< draft-li-spring-srv6-path-segment-01.txt   draft-li-spring-srv6-path-segment-02.txt >
SPRING Working Group C. Li SPRING Working Group C. Li
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Standards Track W. Cheng Intended status: Standards Track W. Cheng
Expires: December 28, 2019 China Mobile Expires: January 9, 2020 China Mobile
M. Chen M. Chen
D. Dhody D. Dhody
Z. Li Z. Li
J. Dong J. Dong
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
R. Gandhi R. Gandhi
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
June 26, 2019 July 8, 2019
Path Segment for SRv6 (Segment Routing in IPv6) Path Segment for SRv6 (Segment Routing in IPv6)
draft-li-spring-srv6-path-segment-01 draft-li-spring-srv6-path-segment-02
Abstract Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end
paths by encoding paths as sequences of topological sub-paths, called paths by encoding paths as sequences of sub-paths, called "segments".
"segments". Segment routing architecture can be implemented over an Segment routing architecture can be implemented over an MPLS data
MPLS data plane as well as an IPv6 data plane. plane as well as an IPv6 data plane.
Further, Path Segment has been defined to identify an SR path in SR- Further, Path Segment has been defined in order to identify an SR
MPLS networks, and used for various use-cases such as end-to-end SR path in SR-MPLS networks, and used for various use-cases such as end-
Path Protection and Performance Measurement (PM) of an SR path. to-end SR Path Protection and Performance Measurement (PM) of an SR
Similar to SR-MPLS, this document defines Path Segment in SRv6 path. Similar to SR-MPLS, this document defines the Path Segment in
networks to identify an SRv6 path. SRv6 networks in order to identify an SRv6 path.
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 December 28, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 9, 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 25 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
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. SRv6 Path Segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Use Cases of SRv6 Path Segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. SRv6 Path Segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. SRv6 Path Segment Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Segment routing (SR) [RFC8402] is a source routing paradigm that Segment routing (SR) [RFC8402] is a source routing paradigm that
explicitly indicates the forwarding path for packets at the ingress explicitly indicates the forwarding path for packets at the ingress
node by inserting an ordered list of instructions, called segments. node by inserting an ordered list of instructions, called segments.
When segment routing is deployed on MPLS dataplane, called SR-MPLS When segment routing is deployed on MPLS dataplane, called SR-MPLS
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls], a segment is an MPLS label. [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls], a segment is an MPLS label.
When segment routing is deployed on IPv6 dataplane, called SRv6 When segment routing is deployed on IPv6 dataplane, called SRv6
skipping to change at page 3, line 6 skipping to change at page 3, line 9
and it can be an IPv6 address of a local interface but it does not and it can be an IPv6 address of a local interface but it does not
have to. For supporting SR, an extended header called Segment have to. For supporting SR, an extended header called Segment
Routing Header (SRH), which contains a list of SIDs and several Routing Header (SRH), which contains a list of SIDs and several
needed information such as Segments Left, has been defined in needed information such as Segments Left, has been defined in
[I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header]. [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header].
In an SR-MPLS network, when a packet is transmitted along an SR path, In an SR-MPLS network, when a packet is transmitted along an SR path,
the labels in the MPLS label stack will be swapped or popped, so no the labels in the MPLS label stack will be swapped or popped, so no
label or only the last label may be left in the MPLS label stack when label or only the last label may be left in the MPLS label stack when
the packet reaches the egress node. Thus, the egress node can not the packet reaches the egress node. Thus, the egress node can not
determine from which ingress node or SR path the packet comes. For determine from which ingress node or SR path the packet came in. For
identifying an SR-MPLS path, Path Segment is defined in identifying an SR-MPLS path, Path Segment is defined in
[I-D.ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment]. [I-D.ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment].
Likewise, a path needs to be identified in an SRv6 network for Likewise, a path needs to be identified in an SRv6 network for
several use cases such as binding bidirectional path several use cases such as binding bidirectional paths
[I-D.li-pce-sr-bidir-path] and end-to-end performance measurement [I-D.li-pce-sr-bidir-path] and end-to-end performance measurement
[I-D.gandhi-spring-udp-pm]. A SRv6 path can be identified by the [I-D.gandhi-spring-udp-pm]. An SRv6 path can be identified by the
full segment list that made up of several SRv6 segments. However, content of segment list (i.e., the several SRv6 segments that are in
the segment list may not be a good key to identify an SRv6 path, the segment list). However, the segment list may not be a good key
since the the length of segment list is too long and flexible to identify an SRv6 path, since the the length of segment list is too
according to the number of SIDs. long and flexible according to the number of SIDs.
This document defines a new SRv6 segment called "SRv6 Path Segment" This document defines a new SRv6 segment called "SRv6 Path Segment"
to identify an SRv6 path. Using of Path Segment as an SRv6 SID that identifies an SRv6 path. Using the Path Segment as an SRv6 SID
(instead of path ID carried by an SRH TLV) will see benefit in (instead of the path ID carried by an SRH TLV) will improve
performance and also ease of using the same concept in SR, performance and operations in both SR-MPLS and SRv6. The Path
irrespective of SR-MPLS and SRv6 data planes. The Path Segment is Segment is inserted as the last segment in the segment list and will
inserted as the last segment in the segment list and will not affect not affect the order of the original SID list and has the solely
the order of the original SID list. scope to give a unique identifier to the segment list.
1.1. Requirements Language 1.1. 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.
1.2. Terminology 1.2. Terminology
DM: Delay Measurement.
LM: Loss Measurement.
MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching. MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching.
PM: Performance Measurement. PM: Performance Measurement.
PSID: Path Segment ID.
SID: Segment ID. SID: Segment ID.
SL: Segment List.
SR: Segment Routing. SR: Segment Routing.
SR-MPLS: Segment Routing with MPLS data plane. SR-MPLS: Segment Routing with MPLS data plane.
SRH: Segment Routing Header. SRH: Segment Routing Header.
PSID: Path Segment ID. PSID: Path Segment Identifier.
PSP: Penultimate Segment Popping. PSP: Penultimate Segment Popping.
Further, this document makes use of the terms defined in [RFC8402] Further, this document makes use of the terms defined in [RFC8402]
and [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming]. and [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming].
2. SRv6 Path Segment 2. Use Cases of SRv6 Path Segment
As defined in [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming], a SRv6
segment is a 128 bit value, which can be present as LOC:FUNCT.
For identifying an SRv6 path, this document defines a new segment
called SRv6 Path Segment.
A Path Segment (consisted of LOC and FUNCT part) can identify an SRv6
path within an SRv6 domain. Also, the SRv6 Path Segment may be used
to identify an SRv6 Policy, its Candidate-path or a SID-List
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] terminating on an egress
node depending on the use-case.
Note that, based on the use-case, the different SID-Lists of SR Similar to SR-MPLS Path Segment [I-D.ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment],
Policy may use the same SRv6 Path Segment. SRv6 Path Segment also can be used for identifying an SRv6 Path in
some use cases:
3. Operation o Performance Measurement: For Passive measurement [RFC7799], path
identification at the measuring points is the pre-requisite
[I-D.ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment]. SRv6 Path segment can be
used by the measuring points (e.g., the ingress/egress nodes of an
SRv6 path) or a centralized controller to correlate the packets
counts/timestamps, then packet loss/delay can be calculated.
A Path Segment is a local segment of egress node, it is allocated by o Bi-directioinal SRv6 Path Association: In some scenarios, such as
the egress node. A Path Segment can be allocated by several ways, mobile backhaul transport network, there are requirements to
such as CLI, BGP [I-D.li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-distribution], support bidirectional path. Similar to SR-MPLS
PCEP [I-D.li-pce-sr-path-segment] or other ways. The procedure of [I-D.ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment], to support bidirectional SRv6
Path Segment allocation is out of scope of this document. path, a straightforward way is to bind two unidirectional SRv6
paths to a single bidirectional path. SRv6 Path segments can be
used to correlate the two unidirectional SRv6 paths at both ends
of the paths. [I-D.li-pce-sr-bidir-path] defines how to use PCEP
and Path segment to initiate a bidirectional SR path.
When the Path Segment is allocated by the egress, it MUST be o End-to-end Path Protection: For end-to-end 1+1 path protection
distributed to the ingress node at minimum. In this case, the (i.e., Live-Live case), the egress node of an SRv6 path needs to
transit nodes do not know how to process the Path Segment. know the set of paths that constitute the primary and the
secondary(s), in order to select the primary packet for onward
transmission, and to discard the packets from the secondary(s), so
each SRv6 path needs a unique path identifier at the egress node,
which can be an SRv6 Path Segment.
A Path Segment is used for path identification and it MUST NOT be 3. SRv6 Path Segment
copied to the IPv6 destination address.
The SRv6 Path Segment MUST be inserted as the last entry in the SID As defined in [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming], an SRv6
list without affecting the segment left field in the SRH. The last segment is a 128-bit value, which can be represented as LOC:FUNCT.
entry field in SRH should be set as the index of the Path Segment,
which is the last entry in the SID list. In this case, Path Segment
presenting to a transit node is an error condition.
Also, PSP of the SRH MUST be disabled. In order to identify an SRv6 path, this document defines a new
segment called SRv6 Path Segment. A Path Segment is solely used in
order to identify an SRv6 path.
The Path Segment SHOULD appear only once in a SID list, and the one The Path Segment MUST appear only once in a SID list, and it MUST
that appears at the last entry in the SID list will be processed appear at the last entry.
while the rests will be ignored.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
| Segment List[0] (128 bits IPv6 address) | | Segment List[0] (128 bits IPv6 address) |
| | | |
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
| | | |
| ... | | ... |
| | | |
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
| Segment List[n-1] (128 bits IPv6 address) | | Segment List[n-1] (128 bits IPv6 address) |
| | | |
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
| Path Segment(Segment List[n], 128 bits IPv6 address) | | Path Segment(Segment List[n], 128 bits value) |
| | | |
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1. SRv6 Path Segment in SID List Figure 1. SRv6 Path Segment in SID List
If an egress node supports Path Segment processing and related OAM The detailed encoding of SRv6 Path Segment is out of scope of this
mechanisms are enabled, the node will inspect the last entry in the document, and it is defined in [I-D.li-6man-srv6-path-segment-encap].
SID list to obtain the Path Segment. The behavior of Path Segment
related function will be defined in the future version of this draft
or related use-case drafts.
4. IANA Considerations Depending on the use case, a Path Segment identifies:
o an SRv6 path within an SRv6 domain
o an SRv6 Policy
o a Candidate-paths or a SID-List in a SRv6 Policy
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
Note that, based on the use-case, the different SID-Lists of SR
Policies may use the same SRv6 Path Segment.
4. SRv6 Path Segment Allocation
A Path Segment is a local segment allocated by an egress node. A
Path Segment can be allocated through several ways, such as CLI, BGP
[I-D.li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-distribution], PCEP
[I-D.li-pce-sr-path-segment] or other ways. The mechanisms through
which a Path Segment is allocated is out of scope of this document.
When the Path Segment is allocated by the egress, it MUST be
distributed to the ingress node. In this case, only the egress will
process the Path Segment, and other nodes specified by SIDs in the
SID list do not know how to process the Path Segment.
Depending on the use case, a Path Segment may be distributed to the
SRv6 nodes along the SRv6 path. In this case, the SRv6 nodes that
learned Path Segment may process the Path Segment depending on the
use case.
5. Operations
An egress node or other SRv6 nodes along the SRv6 path supporting the
Path Segment processing will inspect the last entry of the segment
list (giving the the node will inspect the last entry in the SID list
and obtain the Path Segment. The processing of the Path Segment is
described in [I-D.li-6man-srv6-path-segment-encap].
6. IANA Considerations
This document does not require any IANA actions. This document does not require any IANA actions.
5. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce additional security requirements and This document does not introduce additional security requirements and
mechanisms other than the ones described in [RFC8402]. mechanisms other than the ones described in [RFC8402].
6. Acknowledgements 8. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Zafar Ali for his valuable comments The authors would like to thank Stefano Previdi and Zafar Ali for
and suggestions. their valuable comments and suggestions.
7. References 9. References
7.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header] [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header]
Filsfils, C., Dukes, D., Previdi, S., Leddy, J., Filsfils, C., Dukes, D., Previdi, S., Leddy, J.,
Matsushima, S., and d. daniel.voyer@bell.ca, "IPv6 Segment Matsushima, S., and d. daniel.voyer@bell.ca, "IPv6 Segment
Routing Header (SRH)", draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing- Routing Header (SRH)", draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-
header-21 (work in progress), June 2019. header-21 (work in progress), June 2019.
[I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming] [I-D.ietf-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-ietf-spring-srv6-network- Network Programming", draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-
programming-00 (work in progress), April 2019. programming-01 (work in progress), July 2019.
[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>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., [RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
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>.
7.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[I-D.gandhi-spring-udp-pm] [I-D.gandhi-spring-udp-pm]
Gandhi, R., Filsfils, C., daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d., Gandhi, R., Filsfils, C., daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d.,
Salsano, S., Ventre, P., and M. Chen, "UDP Path for In- Salsano, S., Ventre, P., and M. Chen, "UDP Path for In-
band Performance Measurement for Segment Routing band Performance Measurement for Segment Routing
Networks", draft-gandhi-spring-udp-pm-02 (work in Networks", draft-gandhi-spring-udp-pm-02 (work in
progress), September 2018. progress), September 2018.
[I-D.ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment] [I-D.ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment]
Cheng, W., Li, H., Chen, M., Gandhi, R., and R. Zigler, Cheng, W., Li, H., Chen, M., Gandhi, R., and R. Zigler,
skipping to change at page 7, line 23 skipping to change at page 7, line 46
Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS
data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-22 data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-22
(work in progress), May 2019. (work in progress), May 2019.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
Filsfils, C., Sivabalan, S., daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d., Filsfils, C., Sivabalan, S., daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d.,
bogdanov@google.com, b., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing bogdanov@google.com, b., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing
Policy Architecture", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing- Policy Architecture", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-
policy-03 (work in progress), May 2019. policy-03 (work in progress), May 2019.
[I-D.li-6man-srv6-path-segment-encap]
Li, C., Cheng, W., Li, Z., and D. Dhody, "Encapsulation of
Path Segment in SRv6", draft-li-6man-srv6-path-segment-
encap-00 (work in progress), July 2019.
[I-D.li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-distribution] [I-D.li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-distribution]
Li, C., Chen, M., Dong, J., and Z. Li, "Segment Routing Li, C., Chen, M., Dong, J., and Z. Li, "Segment Routing
Policies for Path Segment and Bidirectional Path", draft- Policies for Path Segment and Bidirectional Path", draft-
li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-distribution-01 (work in li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-distribution-01 (work in
progress), October 2018. progress), October 2018.
[I-D.li-pce-sr-bidir-path] [I-D.li-pce-sr-bidir-path]
Li, C., Chen, M., Cheng, W., Li, Z., Dong, J., Gandhi, R., Li, C., Chen, M., Cheng, W., Li, Z., Dong, J., Gandhi, R.,
and Q. Xiong, "PCEP Extensions for Associated and Q. Xiong, "PCEP Extensions for Associated
Bidirectional Segment Routing (SR) Paths", draft-li-pce- Bidirectional Segment Routing (SR) Paths", draft-li-pce-
sr-bidir-path-05 (work in progress), March 2019. sr-bidir-path-05 (work in progress), March 2019.
[I-D.li-pce-sr-path-segment] [I-D.li-pce-sr-path-segment]
Li, C., Chen, M., Cheng, W., Dong, J., Li, Z., Gandhi, R., Li, C., Chen, M., Cheng, W., Dong, J., Li, Z., Gandhi, R.,
and Q. Xiong, "Path Computation Element Communication and Q. Xiong, "Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) Extension for Path Segment in Segment Protocol (PCEP) Extension for Path Segment in Segment
Routing (SR)", draft-li-pce-sr-path-segment-05 (work in Routing (SR)", draft-li-pce-sr-path-segment-05 (work in
progress), March 2019. progress), March 2019.
[RFC7799] Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with
Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799,
May 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7799>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Cheng Li Cheng Li
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
Email: chengli13@huawei.com Email: chengli13@huawei.com
Weiqiang Cheng Weiqiang Cheng
China Mobile China Mobile
Email: chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com Email: chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com
Mach(Guoyi) Chen Mach(Guoyi) Chen
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
Email: mach.chen@huawei.com Email: mach.chen@huawei.com
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
Zhenbin Li Zhenbin Li
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
 End of changes. 38 change blocks. 
94 lines changed or deleted 131 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/