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

Versions: (draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-resource-sharing-proc) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 RFC 8131

TEAS Working Group                                              X. Zhang
Internet-Draft                                             H. Zheng, Ed.
Intended Status: Informational                                    Huawei
Expires: August 13, 2016                                  R. Gandhi, Ed.
                                                                  Z. Ali
                                                           G. Galimberti
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                           P. Brzozowski
                                                            ADVA Optical
                                                       February 10, 2016


    RSVP-TE Signaling Procedure for End-to-End GMPLS Restoration and
                             Resource Sharing
             draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-resource-sharing-proc-04


Abstract

   In transport networks, there are requirements where Generalized
   Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) end-to-end recovery scheme
   needs to employ restoration Label Switched Path (LSP) while keeping
   resources for the working and/or protecting LSPs reserved in the
   network after the failure occurs.

   This document reviews how the LSP association is to be provided using
   Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
   signaling in the context of GMPLS end-to-end recovery scheme when
   using restoration LSP where failed LSP is not torn down.  In
   addition, this document discusses resource sharing-based setup and
   teardown of LSPs as well as LSP reversion procedures for transport
   networks.  No new signaling extensions are defined by this document,
   and it is strictly informative in nature.


Status of this Memo

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

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   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



Zhang, et al            Expires August 13, 2016                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft   GMPLS Restoration and Resource SharingFebruary 10, 2016


   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 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.  Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.1.  1+R Restoration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.2.  1+1+R Restoration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.3.  Resource Sharing By Restoration LSP  . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   3.  RSVP-TE Signaling Procedure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.1.  Restoration LSP Association  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.2.  Resource Sharing-based Restoration LSP Setup . . . . . . .  7
     3.3.  LSP Reversion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       3.3.1.  Make-while-break Reversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       3.3.2.  Make-before-break Reversion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   4.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   5.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   6.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     6.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     6.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14






Zhang, et al            Expires August 13, 2016                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft   GMPLS Restoration and Resource SharingFebruary 10, 2016


1.  Introduction

   Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) [RFC3945] defines
   a set of protocols, including Open Shortest Path First - Traffic
   Engineering (OSPF-TE) [RFC4203] and Resource ReserVation Protocol -
   Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) [RFC3473].  These protocols can be used
   to setup Label Switched Paths (LSPs) in transport networks.  The
   GMPLS protocol extends MPLS to support interfaces capable of Time
   Division Multiplexing (TDM), Lambda Switching and Fiber Switching.
   These switching technologies provide several protection schemes
   [RFC4426][RFC4427] (e.g., 1+1, 1:N and M:N).

   Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
   signaling has been extended to support various GMPLS recovery
   schemes, such as end-to-end recovery [RFC4872] and segment recovery
   [RFC4873].  As described in [RFC6689], ASSOCIATION object can be used
   to identify the LSPs for restoration using Association Type set to
   "Recovery" [RFC4872] and also identify the LSPs for resource sharing
   using Association Type set to "Resource Sharing" [RFC4873].
   [RFC6689] Section 2.2 reviews the procedure for providing LSP
   associations for GMPLS end-to-end recovery and Section 2.4 reviews
   the procedure for providing LSP associations for sharing resources.

   In GMPLS end-to-end recovery schemes generally considered,
   restoration LSP is signaled after the failure has been detected and
   notified on the working LSP.  For revertive recovery mode, a
   restoration LSP is signaled while working LSP and/or protecting LSP
   are not torn down in control plane due to a failure.  In transport
   networks, as working LSPs are typically signaled over a nominal path,
   service providers would like to keep resources associated with the
   working LSPs reserved.  This is to make sure that the service
   (working LSP) can be reverted to the nominal path when the failure is
   repaired to provide deterministic behavior and guaranteed Service
   Level Agreement (SLA).


   In this document, procedures for transport networks are reviewed for
   LSP associations, resource sharing based LSP setup, teardown and LSP
   reversion, including following:

   o  Review the procedure for providing LSP associations for the GMPLS
   end-to-end recovery using restoration LSP where working and
   protecting LSPs are not torn down and resources are kept reserved in
   the network after the failure.

   o  In [RFC3209], the make-before-break (MBB) method assumes the old
   and new LSPs share the SESSION object and signal Shared Explicit (SE)
   flag in SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object for sharing resources.  According to



Zhang, et al            Expires August 13, 2016                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft   GMPLS Restoration and Resource SharingFebruary 10, 2016


   [RFC6689], ASSOCIATION object with Association Type "Resource
   Sharing" enables the sharing of resources across LSPs with different
   SESSION objects.  Procedure for resource sharing using the SE flag in
   conjunction with ASSOCIATION object is discussed in this document.

   o  When using end-to-end recovery with revertive mode, methods for
   LSP reversion and resource sharing are summarized in this document.


   This document is strictly informative in nature and does not define
   any RSVP-TE signaling extensions.




2.  Overview

   The GMPLS end-to-end recovery scheme, as defined in [RFC4872] and
   being considered in this document, "fully dynamic rerouting switches
   normal traffic to an alternate LSP that is not even partially
   established only after the working LSP failure occurs.  The new
   alternate route is selected at the LSP head-end node, it may reuse
   resources of the failed LSP at intermediate nodes and may include
   additional intermediate nodes and/or links".  Two examples, 1+R and
   1+1+R are described in the following sections.

2.1.  1+R Restoration

   One example of the recovery scheme considered in this document is 1+R
   recovery.  The 1+R recovery is exemplified in Figure 1.  In this
   example, working LSP on path A-B-C-Z is pre-established.  Typically
   after a failure detection and notification on the working LSP, a
   second LSP on path A-H-I-J-Z is established as a restoration LSP.
   Unlike protection LSP, restoration LSP is signaled per need basis.


          +-----+    +-----+     +-----+     +-----+
          |  A  +----+  B  +-----+  C  +-----+  Z  |
          +--+--+    +-----+     +-----+     +--+--+
              \                                /
               \                              /
             +--+--+       +-----+        +--+--+
             |  H  +-------+  I  +--------+  J  |
             +-----+       +-----+        +-----+

          Figure 1: An Example of 1+R Recovery Scheme





Zhang, et al            Expires August 13, 2016                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft   GMPLS Restoration and Resource SharingFebruary 10, 2016


   During failure switchover with 1+R recovery scheme, in general,
   working LSP resources are not released so that working and
   restoration LSPs coexist in the network.  Nonetheless, working and
   restoration LSPs can share network resources.  Typically when failure
   is recovered on the working LSP, restoration LSP is no longer
   required and torn down, while the traffic is reverted to the original
   working LSP.

2.2.  1+1+R Restoration

   Another example of the recovery scheme considered in this document is
   1+1+R.  In 1+1+R, a restoration LSP is signaled for the working LSP
   and/or the protecting LSP after the failure has been detected, and
   this recovery is exemplified in Figure 2.


             +-----+       +-----+        +-----+
             |  D  +-------+  E  +--------+  F  |
             +--+--+       +-----+        +--+--+
               /                              \
              /                                \
          +--+--+    +-----+     +-----+     +--+--+
          |  A  +----+  B  +-----+  C  +-----+  Z  |
          +--+--+    +-----+     +-----+     +--+--+
              \                                /
               \                              /
             +--+--+       +-----+        +--+--+
             |  H  +-------+  I  +--------+  J  |
             +-----+       +-----+        +-----+

          Figure 2: An Example of 1+1+R Recovery Scheme


   In this example, working LSP on path A-B-C-Z and protecting LSP on
   path A-D-E-F-Z are pre-established.  After a failure detection and
   notification on a working LSP or protecting LSP, a third LSP on path
   A-H-I-J-Z is established as a restoration LSP.  The restoration LSP
   in this case provides protection against a second order failure.
   During failure switchover with 1+1+R recovery scheme, in general,
   failed LSP resources are not released so that working, protecting and
   restoration LSPs coexist in the network.  Nonetheless, restoration
   LSP with working LSP it is restoring as well as restoration LSP with
   protecting LSP it is restoring can share network resources.
   Typically, restoration LSP is torn down when the failure on the
   original (working or protecting) LSP is repaired and the traffic is
   reverted to the original LSP.

   There are four possible models when using restoration LSP with 1+1+R



Zhang, et al            Expires August 13, 2016                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft   GMPLS Restoration and Resource SharingFebruary 10, 2016


   recovery scheme:

   o  A restoration LSP is signaled after either working or protecting
   LSP fails.  Only one restoration LSP is present at a time.

   o  A restoration LSP is signaled after either working or protecting
   LSP fails.  Two different restoration LSPs may be present, one for
   the working LSP and one for the protecting LSP.

   o  A restoration LSP is signaled after both working and protecting
   LSPs fail.  Only one restoration LSP is present.

   o  Two different restoration LSPs are signaled after both working and
   protecting LSPs fail, one for the working LSP and one for the
   protecting LSP.

   In all models discussed, if the restoration LSP also fails, it is
   torn down and a new restoration LSP is signaled.


2.3.  Resource Sharing By Restoration LSP


                               +-----+      +-----+
                               |  F  +------+  G  +--------+
                               +--+--+      +-----+        |
                                  |                        |
                                  |                        |
        +-----+    +-----+     +--+--+      +-----+     +--+--+
        |  A  +----+  B  +-----+  C  +--X---+  D  +-----+  E  |
        +-----+    +-----+     +-----+      +-----+     +-----+

          Figure 3: Resource Sharing in 1+R Recovery Scheme


   Using the network shown in Figure 3 as an example, LSP1 (A-B-C-D-E)
   is the working LSP and it allows for resource sharing when the LSP
   traffic is dynamically restored after the link failure.  Upon
   detecting the failure of a link along the LSP1, e.g. Link C-D, node A
   needs to decide which alternative path it will use to signal
   restoration LSP and reroute traffic.  In this case, A-B-C-F-G-E is
   chosen as the restoration LSP path and the resources on the path
   segment A-B-C are re-used by this LSP when the working LSP is not
   torn down (e.g. in 1+R recovery scheme).







Zhang, et al            Expires August 13, 2016                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft   GMPLS Restoration and Resource SharingFebruary 10, 2016


3.  RSVP-TE Signaling Procedure

3.1.  Restoration LSP Association

   Where GMPLS end-to-end recovery scheme needs to employ a restoration
   LSP while keeping resources for the working and/or protecting LSPs
   reserved in the network after the failure, the restoration LSP is
   signaled with an ASSOCIATION object that has Association Type set to
   "Recovery" [RFC4872], the Association ID and the Association Source
   set to the corresponding Association ID and the Association Source
   signaled in the LSP it is restoring.  For example, when a restoration
   LSP is signaled for a failed working LSP, the ASSOCIATION object in
   the restoration LSP contains the Association ID and Association
   Source set to the Association ID and Association Source signaled in
   the working LSP for the "Recovery" Association Type.  Similarly, when
   a restoration LSP is signaled for a failed protecting LSP, the
   ASSOCIATION object in the restoration LSP contains the Association ID
   and Association Source set to the Association ID and Association
   Source signaled in the protecting LSP for the "Recovery" Association
   Type.

   The procedure for signaling the PROTECTION object is specified in
   [RFC4872].  Specifically, the restoration LSP used for a working LSP
   is signaled with P bit cleared in the PROTECTION object and the
   restoration LSP used for a protecting LSP is signaled with P bit set
   in the PROTECTION object.

3.2.  Resource Sharing-based Restoration LSP Setup

   GMPLS LSPs can share resources during LSP setup if they have Shared
   Explicit (SE) flag set in their SESSION_ATTRIBUTE objects and:

   o  As defined in [RFC3209], LSPs have identical SESSION objects
   and/or

   o  As defined in [RFC6689], LSPs have matching ASSOCIATION object
   with Association Type set to "Resource Sharing".  LSPs in this case
   can have different SESSION objects i.e. different Tunnel ID, Source
   and/or Destination.

   As described in [RFC3209], Section 2.5, the purpose of make-before-
   break is "not to disrupt traffic, or adversely impact network
   operations while TE tunnel rerouting is in progress".  In transport
   networks, the label has a mapping into the data plane resource used
   and the nodes along the LSP need to send triggering commands to data
   plane for setting up cross-connections accordingly during the RSVP-TE
   signaling procedure.  Due to the nature of the transport networks,
   node may not be able to fulfill this purpose when sharing resources



Zhang, et al            Expires August 13, 2016                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft   GMPLS Restoration and Resource SharingFebruary 10, 2016


   in some scenarios.

   For LSP restoration upon failure, as explained in Section 11 of
   [RFC4872], reroute procedure may re-use existing resources.  The
   behavior of the intermediate nodes during rerouting process to
   reconfigure cross-connections does not further impact the traffic
   since it has been interrupted due to the already failed LSP.

   The node behavior for setting up the restoration LSP can be
   categorized into the following three categories:

          Table 1: Node Behavior during Restoration LSP Setup

   ---------+---------------------------------------------------------
   Category |       Node Behavior during Restoration LSP Setup
   ---------+---------------------------------------------------------
      C1    + Reusing existing resource on both input and output
            + interfaces (node A & B in Figure 3).
            +
            + This type of nodes only needs to book the existing
            + resources and no cross-connection setup
            + command is needed.
   ---------+---------------------------------------------------------
      C2    + Reusing existing resource only on one of the interfaces,
            + either input or output interfaces and need to use new
            + resource on the other interface. (node C & E in Figure 3).
            +
            + This type of nodes needs to book the resources and send
            + the re-configuration cross-connection command to its
            + corresponding data plane node on the interfaces where new
            + resources are needed and re-use the
            + existing resources on the other interfaces.
   ---------+---------------------------------------------------------
       C3   + Using new resources on both interfaces.
            + (node F & G in Figure 3).
            +
            + This type of nodes needs to book the new resources
            + and send the cross-connection setup
            + command on both interfaces.
   ---------+---------------------------------------------------------

   Depending on whether the resource is re-used or not, the node
   behaviors differ.  This deviates from normal LSP setup since some
   nodes do not need to re-configure the cross-connection, and it should
   not be viewed as an error.  Also, the judgment whether the control
   plane node needs to send a cross-connection setup/modification
   command to its corresponding data plane node(s) relies on the check
   whether the LSPs are sharing resources.



Zhang, et al            Expires August 13, 2016                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft   GMPLS Restoration and Resource SharingFebruary 10, 2016


3.3.  LSP Reversion

   If the end-to-end LSP recovery is revertive, as described in Section
   2, traffic can be reverted from the restoration LSP to the working or
   protecting LSP after its failure is recovered.  The LSP reversion can
   be achieved using two methods:

     1.  Make-while-break Reversion, where resources associated with
     working or protecting LSP are reconfigured while removing
     reservations for the restoration LSP.

     2.  Make-before-break Reversion, where resources associated with
     working or protecting LSP are reconfigured before removing
     reservations for the restoration LSP.

   In transport networks, both of the above reversion methods will
   result in some traffic disruption when the restoration LSP and the
   LSP being restored are sharing resources and the cross-connections
   need to be reconfigured on intermediate nodes.

3.3.1.  Make-while-break Reversion

   In this reversion method, restoration LSP is simply requested to be
   deleted by the head-end.  Removing reservations for restoration LSP
   triggers reconfiguration of resources associated with working or
   protecting LSP on every node where resources are shared.  Whenever
   reservation for restoration LSP is removed from a node, data plane
   configuration changes to reflect reservations of working or
   protection LSP as signaling progresses.  Eventually, after the whole
   restoration LSP is deleted, data plane configuration will fully match
   working or protecting LSP reservations on the whole path.  Thus
   reversion is complete.

   Make-while-break, while being relatively simple in its logic, has few
   limitations as follows which may not be acceptable in some networks:

   o  No rollback

   Deletion of restoration LSPs is not a revertive process.  If for some
   reason reconfiguration of data plane on one of the nodes to match
   working or protection LSP reservations fails, falling back to
   restoration LSP is no longer an option, as its state might have
   already been removed from other nodes.

   o  No completion guarantee

   Deletion of an LSP provides no guarantees of completion.  In
   particular, if RSVP packets are lost due to nodal or DCN failures it



Zhang, et al            Expires August 13, 2016                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft   GMPLS Restoration and Resource SharingFebruary 10, 2016


   is possible for an LSP to be only partially deleted.  To mitigate
   this, RSVP could maintain soft state reservations and hence
   eventually remove remaining reservations due to refresh timeouts.
   This approach is not feasible in transport networks however, where
   control and data channels are often separated and hence soft state
   reservations are not useful.

   Finally, one could argue that graceful LSP deletion [RFC3473] would
   provide guarantee of completion.  While this is true for most cases,
   many implementations will time out graceful deletion if LSP is not
   removed within certain amount of time, e.g. due to a transit node
   fault.  After that, deletion procedures which provide no completion
   guarantees will be attempted.  Hence, in corner cases completion
   guarantee cannot be provided.

   o  No explicit notification of completion to head-end node

   In some cases, it may be useful for a head-end node to know when the
   data plane has been reconfigured to match working or protection LSP
   reservations.  This knowledge could be used for initiating operations
   like enabling alarm monitoring, power equalization and others.
   Unfortunately, for the reasons mentioned above, make-while-break
   reversion lacks such explicit notification.


3.3.2.  Make-before-break Reversion

   This reversion method can be used to overcome limitations of
   make-while-break reversion.  It is similar in spirit to MBB concept
   used for re-optimization.  Instead of relying on deletion of
   restoration LSP, head-end chooses to establish a new LSP to
   reconfigure resources on the working or protection LSP path, and uses
   identical ASSOCIATION and PROTECTION objects from the LSP it is
   replacing.  Only if setup of this LSP is successful will other
   (restoration and working/protecting) LSPs be deleted by the head-end.
    MBB reversion consists of two parts:

   A) Make part:

   Creating a new reversion LSP following working or protection LSP's
   path.  Reversion LSP is sharing resources both with working and
   restoration LSPs.  As reversion LSP is created, resources are
   reconfigured to match its reservations.  Hence, after reversion LSP
   is created, data plane configuration essentially reflects working or
   protecting LSP reservations.

   B) Break part:




Zhang, et al            Expires August 13, 2016                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft   GMPLS Restoration and Resource SharingFebruary 10, 2016


   After "make" part is finished, working and restoration LSPs are torn
   down.  Removing reservations for working and restoration LSPs does
   not cause any resource reconfiguration on reversion LSP's path -
   nodes follow same procedures as for "break" part of any MBB
   operation.  Hence, after working and restoration LSPs are removed,
   data plane configuration is exactly the same as before starting
   restoration.  Thus, reversion is complete.

   MBB reversion uses make-before-break characteristics to overcome
   challenges related to make-while-break reversion as follow:

   o  Rollback

   If "make" part fails, (existing) restoration LSP will still be used
   to carry existing traffic.  Same logic applies here as for any MBB
   operation failure.

   o  Completion guarantee

   LSP setup is resilient against RSVP message loss, as Path and Resv
   messages are refreshed periodically.  Hence, given that network
   recovers its DCN eventually, reversion LSP setup is guaranteed to
   finish with either success or failure.

   o  Explicit notification of completion to head-end node

   Head-end knows that data plane has been reconfigured to match working
   or protection LSP reservations on intermediate nodes when it receives
   Resv for the reversion LSP.


4.  Security Considerations

   This document reviews procedures defined in [RFC3209] [RFC4872]
   [RFC4873] and [RFC6689] and does not define any new procedure.  This
   document does not introduce any new security issues other than those
   already covered in [RFC3209] [RFC4872] [RFC4873] and [RFC6689].


5.  IANA Considerations

   This informational document does not make any request for IANA
   action.








Zhang, et al            Expires August 13, 2016                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft   GMPLS Restoration and Resource SharingFebruary 10, 2016


6.  References

6.1.  Normative References

   [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., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
               Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation
               Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC
               3473, January 2003.

   [RFC4872]   Lang, J., Ed., Rekhter, Y., Ed., and D. Papadimitriou,
               Ed., "RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End
               Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
               Recovery", RFC 4872, May 2007.

   [RFC4873]   Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., and A.
               Farrel, "GMPLS Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, May 2007.

   [RFC6689]   L. Berger, "Usage of the RSVP ASSOCIATION Object", RFC
               6689, July 2012.


6.2.  Informative References

   [RFC3945]   Mannie, E., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
               (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004.

   [RFC4203]   Kompella, K., and Rekhter, Y., "OSPF Extensions in
               Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
               (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005.

   [RFC4426]   Lang, J., Rajagopalan, B., and Papadimitriou, D.,
               "Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
               Recovery Functional Specification", RFC 4426, March 2006.

   [RFC4427]   Mannie, E., and Papadimitriou, D., "Recovery (Protection
               and Restoration) Terminology for Generalized
               Multi-Protocol Label Switching", RFC 4427, March 2006.










Zhang, et al            Expires August 13, 2016                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft   GMPLS Restoration and Resource SharingFebruary 10, 2016


Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank George Swallow for the discussions
   on the GMPLS restoration.  The authors would also like to thank
   Lou Berger for the review comments and the guidance on this work.














































Zhang, et al            Expires August 13, 2016                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft   GMPLS Restoration and Resource SharingFebruary 10, 2016


Authors' Addresses

   Xian Zhang
   Huawei Technologies
   F3-1-B R&D Center, Huawei Base
   Bantian, Longgang District
   Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China

   EMail: zhang.xian@huawei.com


   Haomian Zheng (editor)
   Huawei Technologies
   F3-1-B R&D Center, Huawei Base
   Bantian, Longgang District
   Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China

   EMail: zhenghaomian@huawei.com


   Rakesh Gandhi (editor)
   Cisco Systems, Inc.

   EMail: rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com


   Zafar Ali
   Cisco Systems, Inc.

   EMail: zali@cisco.com


   Gabriele Maria Galimberti
   Cisco Systems, Inc.

   EMail: ggalimbe@cisco.com


   Pawel Brzozowski
   ADVA Optical

   EMail: PBrzozowski@advaoptical.com









Zhang, et al            Expires August 13, 2016                [Page 14]


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