In addition, requirements and
   considerations listed in this section apply.

9.1.  Control of Function and Policy

   A PCE or PCC implementation MUST allow configuring the state
   synchronization optimization capabilities as described in this
   document.  The implementation SHOULD also allow the operator to
   configure the Speaker Entity Identifier ( Section 3.3.2).  Further,
   the operator SHOULD be to be allowed to trigger the re-
   synchronization procedures as per Section 6.2.

9.2.  Information and Data Models

   An implementation SHOULD allow the operator to view the stateful
   capabilities advertised by each peer, and the current synchronization
   status with each peer.  To serve this purpose, the PCEP YANG module
   [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] can be extended to include advertised
   stateful capabilities, and synchronization status.






Crabbe, et al.         Expires September 28, 2017              [Page 21]


Internet-Draft   Optimizations of state synchronization       March 2017


9.3.  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].

9.4.  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 [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce].

9.5.  Requirements On Other Protocols

   Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new requirements
   on other protocols.

9.6.  Impact On Network Operations

   Mechanisms defined in [RFC5440] and [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] also
   apply to PCEP extensions defined in this document.

   The state synchronization optimizations described in this document
   can result in a reduction of the amount of data exchanged and the
   time taken for a stateful PCE to be fully operational when a PCEP
   session is re-established.  The ability to trigger re-synchronization
   by the PCE can be utilized by the operator to sanity check its state
   and recover from any mismatch in state without tearing down the
   session.

10.  Security Considerations

   The security considerations listed in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]
   apply to this document as well.  However, this document also
   introduces some new attack vectors.  An attacker could spoof the
   SPEAKER-ENTITY-ID and pretend to be another PCEP speaker.  An
   attacker may flood the PCC with triggered re-synchronization request
   at a rate which exceeds the PCC's ability to process them, either by
   spoofing messages or by compromising the PCE itself.  The PCC can
   respond with PCErr message as described in Section 6.2 and terminate
   the session.  Thus securing the PCEP session using Transport Layer
   Security (TLS) [I-D.ietf-pce-pceps], as per the recommendations and
   best current practices in [RFC7525], is RECOMMENDED.  An
   administrator could also expose the speaker entity id as part of the
   certificate, for the peer identity verification.






Crabbe, et al.         Expires September 28, 2017              [Page 22]


Internet-Draft   Optimizations of state synchronization       March 2017


11.  Acknowledgments

   We would like to thank Young Lee, Sergio Belotti and Cyril Margaria
   for their comments and discussions.

   Thanks to Jonathan Hardwick for being the document shepherd and
   provide comments and guidance.

   Thanks to Tomonori Takeda for Routing Area Directorate review.

   Thanks to Adrian Farrel for TSVART review and providing detailed
   comments and suggestions.

   Thanks to Daniel Franke for SECDIR review.

   Thanks to Alvaro Retana, Kathleen Moriarty, and Stephen Farrell for
   comments during the IESG evaluation.

   Thanks to Deborah Brungard for being the responsible AD and guiding
   the authors as needed.

12.  Contributors

   Gang Xie
   Huawei Technologies
   F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Industrial Base, Bantian, Longgang District
   Shenzhen, Guangdong, 518129
   P.R.  China
   Email: xiegang09@huawei.com

13.  References

13.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]
              Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "PCEP
              Extensions for Stateful PCE", draft-ietf-pce-stateful-
              pce-18 (work in progress), December 2016.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://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,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.



Crabbe, et al.         Expires September 28, 2017              [Page 23]


Internet-Draft   Optimizations of state synchronization       March 2017


13.2.  Informative References

   [RFC7525]  Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre,
              "Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer
              Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
              (DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 7525, DOI 10.17487/RFC7525, May
              2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7525>.

   [RFC8051]  Zhang, X., Ed. and I. Minei, Ed., "Applicability of a
              Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)", RFC 8051,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8051, January 2017,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8051>.

   [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]
              Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V., and j.
              jefftant@gmail.com, "A YANG Data Model for Path
              Computation Element Communications Protocol (PCEP)",
              draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-02 (work in progress), March
              2017.

   [I-D.ietf-pce-pceps]
              Lopez, D., Dios, O., Wu, W., and D. Dhody, "Secure
              Transport for PCEP", draft-ietf-pce-pceps-11 (work in
              progress), January 2017.

Authors' Addresses

   Edward Crabbe
   Oracle

   EMail: edward.crabbe@gmail.com


   Ina Minei
   Google, Inc.
   1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
   Mountain View, CA  94043
   US

   EMail: inaminei@google.com











Crabbe, et al.         Expires September 28, 2017              [Page 24]


Internet-Draft   Optimizations of state synchronization       March 2017


   Jan Medved
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   170 West Tasman Dr.
   San Jose, CA  95134
   US

   EMail: jmedved@cisco.com


   Robert Varga
   Pantheon Technologies SRO
   Mlynske Nivy 56
   Bratislava  821 05
   Slovakia

   EMail: robert.varga@pantheon.tech


   Xian Zhang
   Huawei Technologies
   F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Industrial Base, Bantian, Longgang District
   Shenzhen, Guangdong  518129
   P.R.China

   EMail: zhang.xian@huawei.com


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

   EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com

















Crabbe, et al.         Expires September 28, 2017              [Page 25]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.127, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/