< draft-ietf-teas-pcecc-use-cases-03.txt   draft-ietf-teas-pcecc-use-cases-04.txt >
TEAS Working Group Q. Zhao TEAS Working Group Q. Zhao
Internet-Draft Z. Li Internet-Draft Z. Li
Intended status: Informational B. Khasanov Intended status: Informational B. Khasanov
Expires: September 12, 2019 D. Dhody Expires: January 5, 2020 D. Dhody
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
K. Ke K. Ke
Tencent Holdings Ltd. Tencent Holdings Ltd.
L. Fang L. Fang
Expedia, Inc. Expedia, Inc.
C. Zhou C. Zhou
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
B. Zhang B. Zhang
Telus Communications Telus Communications
A. Rachitskiy A. Rachitskiy
Mobile TeleSystems JLLC Mobile TeleSystems JLLC
A. Gulida A. Gulida
LLC "Lifetech" LLC "Lifetech"
March 11, 2019 July 4, 2019
The Use Cases for Path Computation Element (PCE) as a Central Controller The Use Cases for Path Computation Element (PCE) as a Central Controller
(PCECC). (PCECC).
draft-ietf-teas-pcecc-use-cases-03 draft-ietf-teas-pcecc-use-cases-04
Abstract Abstract
The Path Computation Element (PCE) is a core component of a Software- The Path Computation Element (PCE) is a core component of a Software-
Defined Networking (SDN) system. It can compute optimal paths for Defined Networking (SDN) system. It can compute optimal paths for
traffic across a network and can also update the paths to reflect traffic across a network and can also update the paths to reflect
changes in the network or traffic demands. PCE was developed to changes in the network or traffic demands. PCE was developed to
derive paths for MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs), which are supplied derive paths for MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs), which are supplied
to the head end of the LSP using the Path Computation Element to the head end of the LSP using the Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCEP). Communication Protocol (PCEP).
skipping to change at page 2, line 5 skipping to change at page 2, line 5
network. It is, therefore, reasonable to consider PCEP as a control network. It is, therefore, reasonable to consider PCEP as a control
protocol for use in these environments to allow the PCE to be fully protocol for use in these environments to allow the PCE to be fully
enabled as a central controller. enabled as a central controller.
This document describes general considerations for PCECC deployment This document describes general considerations for PCECC deployment
and examines its applicability and benefits, as well as its and examines its applicability and benefits, as well as its
challenges and limitations, through a number of use cases. PCEP challenges and limitations, through a number of use cases. PCEP
extensions required for stateful PCE usage are covered in separate extensions required for stateful PCE usage are covered in separate
documents. documents.
This is a living document to catalogue the use cases for PCECC.
There is currently no intention to publish this work as an RFC.
Requirements Language Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 2, line 28 skipping to change at page 2, line 31
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 September 12, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 5, 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
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
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Application Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Application Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Use Cases of PCECC for Label Management . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. Use Cases of PCECC for Label Management . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Using PCECC for SR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2. Using PCECC for SR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.1. PCECC SID Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.2.1. PCECC SID Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.2. Use Cases of PCECC for SR Best Effort (BE) Path . . . 8 3.2.2. Use Cases of PCECC for SR Best Effort (BE) Path . . . 8
3.2.3. Use Cases of PCECC for SR Traffic Engineering (TE) 3.2.3. Use Cases of PCECC for SR Traffic Engineering (TE)
Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. Use Cases of PCECC for TE LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.3. Use Cases of PCECC for TE LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3.1. PCECC Load Balancing (LB) Use Case . . . . . . . . . 11 3.3.1. PCECC Load Balancing (LB) Use Case . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3.2. PCECC and Inter-AS TE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.3.2. PCECC and Inter-AS TE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
skipping to change at page 3, line 21 skipping to change at page 3, line 30
3.4.1. Using PCECC for P2MP/MP2MP LSPs' Setup . . . . . . . 16 3.4.1. Using PCECC for P2MP/MP2MP LSPs' Setup . . . . . . . 16
3.4.2. Use Cases of PCECC for the Resiliency of P2MP/MP2MP 3.4.2. Use Cases of PCECC for the Resiliency of P2MP/MP2MP
LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.5. Use Cases of PCECC for LSP in the Network Migration . . . 19 3.5. Use Cases of PCECC for LSP in the Network Migration . . . 19
3.6. Use Cases of PCECC for L3VPN and PWE3 . . . . . . . . . . 21 3.6. Use Cases of PCECC for L3VPN and PWE3 . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.7. Using PCECC for Traffic Classification Information . . . 22 3.7. Using PCECC for Traffic Classification Information . . . 22
3.8. Use Cases of PCECC for SRv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3.8. Use Cases of PCECC for SRv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.9. Use Cases of PCECC for SFC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3.9. Use Cases of PCECC for SFC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.10. Use Cases of PCECC for Native IP . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3.10. Use Cases of PCECC for Native IP . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.11. Use Cases of PCECC for Local Protection (RSVP-TE) . . . . 25 3.11. Use Cases of PCECC for Local Protection (RSVP-TE) . . . . 25
3.12. Use Cases of PCECC for BIER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Appendix A. Using reliable P2MP TE based multicast delivery for Appendix A. Using reliable P2MP TE based multicast delivery for
distributed computations (MapReduce-Hadoop) . . . . 29 distributed computations (MapReduce-Hadoop) . . . . 30
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
An Architecture for Use of PCE and PCEP [RFC5440] in a Network with An Architecture for Use of PCE and PCEP [RFC5440] in a Network with
Central Control [RFC8283] describes SDN architecture where the Path Central Control [RFC8283] describes SDN architecture where the Path
Computation Element (PCE) determines paths for variety of different Computation Element (PCE) determines paths for variety of different
usecases, with PCEP as a general southbound communication protocol usecases, with PCEP as a general southbound communication protocol
with all the nodes along the path.. with all the nodes along the path..
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] introduces the [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] introduces the
procedures and extensions for PCEP to support the PCECC architecture procedures and extensions for PCEP to support the PCECC architecture
[RFC8283]. [RFC8283].
This draft describes the various usecases for the PCECC architecture. This draft describes the various usecases for the PCECC architecture.
This is a living document to catalogue the use cases for PCECC.
There is currently no intention to publish this work as an RFC.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
The following terminology is used in this document. The following terminology is used in this document.
IGP: Interior Gateway Protocol. Either of the two routing IGP: Interior Gateway Protocol. Either of the two routing
protocols, Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) or Intermediate System protocols, Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) or Intermediate System
to Intermediate System (IS-IS). to Intermediate System (IS-IS).
PCC: Path Computation Client: any client application requesting a PCC: Path Computation Client: any client application requesting a
path computation to be performed by a Path Computation Element. path computation to be performed by a Path Computation Element.
skipping to change at page 25, line 20 skipping to change at page 25, line 20
PLR. This bypass can be PCC-initiated and delegated, or PCE- PLR. This bypass can be PCC-initiated and delegated, or PCE-
initiated. In either case, the PLR MUST maintain a PCEP session to initiated. In either case, the PLR MUST maintain a PCEP session to
the PCE. The Bypass LSPs need to mapped to the primary LSP. This the PCE. The Bypass LSPs need to mapped to the primary LSP. This
could be done locally at the PLR based on a local policy but there is could be done locally at the PLR based on a local policy but there is
a need for a PCE to do the mapping as well to exert greater control. a need for a PCE to do the mapping as well to exert greater control.
This mapping can be done via PCECC procedures where the PCE could This mapping can be done via PCECC procedures where the PCE could
instruct the PLR to the mapping and identify the primary LSP for instruct the PLR to the mapping and identify the primary LSP for
which bypass should be used. which bypass should be used.
3.12. Use Cases of PCECC for BIER
Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) [RFC8279] defines an
architecture where all intended multicast receivers are encoded as a
bitmask in the multicast packet header within different
encapsulations. A router that receives such a packet will forward
the packet based on the bit position in the packet header towards the
receiver(s) following a precomputed tree for each of the bits in the
packet. Each receiver is represented by a unique bit in the bitmask.
BIER-TE [I-D.ietf-bier-te-arch] shares architecture and packet
formats with BIER. BIER-TE forwards and replicates packets based on
a BitString in the packet header, but every BitPosition of the
BitString of a BIER-TE packet indicates one or more adjacencies.
BIER-TE Path can be derived from a PCE and used at the ingress as
described in [I-D.chen-pce-bier].
Further, PCECC mechanims could be used for the allocation of bits for
the BIER router for BIER as well as for the adjacencies for BIER-TE.
PCECC based controller can use PCEP to instruct the BIER capable
routers the meaning of the bits as well as other fields needed for
BIER encapsulation.
[Editor's Note - more details to be added]
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
This document does not require any action from IANA. This document does not require any action from IANA.
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
TBD. TBD.
6. Acknowledgments 6. Acknowledgments
skipping to change at page 27, line 21 skipping to change at page 28, line 5
Chaining (SFC) Architecture", RFC 7665, Chaining (SFC) Architecture", RFC 7665,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7665, October 2015, DOI 10.17487/RFC7665, October 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7665>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7665>.
[RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path [RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231, Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>.
[RFC8279] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A.,
Przygienda, T., and S. Aldrin, "Multicast Using Bit Index
Explicit Replication (BIER)", RFC 8279,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8279, November 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8279>.
[RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path [RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017, Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281>.
[RFC8355] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Decraene, B., and R. [RFC8355] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Decraene, B., and R.
Shakir, "Resiliency Use Cases in Source Packet Routing in Shakir, "Resiliency Use Cases in Source Packet Routing in
Networking (SPRING) Networks", RFC 8355, Networking (SPRING) Networks", RFC 8355,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8355, March 2018, DOI 10.17487/RFC8355, March 2018,
skipping to change at page 27, line 45 skipping to change at page 28, line 35
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402, Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>. July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing]
Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W., Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,
and J. Hardwick, "PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing", and J. Hardwick, "PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing",
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-16 (work in progress), draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-16 (work in progress),
March 2019. March 2019.
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-hpce] [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-hpce]
Dhody, D., Lee, Y., Ceccarelli, D., Shin, J., King, D., Dhody, D., Lee, Y., Ceccarelli, D., Shin, J., and D. King,
and O. Dios, "Hierarchical Stateful Path Computation "Hierarchical Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE).",
Element (PCE).", draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-06 (work in draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-10 (work in progress), June
progress), October 2018. 2019.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec] [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec]
Dhody, D., Farrel, A., and Z. Li, "PCEP Extension for Flow Dhody, D., Farrel, A., and Z. Li, "PCEP Extension for Flow
Specification", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec-03 (work in Specification", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec-03 (work in
progress), February 2019. progress), February 2019.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller]
Zhao, Q., Li, Z., Negi, M., and C. Zhou, "PCEP Procedures Zhao, Q., Li, Z., Negi, M., and C. Zhou, "PCEP Procedures
and Protocol Extensions for Using PCE as a Central and Protocol Extensions for Using PCE as a Central
Controller (PCECC) of LSPs", draft-ietf-pce-pcep- Controller (PCECC) of LSPs", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-
skipping to change at page 28, line 25 skipping to change at page 29, line 13
February 2019. February 2019.
[I-D.zhao-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr] [I-D.zhao-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr]
Zhao, Q., Li, Z., Negi, M., and C. Zhou, "PCEP Procedures Zhao, Q., Li, Z., Negi, M., and C. Zhou, "PCEP Procedures
and Protocol Extensions for Using PCE as a Central and Protocol Extensions for Using PCE as a Central
Controller (PCECC) of SR-LSPs", draft-zhao-pce-pcep- Controller (PCECC) of SR-LSPs", draft-zhao-pce-pcep-
extension-pce-controller-sr-04 (work in progress), extension-pce-controller-sr-04 (work in progress),
February 2019. February 2019.
[I-D.li-pce-controlled-id-space] [I-D.li-pce-controlled-id-space]
Li, C., Chen, M., Dong, J., Li, Z., Wang, A., and C. Zhou, Li, C., Chen, M., Dong, J., Li, Z., Wang, A., Cheng, W.,
"PCE Controlled ID Space", draft-li-pce-controlled-id- and C. Zhou, "PCE Controlled ID Space", draft-li-pce-
space-02 (work in progress), March 2019. controlled-id-space-03 (work in progress), June 2019.
[I-D.dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain] [I-D.dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain]
Dugeon, O., Meuric, J., Lee, Y., and D. Ceccarelli, "PCEP Dugeon, O., Meuric, J., Lee, Y., and D. Ceccarelli, "PCEP
Extension for Stateful Inter-Domain Tunnels", draft- Extension for Stateful Inter-Domain Tunnels", draft-
dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-02 (work in progress), dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-02 (work in progress),
March 2019. March 2019.
[I-D.cbrt-pce-stateful-local-protection] [I-D.cbrt-pce-stateful-local-protection]
Barth, C. and R. Torvi, "PCEP Extensions for RSVP-TE Barth, C. and R. Torvi, "PCEP Extensions for RSVP-TE
Local-Protection with PCE-Stateful", draft-cbrt-pce- Local-Protection with PCE-Stateful", draft-cbrt-pce-
stateful-local-protection-01 (work in progress), June stateful-local-protection-01 (work in progress), June
2018. 2018.
[I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming] [I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming]
Filsfils, C., Camarillo, P., Leddy, J., Filsfils, C., Camarillo, P., Leddy, J.,
daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d., Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "SRv6 daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d., Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "SRv6
Network Programming", draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network- Network Programming", draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-
programming-07 (work in progress), February 2019. programming-07 (work in progress), February 2019.
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6] [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6]
Negi, M., Li, C., Sivabalan, S., and P. Kaladharan, "PCEP Negi, M., Li, C., Sivabalan, S., Kaladharan, P., and Y.
Extensions for Segment Routing leveraging the IPv6 data Zhu, "PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing leveraging the
plane", draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-00 (work in IPv6 data plane", draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-02
progress), March 2019. (work in progress), April 2019.
[I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header] [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Leddy, J., Matsushima, S., and Filsfils, C., Dukes, D., Previdi, S., Leddy, J.,
d. daniel.voyer@bell.ca, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header Matsushima, S., and d. daniel.voyer@bell.ca, "IPv6 Segment
(SRH)", draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-16 (work in Routing Header (SRH)", draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-
progress), February 2019. header-21 (work in progress), June 2019.
[I-D.ietf-teas-pce-native-ip] [I-D.ietf-teas-pce-native-ip]
Wang, A., Zhao, Q., Khasanov, B., Chen, H., and R. Mallya, Wang, A., Zhao, Q., Khasanov, B., Chen, H., and R. Mallya,
"PCE in Native IP Network", draft-ietf-teas-pce-native- "PCE in Native IP Network", draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-
ip-02 (work in progress), October 2018. ip-03 (work in progress), April 2019.
[I-D.ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios] [I-D.ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios]
Wang, A., Huang, X., Qou, C., Li, Z., and P. Mi, Wang, A., Huang, X., Qou, C., Li, Z., and P. Mi,
"Scenario, Simulation and Suggestion of PCE in Native IP "Scenarios and Simulation Results of PCE in Native IP
Network", draft-ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios-02 (work in Network", draft-ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios-06 (work in
progress), October 2018. progress), June 2019.
[I-D.ietf-bier-te-arch]
Eckert, T., Cauchie, G., Braun, W., and M. Menth, "Traffic
Engineering for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER-TE)",
draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-02 (work in progress), May 2019.
[I-D.chen-pce-bier]
Chen, R. and Z. Zhang, "PCEP Extensions for BIER", draft-
chen-pce-bier-05 (work in progress), March 2019.
[MAP-REDUCE] [MAP-REDUCE]
Lee, K., Choi, T., Ganguly, A., Wolinsky, D., Boykin, P., Lee, K., Choi, T., Ganguly, A., Wolinsky, D., Boykin, P.,
and R. Figueiredo, "Parallel Processing Framework on a P2P and R. Figueiredo, "Parallel Processing Framework on a P2P
System Using Map and Reduce Primitives", , may 2011, System Using Map and Reduce Primitives", , may 2011,
<http://leeky.me/publications/mapreduce_p2p.pdf>. <http://leeky.me/publications/mapreduce_p2p.pdf>.
[MPLS-DC] Afanasiev, D. and D. Ginsburg, "MPLS in DC and inter-DC [MPLS-DC] Afanasiev, D. and D. Ginsburg, "MPLS in DC and inter-DC
networks: the unified forwarding mechanism for network networks: the unified forwarding mechanism for network
programmability at scale", , march 2014, programmability at scale", , march 2014,
skipping to change at page 32, line 22 skipping to change at page 33, line 22
When this task will be finished, P2MP tunnel could be turned down. When this task will be finished, P2MP tunnel could be turned down.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Quintin Zhao Quintin Zhao
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
125 Nagog Technology Park 125 Nagog Technology Park
Acton, MA 01719 Acton, MA 01719
US US
Email: quintin.zhao@huawei.com Email: quintinzhao@gmail.com
Zhenbin (Robin) Li Zhenbin (Robin) Li
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd. Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095 Beijing 100095
China China
Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com
Boris Khasanov Boris Khasanov
 End of changes. 19 change blocks. 
31 lines changed or deleted 78 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/