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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10

PCE Working Group                                            Xian Zhang
Internet Draft                                            Haomian Zheng
Category: Standards track                           Huawei Technologies
                                               Oscar Gonzales de Dios
                                                            Victor Lopez
                                                          Telefonica I+D
                                                             Yunbin Xu
                                                                 CAICT

Expires: February 19, 2019                              August 19, 2019



    Extensions to Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) to Support
                Resource Sharing-based Path Computation


                    draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing-10


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 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.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on  February 19, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.





Zhang et al             Expires February 2020                 [Page 1]


draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing-10                   August 2019


   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.

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].

Abstract

   Resource sharing in a network means two or more Label Switched Paths
   (LSPs) use common piece(s) of resource along their paths. This can
   help save network resource and is useful in scenarios such as LSP
   recovery or when two LSPs do not need to be active at the same time.
   A Path Computation Element (PCE) is responsible for path computation
   with such requirement. The resource-sharing-based path computation
   with better efficiency can be achieved together with the association
   object in PCEP.

   This document extends the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP)
   in order to support resource sharing-based path computation, which
   is a special case in the association path computation.

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction and Motivation .................................. 3
   2. Motivation ................................................... 4
      2.1. Single Domain Use Case................................... 4
      2.2. Multiple Domains Use Case ............................... 7
      2.3. Bulk Path Computation Use Case .......................... 8
   3. Extensions to PCEP .......................................... 10
      3.1. Association group and type ............................. 10
      3.2. Resource Sharing TLV ................................... 10
      3.3. Processing Rules ....................................... 11
   4. Security Considerations  .................................... 12
   5. IANA Considerations ......................................... 13
      5.1. Association Object Type Indicators ..................... 13
   6. References .................................................. 14


Zhang et al             Expires February 2020                 [Page 2]


draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing-10                   August 2019


      6.1. Normative References ................................... 14
      6.2. Informative References ................................. 14
   7. Authors' Addresses .......................................... 15

1. Introduction and Motivation

   A Path Computation Element (PCE) provides an alternative way for
   providing path computation function, and it is especially useful in
   the scenarios where complex constraints and/or a demanding amount of
   computation resource are required [RFC4655]. The development of PCE
   standardization has evolved from stateless to stateful. A stateful
   PCE has access to the LSP database information of the network(s) it
   serves as a computation engine [RFC8231]. Unless specified, this
   document assumes a PCE mentioned is a stateful PCE (either passive
   or active).

   Resource sharing denotes that two or more Label Switched Paths
   (LSPs) share common piece(s) of resource, (such as a common time
   slot of a link in an Optical Transport Network (OTN)). This is
   usually useful in the scenario where only one LSP is active and the
   benefit herein is to save network resources. A simple example of
   this is dynamically calculating a LSP for an existing LSP undergoing
   a link failure. Note that the resource sharing can be worked out
   using a stateless PCE, but the mechanism may be complex and is out
   the scope of this draft.

   This document considers the following requirement: new LSP may
   request for resource sharing with one or multiple existing LSPs.
   Furthermore, if there is resource sharing between new LSP and
   existing LSP, the two LSPs cannot exist simultaneously, the new LSP
   will replace the existing LSP(s).

   In a single domain, this is a common requirement in the recovery
   cases especially in order to increase traffic resilience against
   failure while reducing the amount of network resource used for
   recovery purpose [RFC4428].

   The current protocol supporting the communication between a PCE and
   a Path Computation Client (PCC), i.e. PCE Protocol (PCEP), allows
   for re-optimization of an existing LSP [RFC5440]. This is achieved
   by setting R bit in the Request Parameter (RP) object, together with
   some additional information if applicable, in the Path Computation
   Request (PCReq) message sent from a PCC to the PCE. To support this
   type of resource sharing, a PCC needs to ask a PCE to compute a new
   path with the constraints of sharing resource with one or multiple
   existing LSPs. It is worth noting the "resource sharing" in this



Zhang et al             Expires February 2020                 [Page 3]


draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing-10                   August 2019


   draft not only means one LSP re-using the same link(s) of another
   LSP, but also the same slice of bandwidth in TDM networks. This may
   occur when an LSP is required for re-routing, or online re-
   optimization. Current PCEP specifications do not provide such
   function. More specifically, this draft describes the resource
   sharing issue during the procedure when a new LSP is required to
   replace an existing LSP, which can be used together with Make-
   before-break (MBB) described in [RFC3209].

   There are a few objects which indicate the resource sharing/disjoint
   relationships, such as SRLG and ASSOCIATE. However, these objects
   are used to describe the relationship with two simultaneous LSPs,
   instead of a new one and an old one, which is different with the
   object proposed in this draft.

   As mentioned in [RFC8231], the PLSP-ID is unique during a PCEP
   session between PCC and PCE. Such identification is helpful in
   supporting the above resource sharing requirement for
   standardization of stateful PCEs.  With a unique identifier, the
   configuration of PCCs is greatly simplified. Instead of determining
   all the resources to be shared, the PCC could request resource
   sharing directly from PCE.

   The resource sharing can also be required in an inter-layer PCEP
   session. This is similar to the previous requirement. However, it is
   more complex and therefore deserves a more detailed explanation
   here.

   In a multi-layer network, Label Switched Paths (LSPs) in a lower
   layer are used to carry higher-layer LSPs across the lower-layer
   network [RFC5623]. Therefore, the resource sharing constraints in
   the higher layer might actually relate to the resource sharing in
   the lower layer. Thus, it is useful to consider how this can be
   achieved and whether additional extensions are needed using the
   models defined in [RFC5623].

   In the next sections, use cases are provided to show what
   information needs to be exchanged to fulfill these requirements.
   This memo then provides extensions to PCEP to enable this function.

2. Motivation

2.1. Single Domain Use Case

   Figure 1 shows a single domain network with a stateful PCE. Assume a
   working LSP (N1-N2-N3) exists in the network, when there is failure
   on the link N2-N3, it is desired to set up a restoration path for


Zhang et al             Expires February 2020                 [Page 4]


draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing-10                   August 2019


   this working LSP. Suppose N1 serves as the PCC and sends a request
   to the stateful PCE for such an LSP. Before sending the request, N1
   may need to check what policy should be applied for the path re-
   computation. For example, it might value resource sharing and prefer
   to share as much resource with the working LSP as possible and
   specify this policy in the PCReq message.  If resources are shared
   between the old and new LSPs, there will be some 'interruption' when
   the traffic is switched from the old LSP to the new LSP. Here the
   resources to be shared mean the LSP information, which includes the
   node, link and corresponding SRLG information, etc.

   On the other hand, in some scenarios there are different policies,
   for example the LSP should be restored without any interruption with
   best effort. An example can be found in Fig. 1 without failure on
   N2-N3 link, instead, an online re-optimization is needed for the
   working LSP (N1-N2-N3) from the stateful PCE. In such cases, the
   best choice is to set up a backup LSP for the working LSP with
   totally separate routing (for example N1-N5-N4-N3), and move the
   traffic to that backup LSP. After that the working LSP can be torn
   down, which will not result in any interruption during the
   optimization procedure. This can actually be implemented with
   existing PCEP mechanism. However, if there is no such separate path,
   existing PCEP will reply error. A secondary option for this case is
   to set up an LSP and complete such re-optimization with resource
   sharing, even if some interruption introduced. Given the resource
   from the LSP to be interrupted, there may be some solutions instead
   of Path Compute error due to the lack of resource.

   A simple illustration is provided in Figure 1:



















Zhang et al             Expires February 2020                 [Page 5]


draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing-10                   August 2019


                 +--------------+
               |              |
                 | Stateful PCE |
                 |              |
                 +--------------+



            +------+          +------+          +------+
            |  N1  +----------+  N2  +-----X---+  N3  |
            +--+---+          +---+--+          +---+--+
               |                  |                 |
               |                  +---------+       |
               |                            |       |
               |     +------+          +------+     |
               +-----+  N5  +----------+  N4  +-----+
                     +------+          +------+

               Figure 1: A Single Domain Example

   Available recovery paths computed by the stateful PCE:

   LSP1: N1-N2-N4-N3
   LSP2: N1-N5-N4-N3

   If resource sharing is preferred, the stateful PCE will reply with
   LSP1 information. Instead, if PCC prefer to have less interruption,
   PCE will reply with LSP2 information.

   Another piece of information that needs to be conveyed to the PCE is
   the information about the working path LSP. Note this simple use
   case assumes end-to-end recovery. But in order to be applicable to
   use cases such as shared mesh protection purpose, where the head-end
   or tail-end nodes may be different, this information is necessary in
   the message exchange between PCCs and PCEs, so that the stateful PCE
   knows which LSP the path computation request wants to share the
   resource.

   Besides, parameter changes during the resource sharing computation
   also need to be considered. For example, the bandwidth of the
   request LSP may be different with the existing LSP, while resource
   sharing is still preferred by the PCC. PCE should consider the
   sharing request together with the policy and available resource(s)
   in the network. Details can be found in Section 3.3.





Zhang et al             Expires February 2020                 [Page 6]


draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing-10                   August 2019


2.2. Multiple Domains Use Case

   Figure 2 shows a two-layer network example, with each layer managed
   by a PCE. As Discussed in Section 3 of [RFC5623], there are three
   models for inter-layer path computation. They are single PCE
   computation, multiple PCE with inter-PCE communication and multiple
   PCE without inter-PCE communication, respectively. For the single
   PCE computation, the process would be similar to that of the use
   case in Section 2.1. Thus, this model is not discussed further.


                                                   -----
                             .................................| LSR |
                           .:                                 | H5  |
                         .:                                   /-----
                       .:                                    /   |
       -----    -----.:                       -----    -----/    |
      | LSR |--| LSR |.......................| LSR |--| LSR |   /
      | H1  |  | H2  |                       | H3  |  | H4  |  /
       -----    -----\                       /-----    -----  /
                      \                     /                /
                       \                   /                /
                        \                 /                /
                         \               /                /
                          \-----   -----/                /
                          | LSR |-| LSR |               /
                          | L1  | | L2  |              /
                           -----   -----\             /
                             |           \           /
                             |            \         /
                             |             \       /
                           -----            \-----/
                          | LSR |-----------| LSR |
                          | L3  |           | L4  |
                           -----             -----
               Figure 2: A Two-layer Network Example

   An inter-layer path computation example is shown in Fig. 2, assume a
   LSP (LSP1: H2-H3) has been established already, visible as H2-H3
   from view of higher-layer PCE and H2-L1-L2-H3 from the global view
   (or from the view of lower-layer PCE). A new request comes at H2 to
   establish a new LSP (LSP2: from H2 to H5), given the constraint it
   can share resource with LSP1. This requirement is possible if only
   one of the LSPs needs to be active and resource sharing is the
   target.

   If multiple PCE with inter-PCE communication model is employed, the
   path computation request sent by H2 to higher-layer PCE will be


Zhang et al             Expires February 2020                 [Page 7]


draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing-10                   August 2019


   forwarded to lower-layer PCE since there is no resource readily
   available in the higher layer. So it leaves the lower-layer PCE to
   compute a path in the lower layer in order to support the higher
   layer request. In this case, lower-layer PCE is required to compute
   a path between H2 and H5 under the constraint that it can share the
   resource with that of the LSP1. At this moment the lower-layer PCE
   has the knowledge on the explicit routing that LSP1 go through (H2-
   L1-L2-H3), and therefore can map the lower layer LSP with the
   higher-layer one. So when lower-layer PCE computes the path for
   LSP2, it can consider the resource used by LSP1 as available with
   higher priority. For example, lower-layer PCE may choose H2-L1-L2-
   L4-H5 as the computation result. On the other hand, if the path
   computation policy is to have a separate path with LSP1, the lower-
   layer PCE may choose H2-L1-L3-L4-H5.

   During this procedure higher-layer PCE can only use LSP1 information
   (such as its five-tuple LSP information) as the information, an
   issue to solve is how lower-layer PCE can resolve this information
   to the actual resource usage in its own layer, i.e. lower layer.
   This could be solved by edge LSR L1 reporting this higher-lower
   layer LSP correlation to the lower-layer PCE as part of the LSP
   information during the LSP state synchronization process. If needed,
   it can be later updated when there is a change in this information.
   Alternatively, the lower-layer PCE can get this information from
   other sources, such as network management system, where this
   information should be stored.

   If multiple PCE without inter-PCE communication model is employed,
   the path computation request in the lower layer will be initiated
   the border LSR node, i.e., L1. The process would be similar to that
   of the previous scenario. A point worth noting is that the border
   LSR node may be able to resolve the higher layer LSP information
   itself, such as mapping it to the corresponding LSP in the lower
   layer, in this way lower-layer PCE does not need to perform this
   function. Otherwise, the mapping method mentioned above can still be
   used.

2.3. Bulk Path Computation Use Case

   There is a potential need of resource sharing during the bulk path
   computation, especially the processing of the "sticky resources" in
   [RFC7399]. It would be useful to specify the resources that could be
   shared among different paths, i.e., the bandwidth information.
   Considering the H-PCE architecture in [H-PCE], when the parent PCE
   may ask for a single path across a few domains, such request may
   become a bulk path computation to a certain child PCE. Figure 3



Zhang et al             Expires February 2020                 [Page 8]


draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing-10                   August 2019


   shows and example of 3 domains. The parent PCE will select one of
   these path for establishment.


                              +-------+
                             /| P-PCE \\
                           // +---+---+ \\
                         //       |       \\
                       //         |         \\
                      /           |           \\
                    //            |             \\
                  //              |               \\
                //                |                 \\
         +-----/+             +---+---+              +\------+
         |C-PCE1|             |C-PCE2 |              |C-PCE3 |
         +------+             +-------+              +-------+

    ---------------      -----------------------       -------------
   /                \   /                       \    /              \
   | +---+     +---+ |  |  +---+   +---+   +---+ |  | +---+    +---+ |
   | | A +-----+ B +-+--+--+ D +---+ E +---+ H +-+--+-+ J +----+ L | |
   | +-\-+     +---+ |  |  +---+   +---+   +-\-+ |  | +---+    +-/-+ |
   |    \\           |  |          /          \\ |  |           /    |
   |      \\         |  |         /             \|  |          /     |
   |        \\ +---+ |  |  +---+ /               |\\|    +---+/      |
   |          \+ C +-+--+--+ G +/                |  |----| K |       |
   \           +---+/   \  +---+                /    \   +---+      /
    ----------------     -----------------------      --------------
            Figure 3: Bulk Request example with Hierarchical PCE

   A 3-domain example is shown in Figure 3, with hierarchical PCE
   architecture. In this example node A/B/C belong to domain 1, node
   D/E/G/H belong to domain 2 and node J/K/L belong to domain 3.
   Inter-domain links are B-D/C-G between domain 1 and 2, and H-J/H-K
   between domain 2 and 3. Given a path computation request from A to
   L, a bulk request from P-PCE would be helpful to understand whether
   it is possible to have different combination on the inter-domain
   links. However, the resources on some specific links become 'sticky'
   and have to be indicated as 'sharing allowed' to avoid unnecessary
   resource competition. For example, both the route A-B-D-E-H-J-L and
   A-C-G-E-H-K-L are qualified, but these routes are competing the
   resource on the link E-H and cannot be established simultaneously,
   so there must be one route failed to be reported P-PCE. Given the
   indication of allowing the share on the link E-H, both of these
   route can be reported for P-PCE's decision, and there will not be
   any competition as the P-PCE understand only one path needs to be
   set up.


Zhang et al             Expires February 2020                 [Page 9]


draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing-10                   August 2019




3. Extensions to PCEP

3.1. Association group and type

   According to the definition in [ietf-pce-association-group], the
   association group is used to associate multiple LSPs into one group
   for further path computation considerations, such as disjointness
   and resource sharing. An association ID will be used to identify the
   resource sharing group. An association type that described
   disjointness has been defined in [ietf-pce-association-diversity].
   In this draft, a new association type is defined as:

      Association type = TBD1 ("Sharing Association Type").

   A sharing group should have multiple LSPs. The number of LSPs and
   the criteria for how LSPs share among each other are implementation
   dependent. Local path computation policies apply to different PCE
   and PCC, some examples can be found in section 2.

3.2. Resource Sharing TLV

   The PCEP Resource Sharing group MUST carry the following TLV. It MAY
   be carried within a PCReq message from the network element (or other
   PCCs) so as to indicate the desired resource sharing requirements to
   be applied by the stateful PCE during path computation.

     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 = TBD2           |            Length             |

    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

    |                 Flags                                 |B|S|N|L|

    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

    |                          Optional TLVs                        |

    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Currently the following flags have been defined:


Zhang et al             Expires February 2020                [Page 10]


draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing-10                   August 2019


   *  L (Link share) bit: when set, this flag indicates that the PCE
   should prioritize the links that shared by existing LSPs within the
   sharing group for path computation.

   *  N (Node share) bit: when set, this flag indicates that the PCE
   should prioritize the nodes that shared by existing LSPs within the
   sharing group for path computation.

   *  S (SRLG share) bit: when set, this flag indicates that the PCE
   should set the SRLG (Shared Risk Link Group) of the computed LSP to
   the same as existing LSPs within the sharing group for path
   computation.

   *  B (Bandwidth share) bit: when set, this flag indicates that the
   PCE should prioritize the bandwidth to be shared by LSPs request
   within the sharing group for bulk path computation.

   Optional TLVs may be needed to indicate the LSP(s) with which the
   resource is shared. If multiple LSPs are required, the PCE may need
   to consider different sharing policies, which is implementation
   dependent and may result in a different computing result. The
   selection policy among multiple computation result is out of the
   scope of this draft.

3.3. Processing Rules

   To request a path allowing sharing resource with one or multiple
   existing LSPs, a PCC includes a Resource Sharing TLV in the
   association group object in any kind of path computation request
   message, such as the PCReq, PCUpd or PCInitiate messages specified
   in [RFC8231] and [RFC8281].

   On receipt of a PCEP message with a Resource Sharing TLV, a stateful
   PCE MUST proceed as follows:

     - If the Resource Sharing TLV is unknown/unsupported, the PCE will
     follow procedures defined in [RFC5440].  That is, the PCE sends a
     PCErr message with error type 3 or 4 (Unknown / Not supported
     object) and error value 1 or 2 (unknown / unsupported object class
     / object type), and the related path computation request is
     discarded.

     - If Resource Sharing TLV are unknown/unsupported and the P bit is
     set, the PCE MUST send a PCErr message with error type 3 or 4
     (Unknown / Not supported object) and error value 4
     (Unrecognized/Unsupported parameter), and the related path
     computation request MUST be discarded as defined in [RFC5440].


Zhang et al             Expires February 2020                [Page 11]


draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing-10                   August 2019


     - If the resource sharing TLV is extracted correctly, the PCE MUST
     apply the requested resource sharing requirement.

   The procedure of setting flags follows the rules defined in Section
   3.1. The RSO flags may be locally configured on the requesting nodes
   via external entities, such as a network management system or the
   entity that impose the resource sharing requirement.

   It is worth noting that the Resource Sharing TLV can be used
   together with other path indication objects like IRO/XRO, with
   difference objectives. The first difference is, the use of Resource
   Sharing TLV is to setup an alternative path, instead a new path. It
   is also dependent on the knowledge of PCC, e.g., if the PCC have a
   full knowledge of the path information and have strong preference on
   the route, it may send the request message with IRO message to
   specify the route. On the other hand, if the PCC does not know how
   the path should go but just want to set up a new LSP to replace the
   old one, it may use the Resource Sharing TLV instead of IRO. The
   second difference is, resource Sharing TLV is a loose requirement.
   For example, if the constraint specified in IRO/XRO in an A-Z path
   computation request cannot be satisfied, the reply message from PCE
   to PCC would be unsuccessful. However it is still possible to have a
   path from the A-Z. If the target node/link/SRLG/Bandwidth is set in
   Resource Sharing TLV rather than IRO, the PCE may feedback a path
   that from A-Z that not sharing the target specified in Resource
   Sharing TLV.

4. Security Considerations

   Security of PCEP is discussed in [RFC5440] and [RFC6952]. The
   extensions in this document do not change the fundamentals of
   security for PCEP.

   However, the introduction of the Resource Sharing TLV in association
   group object provides a vector that may be used to probe for
   information from a network. For example, a PCC that wants to
   discover the path of an LSP with which it is not involved can issue
   a request message with a Resource sharing TLV and may be able to get
   back quite a lot of information about the path of the LSP through
   issuing multiple such requests for different endpoints and analyzing
   the received results. To protect against this, a PCE should be
   configured with access and authorization controls such that only
   authorized PCCs (for example, those within the network) can make
   computation requests, only specifically authorized PCCs can make
   requests for resource sharing, and such requests relating to
   specific LSPs are further limited to a select few PCCs. How such
   access controls and authorization is managed is outside the scope of


Zhang et al             Expires February 2020                [Page 12]


draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing-10                   August 2019


   this document, but it will at the least include Access Control
   Lists.

   Furthermore, a PCC must be aware that setting up an LSP that share
   resources with another LSP may be a way of attacking the other LSP,
   for example by depriving it of the resources it needs to operate
   correctly. Thus it is important that, both in PCEP and the
   associated signaling protocols, only authorized resource sharing is
   allowed.

5. IANA Considerations

5.1. Association Object Type Indicators

   This document defines a new association type, with the following
   information:

   Object    Name              Object          Reference
   Class                       Type
   ------------------------------------------------------------

    TBA1    Sharing-group     Association Type   [this document]

   5.2 PCEP TLV Definitions

   This document defines the following TLVs to support the resource
   sharing scenario:

   Value    Name                      Reference
   ------------------------------------------------------------

    TBA2    Resource-sharing TLV     [this document]

   IANA is requested to allocate the following bit numbers in the flag
   spaces of Resource-sharing TLV:

   Bit      Flag name                         Reference

    0       Link Share                      [this document]

    1       Node Share                      [this document]

    2       SRLG Share                      [this document]

    3       Bandwidth Share                 [this document]



Zhang et al             Expires February 2020                [Page 13]


draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing-10                   August 2019


6. References

6.1. Normative References

   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to indicate
             requirements levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3209] Awduche, D., et, al., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
             Tunnels", RFC3209, December 2001.

   [RFC5440] Vasseur, J.-P., and Le Roux, JL., "Path Computation
             Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
             March 2009.

   [RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Medved, J., Minei, I., and R. Varga, "PCEP
             Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC8231, June 2017.

   [RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "PCEP
             Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
             Model", RFC 8281, October 2017.

   [ietf-pce-association-group] Minei, I., Crabbe E., Sivabalan S.,
             Ananthakrishnan H., Dhody D., Tanaka Y., "PCEP Extensions
             for Establishing Relationships Between Sets of LSPs", work
             in Progress.

   [ietf-pce-association-diversity] Litkowski, S., Sivabalan, S.,
             Barth, C., Dhody, D., "Path Computation Element
             communication Protocol extension for signaling LSP
             diversity constraint", Work in Progress.

6.2. Informative References

   [RFC4428] Papadimitriou, D., Mannie., E., "Analysis of Generalized
             Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)-based Recovery
             Mechanisms (including Protection and Restoration)",
             RFC4428, March 2006.

   [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and Ash, J., "A Path
             Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
             August 2006.

   [RFC5623] Oki., E., Takeda, T., Le Roux, JL., Farrel, A., "Framework
             for PCE-Based Inter-Layer MPLS and GMPLS Traffic
             Engineering", RFC5623, September 2009.




Zhang et al             Expires February 2020                [Page 14]


draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing-10                   August 2019


   [RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., Zheng, L., "Analysis of BGP,
             LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying and
             Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design Guide",
             RFC6952, May 2013.

   [RFC7399] Farrel, A., King, D., "Unanswered Questions in the Path
             Computation Element Architecture", RFC7399, October, 2014.

   [H-PCE]   Dhody, D., Lee, Y., Ceccarelli, D., Shin, J., King, D.,
             Gonzalez de Dios, O., "Hierarchical Stateful Path
             Computation Element (PCE)", Work in progress.



7. Authors' Addresses


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


   Haomian Zheng
   Huawei Technologies
   Email: zhenghaomian@huawei.com

   Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
   Telefonica I+D/gCTIO
   Distrito Telefonica
   E-28050 Madrid, Spain
   EMail: oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com

   Victor Lopez
   Telefonica I+D/gCTIO
   Distrito Telefonica
   E-28050 Madrid, Spain
   EMail: victor.lopezalvarez@telefonica.com

   Yunbin Xu
   CAICT
   xuyunbin@caict.ac.cn


   Contributor's Address :

   Dhruv Dhody
   Huawei Technologies


Zhang et al             Expires February 2020                [Page 15]


draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing-10                   August 2019


   Email: dhruv.dhody@huawei.com

   Igor Bryskin
   Huawei Technologies
   Email: Igor.Bryskin@huawei.com











































Zhang et al             Expires February 2020                [Page 16]


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