< draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-10.txt   draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-11.txt >
PCE Working Group D. Dhody PCE Working Group D. Dhody
Internet-Draft Y. Lee Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Informational Huawei Technologies Intended status: Informational Y. Lee
Expires: December 18, 2019 D. Ceccarelli Expires: January 9, 2020 Futurewei Technologies
D. Ceccarelli
Ericsson Ericsson
J. Shin J. Shin
SK Telecom SK Telecom
D. King D. King
Lancaster University Lancaster University
June 17, 2019 July 8, 2019
Hierarchical Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE). Hierarchical Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE).
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-10 draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-11
Abstract Abstract
A Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) maintains information on A Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) maintains information on
the current network state, including: computed Label Switched Path the current network state, including: computed Label Switched Path
(LSPs), reserved resources within the network, and pending path (LSPs), reserved resources within the network, and pending path
computation requests. This information may then be considered when computation requests. This information may then be considered when
computing new traffic engineered LSPs, and for associated and computing new traffic engineered LSPs, and for associated and
dependent LSPs, received from Path Computation Clients (PCCs). The dependent LSPs, received from Path Computation Clients (PCCs). The
Path computation response from a PCE is helpful for the PCC to Path computation response from a PCE is helpful for the PCC to
skipping to change at page 2, line 30 skipping to change at page 2, line 28
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Use-cases and Applicability of Hierarchical Stateful PCE . 4 1.1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.1 Applicability to ACTN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.2. Use-cases and Applicability of Hierarchical Stateful PCE . 4
1.1.2 End-to-End Contiguous LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.2.1. Applicability to ACTN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.1.3 Applicability of a Stateful P-PCE . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.2.2. End-to-End Contiguous LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.2.3. Applicability of a Stateful P-PCE . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Hierarchical Stateful PCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. Passive Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3. Hierarchical Stateful PCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. Active Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.1. Passive Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3. PCE Initiation of LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.2. Active Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3.1. Per Domain Stitched LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.3. PCE Initiation of LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.3.1. Per Domain Stitched LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.7. Error Handling between PCEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.7. Error Handling between PCEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.1. Applicability to Inter-Layer Traffic Engineering . . . . . 16 6. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.2. Scalability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6.1. Applicability to Inter-Layer Traffic Engineering . . . . . 17
6.3. Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6.2. Scalability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6.3. Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
1.1. Background
The Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) [RFC5440] The Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) [RFC5440]
provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform
path computations in response to Path Computation Clients' (PCCs) path computations in response to Path Computation Clients' (PCCs)
requests. requests.
A stateful PCE is capable of considering, for the purposes of path A stateful PCE is capable of considering, for the purposes of path
computation, not only the network state in terms of links and nodes computation, not only the network state in terms of links and nodes
(referred to as the Traffic Engineering Database or TED) but also the (referred to as the Traffic Engineering Database or TED) but also the
status of active services (previously computed paths, and currently status of active services (previously computed paths, and currently
reserved resources, stored in the Label Switched Paths Database reserved resources, stored in the Label Switched Paths Database
skipping to change at page 4, line 22 skipping to change at page 4, line 26
This document presents general considerations for stateful PCEs, and This document presents general considerations for stateful PCEs, and
not Stateless PCEs, in the hierarchical PCE architecture. In not Stateless PCEs, in the hierarchical PCE architecture. In
particular, the behavior changes and additions to the existing particular, the behavior changes and additions to the existing
stateful PCE mechanisms (including PCE-initiated LSP setup and active stateful PCE mechanisms (including PCE-initiated LSP setup and active
PCE usage) in the context of networks using the H-PCE architecture. PCE usage) in the context of networks using the H-PCE architecture.
In this document, Sections 3.1 and 3.2 focus on end to end (E2E) In this document, Sections 3.1 and 3.2 focus on end to end (E2E)
inter-domain TE LSP. Section 3.3.1 describes the operations for inter-domain TE LSP. Section 3.3.1 describes the operations for
stitching Per Domain LSPs. stitching Per Domain LSPs.
1.1. Use-cases and Applicability of Hierarchical Stateful PCE 1.2. Use-cases and Applicability of Hierarchical Stateful PCE
As per [RFC6805], in the hierarchical PCE architecture, a P-PCE As per [RFC6805], in the hierarchical PCE architecture, a P-PCE
maintains a domain topology map that contains the child domains and maintains a domain topology map that contains the child domains and
their interconnections. Usually, the P-PCE has no information about their interconnections. Usually, the P-PCE has no information about
the content of the child domains. But if the PCE is applied to the the content of the child domains. But if the PCE is applied to the
Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN) [RFC8453] as described Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN) [RFC8453] as described
in [I-D.ietf-pce-applicability-actn], the Provisioning Network in [I-D.ietf-pce-applicability-actn], the Provisioning Network
Controller (PNC) can provide an abstract topology to the Multi-Domain Controller (PNC) can provide an abstract topology to the Multi-Domain
Service Coordinator (MDSC). Thus the P-PCE in MDSC could be aware of Service Coordinator (MDSC). Thus the P-PCE in MDSC could be aware of
topology information in much more detail than just the domain topology information in much more detail than just the domain
skipping to change at page 5, line 9 skipping to change at page 5, line 13
measurement probe) could also be a trigger at the P-PCE. Any such measurement probe) could also be a trigger at the P-PCE. Any such
update would require an inter-domain path recomputation as described update would require an inter-domain path recomputation as described
in [RFC6805]. in [RFC6805].
The inter-domain LSP could be set up using the end-to-end signaling The inter-domain LSP could be set up using the end-to-end signaling
as described in [RFC6805]. Additionally a per-domain stitched LSP as described in [RFC6805]. Additionally a per-domain stitched LSP
model is also applicable in a P-PCE initiation model. Section 3.1, model is also applicable in a P-PCE initiation model. Section 3.1,
Section 3.2, and Section 3.3 describe the end-to-end Contiguous LSP Section 3.2, and Section 3.3 describe the end-to-end Contiguous LSP
setup, whereas Section 3.3.1 describe the per-domain stitching. setup, whereas Section 3.3.1 describe the per-domain stitching.
1.1.1 Applicability to ACTN 1.2.1. Applicability to ACTN
[RFC8453] describes a framework for the Abstraction and Control of TE [RFC8453] describes a framework for the Abstraction and Control of TE
Networks (ACTN), where each Provisioning Network Controller (PNC) is Networks (ACTN), where each Provisioning Network Controller (PNC) is
equivalent to a C-PCE, and the P-PCE is the Multi-Domain Service equivalent to a C-PCE, and the P-PCE is the Multi-Domain Service
Coordinator (MDSC). The Per Domain stitched LSP as per the Coordinator (MDSC). The Per Domain stitched LSP as per the
Hierarchical PCE architecture described in Section 3.3.1 and Section Hierarchical PCE architecture described in Section 3.3.1 and Section
4.1 is well suited for ACTN deployments. 4.1 is well suited for ACTN deployments.
[I-D.ietf-pce-applicability-actn] examines the applicability of PCE [I-D.ietf-pce-applicability-actn] examines the applicability of PCE
to the ACTN framework. To support the function of multi domain to the ACTN framework. To support the function of multi domain
skipping to change at page 5, line 41 skipping to change at page 5, line 45
segments. This is described in Section 3.3.1. The MDSC uses the LSP segments. This is described in Section 3.3.1. The MDSC uses the LSP
Initiate Request (PCInitiate) message from the P-PCE towards the Initiate Request (PCInitiate) message from the P-PCE towards the
C-PCE, and the C-PCE reports the state back to the P-PCE via a Path C-PCE, and the C-PCE reports the state back to the P-PCE via a Path
Computation State Report (PCRpt) message. The P-PCE could make Computation State Report (PCRpt) message. The P-PCE could make
changes to the LSP via the use of a Path Computation Update Request changes to the LSP via the use of a Path Computation Update Request
(PCUpd) message. (PCUpd) message.
In this case, the P-PCE (as MDSC) interacts with multiple C-PCEs (as In this case, the P-PCE (as MDSC) interacts with multiple C-PCEs (as
PNCs) along the inter-domain path of the LSP. PNCs) along the inter-domain path of the LSP.
1.1.2 End-to-End Contiguous LSP 1.2.2. End-to-End Contiguous LSP
Different signaling methods for inter-domain RSVP-TE signaling are Different signaling methods for inter-domain RSVP-TE signaling are
identified in [RFC4726]. Contiguous LSPs are achieved using the identified in [RFC4726]. Contiguous LSPs are achieved using the
procedures of [RFC3209] and [RFC3473] to create a single end-to-end procedures of [RFC3209] and [RFC3473] to create a single end-to-end
LSP that spans all domains. [RFC6805] describes the technique to LSP that spans all domains. [RFC6805] describes the technique to
establish the optimum path when the sequence of domains is not known establish the optimum path when the sequence of domains is not known
in advance. It shows how the PCE architecture can be extended to in advance. It shows how the PCE architecture can be extended to
allow the optimum sequence of domains to be selected, and the optimum allow the optimum sequence of domains to be selected, and the optimum
end-to-end path to be derived. end-to-end path to be derived.
skipping to change at page 6, line 27 skipping to change at page 6, line 31
using the PCInitiate message for an E2E contiguous LSP. The P-PCE using the PCInitiate message for an E2E contiguous LSP. The P-PCE
would send the PCInitiate message to the Ingress domain C-PCE, which would send the PCInitiate message to the Ingress domain C-PCE, which
would further instruct the Ingress PCC. would further instruct the Ingress PCC.
In this document, for the Contiguous LSP, the above interactions are In this document, for the Contiguous LSP, the above interactions are
only between the ingress domain C-PCE and the P-PCE. The use of only between the ingress domain C-PCE and the P-PCE. The use of
stateful operations for an inter-domain LSP between the stateful operations for an inter-domain LSP between the
transit/egress domain C-PCEs towards the P-PCE is out of scope of transit/egress domain C-PCEs towards the P-PCE is out of scope of
this document. this document.
1.1.3 Applicability of a Stateful P-PCE 1.2.3. Applicability of a Stateful P-PCE
[RFC8051] describes general considerations for a stateful PCE [RFC8051] describes general considerations for a stateful PCE
deployment and examines its applicability and benefits, as well as deployment and examines its applicability and benefits, as well as
its challenges and limitations, through a number of use cases. These its challenges and limitations, through a number of use cases. These
are also applicable to the stateful P-PCE when used for the inter- are also applicable to the stateful P-PCE when used for the inter-
domain LSP path computation and setup. It should be noted that though domain LSP path computation and setup. It should be noted that though
the stateful P-PCE has limited direct visibility inside the child the stateful P-PCE has limited direct visibility inside the child
domain, it could still trigger re-optimization with the help of child domain, it could still trigger re-optimization with the help of child
PCEs based on LSP state changes, abstract topology changes, or some PCEs based on LSP state changes, abstract topology changes, or some
other external factors. other external factors.
skipping to change at page 15, line 5 skipping to change at page 16, line 5
allows individual PCEs to maintain confidentiality of their domain allows individual PCEs to maintain confidentiality of their domain
path information using path-keys [RFC5520], and the hierarchical PCE path information using path-keys [RFC5520], and the hierarchical PCE
architecture is specifically designed to enable as much isolation of architecture is specifically designed to enable as much isolation of
domain topology and capabilities information as is possible. The LSP domain topology and capabilities information as is possible. The LSP
state in the PCRpt message must continue to maintain the internal state in the PCRpt message must continue to maintain the internal
domain confidentiality when required. domain confidentiality when required.
The security consideration for PCE-Initiated LSP as per [RFC8281] is The security consideration for PCE-Initiated LSP as per [RFC8281] is
also applicable from P-PCE to C-PCE. also applicable from P-PCE to C-PCE.
Further, section 6.3 describes the use of path-key [RFC5520] for
confidentiality between C-PCE and P-PCE.
Thus securing the PCEP session (between the P-PCE and the C-PCE) Thus securing the PCEP session (between the P-PCE and the C-PCE)
using the TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO) [RFC5925] or Transport using the TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO) [RFC5925] or Transport
Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8253] mechanisms are recommended. Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8253] mechanisms are recommended.
5. Manageability Considerations 5. Manageability Considerations
All manageability requirements and considerations listed in All manageability requirements and considerations listed in
[RFC5440], [RFC6805], [RFC8231], and [RFC8281] apply to Stateful H- [RFC5440], [RFC6805], [RFC8231], and [RFC8281] apply to Stateful H-
PCE defined in this document. In addition, requirements and PCE defined in this document. In addition, requirements and
considerations listed in this section apply. considerations listed in this section apply.
skipping to change at page 17, line 39 skipping to change at page 18, line 41
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA considerations. There are no IANA considerations.
8. Acknowledgments 8. Acknowledgments
Thanks to Manuela Scarella, Haomian Zheng, Sergio Marmo, Stefano Thanks to Manuela Scarella, Haomian Zheng, Sergio Marmo, Stefano
Parodi, Giacomo Agostini, Jeff Tantsura, Rajan Rao, Adrian Farrel and Parodi, Giacomo Agostini, Jeff Tantsura, Rajan Rao, Adrian Farrel and
Haomian Zheng, for their reviews and suggestions. Haomian Zheng, for their reviews and suggestions.
Thanks to Tal Mazrahi for the RTGDIR reviews.
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006, DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
skipping to change at page 18, line 51 skipping to change at page 20, line 6
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3473>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3473>.
[RFC4726] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and A. Ayyangar, "A Framework for [RFC4726] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and A. Ayyangar, "A Framework for
Inter-Domain Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Inter-Domain Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic
Engineering", RFC 4726, DOI 10.17487/RFC4726, November Engineering", RFC 4726, DOI 10.17487/RFC4726, November
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4726>. 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4726>.
[RFC5623] Oki, E., Takeda, T., Le Roux, JL., and A. Farrel, [RFC5623] Oki, E., Takeda, T., Le Roux, JL., and A. Farrel,
"Framework for PCE-Based Inter-Layer MPLS and GMPLS "Framework for PCE-Based Inter-Layer MPLS and GMPLS
Traffic Engineering", RFC 5623, DOI 10.17487/RFC5623, Traffic Engineering", RFC 5623, DOI 10.17487/RFC5623,
September 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5623>. September 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5623>.
[RFC5925] Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP [RFC5925] Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP
Authentication Option", RFC 5925, DOI 10.17487/RFC5925, Authentication Option", RFC 5925, DOI 10.17487/RFC5925,
June 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5925>. June 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5925>.
[RFC8051] Zhang, X., Ed. and I. Minei, Ed., "Applicability of a [RFC8051] Zhang, X., Ed. and I. Minei, Ed., "Applicability of a
Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)", RFC 8051, Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)", RFC 8051,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8051, January 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8051, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8051>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8051>.
skipping to change at page 19, line 51 skipping to change at page 21, line 7
progress), March 2019. progress), March 2019.
[I-D.ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions] [I-D.ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions]
Zhang, F., Zhao, Q., Dios, O., Casellas, R., and D. King, Zhang, F., Zhao, Q., Dios, O., Casellas, R., and D. King,
"Extensions to Path Computation Element Communication "Extensions to Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) for Hierarchical Path Computation Elements Protocol (PCEP) for Hierarchical Path Computation Elements
(PCE)", draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-11 (work in (PCE)", draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-11 (work in
progress), June 2019. progress), June 2019.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]
Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V., and j. Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V., and J. Tantsura, "A
jefftant@gmail.com, "A YANG Data Model for Path YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element
Computation Element Communications Protocol (PCEP)", Communications Protocol (PCEP)",
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-11 (work in progress), draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-12 (work in progress), July 2019.
March 2019.
[I-D.dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain] [I-D.dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain]
Dugeon, O., Meuric, J., Lee, Y., Dhody, D., and D. Dugeon, O., Meuric, J., Lee, Y., Dhody, D., and D.
Ceccarelli, "PCEP Extension for Stateful Inter-Domain Ceccarelli, "PCEP Extension for Stateful Inter-Domain
Tunnels", draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-02 (work Tunnels", draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-02 (work
in progress), March 2019. in progress), March 2019.
[I-D.ietf-pce-lsp-control-request] [I-D.ietf-pce-lsp-control-request]
Raghuram, A., Goddard, A., Yadlapalli, C., Karthik, J., Raghuram, A., Goddard, A., Yadlapalli, C., Karthik, J.,
Sivabalan, S., Parker, J., and M. Negi, "Ability for a Sivabalan, S., Parker, J., and M. Negi, "Ability for a
stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) to request and stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) to request and
obtain control of a LSP", draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control- obtain control of a LSP", draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-
request-04 (work in progress), June 2019. request-06 (work in progress), June 2019.
[I-D.ietf-pce-enhanced-errors] [I-D.ietf-pce-enhanced-errors]
Pouyllau, et al., "Extensions to PCEP for Enhanced Errors" Pouyllau, et al., "Extensions to PCEP for Enhanced Errors"
, draft-ietf-pce-enhanced-errors-05 (work in progress), , draft-ietf-pce-enhanced-errors-05 (work in progress),
February 2019. February 2019.
Contributors Contributors
Avantika Avantika
ECI Telecom ECI Telecom
skipping to change at page 21, line 5 skipping to change at page 22, line 9
Udayasree Palle Udayasree Palle
EMail: udayasreereddy@gmail.com EMail: udayasreereddy@gmail.com
Oscar Gonzalez de Dios Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
Telefonica I+D Telefonica I+D
Don Ramon de la Cruz 82-84 Don Ramon de la Cruz 82-84
Madrid, 28045 Madrid, 28045
Spain Spain
Phone: +34913128832 Phone: +34913128832
Email: oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com
EMail: oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Dhruv Dhody Dhruv Dhody
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560066 Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
India India
EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
Young Lee Young Lee
Futurewei Futurewei Technologies
5340 Legacy Drive, Building 3 5340 Legacy Drive, Building 3
Plano, TX 75023 Plano, TX 75023
USA USA
EMail: younglee.tx@gmail.com EMail: younglee.tx@gmail.com
Daniele Ceccarelli Daniele Ceccarelli
Ericsson Ericsson
Torshamnsgatan,48 Torshamnsgatan,48
Stockholm Stockholm
 End of changes. 17 change blocks. 
47 lines changed or deleted 57 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/