< draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext-02.txt   draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext-03.txt >
IDR Working Group A. Wang IDR Working Group A. Wang
Internet-Draft China Telecom Internet-Draft China Telecom
Intended status: Standards Track H. Chen Intended status: Standards Track H. Chen
Expires: October 10, 2019 Huawei Technologies Expires: January 2, 2020 Futurewei
K. Talaulikar
Cisco Systems
S. Ma S. Ma
Mellanox Technologies Mellanox Technologies
April 8, 2019 July 1, 2019
BGP-LS Extension for Inter-AS Topology Retrieval BGP-LS Extension for Inter-AS Topology Retrieval
draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext-02 draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext-03
Abstract Abstract
This document describes the process to build BGP-LS key parameters in This document describes the process to build BGP-LS key parameters in
multi-domain scenario, defines one new BGP-LS NLRI type(Stub Link inter-domain scenario, defines one new BGP-LS NLRI type(Stub Link
NLRI) and some new inter-AS TE related TLVs for BGP-LS to let SDN NLRI) and some new inter-AS TE related TLVs for BGP-LS to let SDN
controller retrieve the network topology automatically under various controller retrieve the network topology automatically under various
environments. inter-AS environments.
Such process and extension can enable the network operator to collect Such extension and process can enable the network operator to collect
the interconnect information between different domains and then the interconnect information between different domains and then
calculate the overall network topology automatically based on the calculate the overall network topology automatically based on the
information provided by BGP-LS protocol. information provided by BGP-LS protocol.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 10, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 2, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 20 skipping to change at page 2, line 25
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Inter-AS Domain Scenarios. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Inter-AS Domain Scenarios. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Stub Link NLRI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Stub Link NLRI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Inter-AS Native IP Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.1. Inter-AS Native IP Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Inter-AS TE Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.2. Inter-AS TE Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Inter-AS TE NLRI related TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Inter-AS TE NLRI related TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Remote AS Number TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.1. Remote AS Number TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. IPv4 Remote ASBR ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.2. IPv4 Remote ASBR ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.3. IPv6 Remote ASBR ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.3. IPv6 Remote ASBR ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Topology Reconstruction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Topology Reconstruction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8.1. New BGP-LS NLRI type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8.2. New Link Descriptors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
BGP-LS [RFC7752] describes the methodology that using BGP protocol to BGP-LS [RFC7752] describes the methodology that using BGP protocol to
transfer the Link-State information. Such method can enable SDN transfer the Link-State information. Such method can enable SDN
controller to collect the underlay network topology automatically, controller to collect the underlay network topology automatically,
but normally it can only get the information within one IGP domain. but normally it can only get the information within one IGP domain.
If the operator has more than one IGP domain, and these domains If the operator has more than one IGP domain, and these domains
interconnect with each other, there is no mechanic within current interconnect with each other, there is no mechanic within current
BGP- LS to transfer the interconnect topology information. BGP- LS to transfer the interconnect topology information.
skipping to change at page 4, line 20 skipping to change at page 4, line 48
0 1 2 3 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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Protocol-ID | | Protocol-ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Identifier | | Identifier |
| (64 bits) | | (64 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Local Node Descriptors (variable) // // Local Node Descriptors (variable) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Inter-AS TE Link Descriptors (variable) // // Stub Link Descriptors (variable) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: The Inter-AS TE Link NLRI Format Figure 2: Stub Link NLRI Format
The "Protocol-ID" should be set to the value that indicates "Direct"
protocol.
The semantics of "Stub Link Descriptors" is same as that defined in The semantics of "Stub Link Descriptors" is same as that defined in
[RFC7752] for "Link Descriptor". [RFC7752] for "Link Descriptor".
This newly defined NLRI can be used to describe the link that has This newly defined NLRI can be used to describe the link that has
only one end located within the IGP domain, as described in the only one end located within the IGP domain, as described in the
following sections. following sections.
4.1. Inter-AS Native IP Scenario 4.1. Inter-AS Native IP Scenario
When IGP A or IGP B runs native IS-IS/OSPF protocol, the operator can Draft [I-D.ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios] describes the situation
use passive feature for the inter-domain links to let the routers that operator needs some traffic engineering solution for the inter-
within the IGP domain know these links. Such stub links information as native IP environment. In such situation, different domain may
can then be carried within the Stub Link NLRI to be reported via the run different IGP protocol. The operator needs to know the inter-as
BGP-LS protocol to the SDN controller. topology first to calculate the end to end optimal centrally.
When IGP A or IGP B in Figure 1 runs native IS-IS/OSPF protocol, the
operator can use passive feature for the inter-domain links to let
the routers within the IGP domain know these links. Such stub links
information can then be carried within the Stub Link NLRI reported
via the BGP-LS protocol to the SDN controller.
The "Local Node Descriptors" should describe the the characteristics The "Local Node Descriptors" should describe the the characteristics
of ASBRs that are connected these stub links. of ASBRs that are connected these stub links.
When such information is reported via the BGP-LS protocol, the PCE/ When such information is reported via the BGP-LS protocol, the PCE/
SDN controller can construct the underlay inter-domain topology SDN controller can construct the underlay inter-domain topology
according to procedure described in section 6. according to procedure described in section 6.
4.2. Inter-AS TE Scenario 4.2. Inter-AS TE Scenario
When IGP A or IGP B run IS-IS TE/OSPF-TE protocol, [RFC5316] and When IGP A or IGP B in Figure 1 runs IS-IS TE/OSPF-TE
[RFC5392] define the IS-IS and OSPF extensions respectively to deal protocol,[RFC5316] and [RFC5392] define IS-IS and OSPF extensions
with the situation for inter-AS traffic engineering. Three new sub- respectively to deal with the situation for inter-AS traffic
TLVs(Remote AS Number&#12289;IPv4 Remote ASBR ID&#12289;IPv6 Remote engineering. Three new sub-TLVs(Remote AS Number&#12289;IPv4 Remote
ASBR ID) which are associated with the inter-AS TE link are defined. ASBR ID&#12289;IPv6 Remote ASBR ID) which are associated with the
inter-AS TE link are defined.
These TLVs are flooded within the IGP domain automatically. They can These TLVs are flooded within the IGP domain automatically. They can
also be carried within the newly defined Stub Link NLRI within the also be carried within the newly defined Stub Link NLRI within the
BGP-LS protocol, as the descriptors for the inter-AS stub link. BGP-LS protocol, as the descriptors for the inter-AS stub link.
The "Local Node Descriptors" should describe the the characteristics The "Local Node Descriptors" should describe the the characteristics
of ASBRs that are connected these inter-AS TE links. of ASBRs that are connected these inter-AS TE links.
If the PCE/SDN controller know these information via one of the If the PCE/SDN controller know these information via one of the
interior router that runs BGP-LS protocol, the PCE/SDN controller can interior router that runs BGP-LS protocol, the PCE/SDN controller can
skipping to change at page 7, line 8 skipping to change at page 7, line 51
The IPv4 remote ASBR ID TLV MUST be included if the neighboring ASBR The IPv4 remote ASBR ID TLV MUST be included if the neighboring ASBR
has an IPv4 address. If the neighboring ASBR does not have an IPv4 has an IPv4 address. If the neighboring ASBR does not have an IPv4
address (not even an IPv4 TE Router ID), the IPv6 remote ASBR ID TLV address (not even an IPv4 TE Router ID), the IPv6 remote ASBR ID TLV
MUST be included instead. An IPv4 remote ASBR ID TLV and IPv6 remote MUST be included instead. An IPv4 remote ASBR ID TLV and IPv6 remote
ASBR ID TLV MAY both be present in an inter-AS TE link NLRI. ASBR ID TLV MAY both be present in an inter-AS TE link NLRI.
5.3. IPv6 Remote ASBR ID 5.3. IPv6 Remote ASBR ID
A new TLV, which is referred to as the IPv6 remote ASBR ID TLV, is A new TLV, which is referred to as the IPv6 remote ASBR ID TLV, is
defined for inclusion in the inter-AS reachability TLV when defined for inclusion in the link descriptor when advertising inter-
advertising inter-AS links. The IPv6 remote ASBR ID TLV specifies AS links. The IPv6 remote ASBR ID TLV specifies the IPv6 identifier
the IPv6 identifier of the remote ASBR to which the advertised inter- of the remote ASBR to which the advertised inter-AS link connects.
AS link connects. This could be any stable and routable IPv6 address This could be any stable and routable IPv6 address of the remote
of the remote ASBR. Use of the TE Router ID as specified in the IPv6 ASBR. Use of the TE Router ID as specified in the IPv6 Traffic
Traffic Engineering router ID TLV [RFC6119] is RECOMMENDED. Engineering router ID TLV [RFC6119] is RECOMMENDED.
The IPv6 remote ASBR ID TLV is TLV type TBD (see Section 8) and is 16 The IPv6 remote ASBR ID TLV is TLV type TBD (see Section 8) and is 16
octets in length. The format of the IPv6 remote ASBR ID TLV is as octets in length. The format of the IPv6 remote ASBR ID TLV is as
follows: follows:
0 1 2 3 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 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 8, line 9 skipping to change at page 8, line 50
border routers. border routers.
After iterating the above procedures for all of the stub links, the After iterating the above procedures for all of the stub links, the
SDN controller can then retrieve the connection topology between SDN controller can then retrieve the connection topology between
different domains automatically. different domains automatically.
7. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
It is common for one operator to occupy several IGP domains that are It is common for one operator to occupy several IGP domains that are
composited by its backbone network and several MAN(Metrio-Area- composited by its backbone network and several MAN(Metrio-Area-
Network)s/IDCs. When they do traffic engineering which spans MAN- Network)s/IDCs. When they do traffic engineering which spans MAN,
backbone-IDC, they need to know the inter-as topology via the process Backbone and IDC, they need to know the inter-as topology via the
described in this draft. Using the passive interface features or process described in this draft. Using the passive interface
configuring the TE parameters on the interconnect links will not features or configuring the TE parameters on the interconnect links
spread the topology fluctuation across each other domain. will not spread the topology fluctuation across each other domain.
8. IANA Considerations 8. IANA Considerations
TBD. This document defines:
9. Acknowledgement o A new BGP NLRI Type: Stub Link NLRI. The codepoint is from the
"BGP-LS NLRI Types"
The author would like to thank Acee Lindem, Ketan Talaulikar, Jie o Three new Link Descriptors TLV: Remote AS Number TLV, IPv4 Remote
Dong, Jeff Tantsura and Dhruv Dhody for their valuable comments and ASBR ID, IPv6 Remote ASBR ID. The codepoint are from "BGP-LS Node
suggestions. Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute
TLVs" registry.
10. Normative References 8.1. New BGP-LS NLRI type
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext] This document defines a new value in the registry "BGP-LS NLRI
Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., Types":
and M. Chen, "BGP Link-State extensions for Segment
Routing", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-12
(work in progress), March 2019.
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe] +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Patel, K., Ray, | Code Point | Description | Status |
S., and J. Dong, "BGP-LS extensions for Segment Routing +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
BGP Egress Peer Engineering", draft-ietf-idr-bgpls- | TBD | Stub Link NLRI | Allocation from IANA |
segment-routing-epe-18 (work in progress), March 2019. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7: Stub Link NLRI Codepoint
[I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend] 8.2. New Link Descriptors
Lindem, A., Roy, A., Goethals, D., Vallem, V., and F.
Baker, "OSPFv3 LSA Extendibility", draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-
lsa-extend-23 (work in progress), January 2018.
[I-D.ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios] This document defines three new values in the registry "BGP-LS Node
Wang, A., Huang, X., Qou, C., Li, Z., and P. Mi, Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs":
"Scenario, Simulation and Suggestion of PCE in Native IP
Network", draft-ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios-02 (work in
progress), October 2018.
[RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
dual environments", RFC 1195, DOI 10.17487/RFC1195, | Code Point | Description | Status |
December 1990, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1195>. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TBD | Remote AS Number | Allocation from IANA |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TBD |IPv4 Remote ASBR ID| Allocation from IANA |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TBD |IPv6 Remote ASBR ID| Allocation from IANA |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 8: BGP-LS Link Descriptors TLV
9. Acknowledgement
The author would like to thank Acee Lindem, Jie Dong, Jeff Tantsura
and Dhruv Dhody for their valuable comments and suggestions.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.
[RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic [RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October
2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5305>. 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5305>.
[RFC5316] Chen, M., Zhang, R., and X. Duan, "ISIS Extensions in [RFC5316] Chen, M., Zhang, R., and X. Duan, "ISIS Extensions in
Support of Inter-Autonomous System (AS) MPLS and GMPLS Support of Inter-Autonomous System (AS) MPLS and GMPLS
Traffic Engineering", RFC 5316, DOI 10.17487/RFC5316, Traffic Engineering", RFC 5316, DOI 10.17487/RFC5316,
December 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5316>. December 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5316>.
[RFC5392] Chen, M., Zhang, R., and X. Duan, "OSPF Extensions in [RFC5392] Chen, M., Zhang, R., and X. Duan, "OSPF Extensions in
skipping to change at page 9, line 38 skipping to change at page 10, line 43
[RFC6119] Harrison, J., Berger, J., and M. Bartlett, "IPv6 Traffic [RFC6119] Harrison, J., Berger, J., and M. Bartlett, "IPv6 Traffic
Engineering in IS-IS", RFC 6119, DOI 10.17487/RFC6119, Engineering in IS-IS", RFC 6119, DOI 10.17487/RFC6119,
February 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6119>. February 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6119>.
[RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and [RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752, Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016, DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
[RFC7794] Ginsberg, L., Ed., Decraene, B., Previdi, S., Xu, X., and 10.2. Informative References
U. Chunduri, "IS-IS Prefix Attributes for Extended IPv4
and IPv6 Reachability", RFC 7794, DOI 10.17487/RFC7794,
March 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7794>.
[RFC8362] Lindem, A., Roy, A., Goethals, D., Reddy Vallem, V., and [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe]
F. Baker, "OSPFv3 Link State Advertisement (LSA) Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Patel, K., Ray,
Extensibility", RFC 8362, DOI 10.17487/RFC8362, April S., and J. Dong, "BGP-LS extensions for Segment Routing
2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8362>. BGP Egress Peer Engineering", draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-
segment-routing-epe-19 (work in progress), May 2019.
[I-D.ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios]
Wang, A., Huang, X., Qou, C., Li, Z., and P. Mi,
"Scenarios and Simulation Results of PCE in Native IP
Network", draft-ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios-06 (work in
progress), June 2019.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Aijun Wang Aijun Wang
China Telecom China Telecom
Beiqijia Town, Changping District Beiqijia Town, Changping District
Beijing, Beijing 102209 Beijing, Beijing 102209
China China
Email: wangaj.bri@chinatelecom.cn Email: wangaj.bri@chinatelecom.cn
Huaimo Chen Huaimo Chen
Huawei Technologies Futurewei
Boston, MA Boston, MA
USA USA
Email: Huaimo.chen@huawei.com Email: hchen@futurewei.com
Ketan Talaulikar
Cisco Systems
Email: ketant@cisco.com
Shaowen Ma Shaowen Ma
Mellanox Technologies Mellanox Technologies
Email: mashaowen@gmail.com Email: mashaowen@gmail.com
 End of changes. 31 change blocks. 
83 lines changed or deleted 115 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/