draft-ietf-pce-global-concurrent-optimization-08.txt   draft-ietf-pce-global-concurrent-optimization-09.txt 
Network Working Group Y. Lee Network Working Group Y. Lee
Internet-Draft Huawei Internet-Draft Huawei
Intended status: Standards Track JL. Le Roux Intended status: Standards Track JL. Le Roux
Expires: June 2009 France Telecom Expires: Aug 2009 France Telecom
D. King D. King
Old Dog Consulting Old Dog Consulting
E. Oki E. Oki
Univeristy of Electro Communications Univeristy of Electro Communications
January 5, 2009 March 24, 2009
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Requirements and Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Requirements and
Protocol Extensions In Support of Global Concurrent Optimization Protocol Extensions In Support of Global Concurrent Optimization
draft-ietf-pce-global-concurrent-optimization-08.txt draft-ietf-pce-global-concurrent-optimization-09.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF 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), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts. Drafts.
skipping to change at page 1, line 39 skipping to change at page 1, line 39
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 5, 2009. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 24, 2009.
Abstract Abstract
The Path Computation Element (PCE) is a network component, The Path Computation Element (PCE) is a network component,
application, or node that is capable of performing path computations application, or node that is capable of performing path computations
at the request of Path Computation Clients (PCCs). The PCE is at the request of Path Computation Clients (PCCs). The PCE is
applied in Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering applied in Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering
(MPLS-TE) networks and in Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks to (MPLS-TE) networks and in Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks to
determine the routes of Label Switched Paths (LSPs) through the determine the routes of Label Switched Paths (LSPs) through the
network. In this context a PCC may be a Label Switching Router network. In this context a PCC may be a Label Switching Router
skipping to change at page 5, line 45 skipping to change at page 5, line 45
The PCC-PCE requirements addressed herein are specific to the context The PCC-PCE requirements addressed herein are specific to the context
where the PCE is a specialized PCE that is capable of performing where the PCE is a specialized PCE that is capable of performing
computations in support of GCO. Discovery of such capabilities might computations in support of GCO. Discovery of such capabilities might
be desirable and could be achieved through extensions to the PCE be desirable and could be achieved through extensions to the PCE
discovery mechanisms [RFC4674], [RFC5088], [RFC5089], but that is out discovery mechanisms [RFC4674], [RFC5088], [RFC5089], but that is out
of the scope of this document. of the scope of this document.
It is to be noted that Backward Recursive Path Computation (BRPC) It is to be noted that Backward Recursive Path Computation (BRPC)
[BRPC] is a multi-PCE path computation technique used to compute a [BRPC] is a multi-PCE path computation technique used to compute a
shortest constrained inter-domain path wheres this ID specifies a shortest constrained inter-domain path whereas this ID specifies a
technique where a set of path computation requests are bundled and technique where a set of path computation requests are bundled and
send to a PCE with the objective of "optimizing" the set of computed send to a PCE with the objective of "optimizing" the set of computed
paths. paths.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
Most of the terminology used in this document is explained in Most of the terminology used in this document is explained in
[RFC4655]. A few key terms are repeated here for clarity. [RFC4655]. A few key terms are repeated here for clarity.
PCC: Path Computation Client: Any client application requesting a PCC: Path Computation Client: Any client application requesting a
skipping to change at page 6, line 23 skipping to change at page 6, line 23
PCE: Path Computation Element: An entity (component, application or PCE: Path Computation Element: An entity (component, application or
network node) that is capable of computing a network path or route network node) that is capable of computing a network path or route
based on a network graph and applying computational constraints. based on a network graph and applying computational constraints.
TED: Traffic Engineering Database which contains the topology and TED: Traffic Engineering Database which contains the topology and
resource information of the domain. The TED may be fed by IGP resource information of the domain. The TED may be fed by IGP
extensions or potentially by other means. extensions or potentially by other means.
PCECP: The PCE Communication Protocol: PCECP is the generic abstract PCECP: The PCE Communication Protocol: PCECP is the generic abstract
idea of a protocol that is used to communicate path computation idea of a protocol that is used to communicate path computation
requests a PCC to a PCE, and to return computed paths from the PCE to requests from a PCC to a PCE, and to return computed paths from the
the PCC. The PCECP can also be used between cooperating PCEs. PCE to the PCC. The PCECP can also be used between cooperating PCEs.
PCEP: The PCE communication Protocol: PCEP is the actual protocol PCEP: The PCE communication Protocol: PCEP is the actual protocol
that implements the PCECP idea. that implements the PCECP idea.
GCO: Global Concurrent Optimization: A concurrent path computation GCO: Global Concurrent Optimization: A concurrent path computation
application where a set of TE paths are computed concurrently in application where a set of TE paths are computed concurrently in
order to optimize network resources. A GCO path computation is able order to optimize network resources. A GCO path computation is able
to simultaneously consider the entire topology of the network and the to simultaneously consider the entire topology of the network and the
complete set of existing TE LSPs, and their respective constraints, complete set of existing TE LSPs, and their respective constraints,
and look to optimize or re-optimize the entire network to satisfy all and look to optimize or re-optimize the entire network to satisfy all
skipping to change at page 9, line 11 skipping to change at page 9, line 11
may arise. The scope of re-optimization and reconfiguration may vary may arise. The scope of re-optimization and reconfiguration may vary
depending on particular situations. The scope of re-optimization may depending on particular situations. The scope of re-optimization may
be limited to bandwidth modification to an existing TE LSP. However, be limited to bandwidth modification to an existing TE LSP. However,
it could well be that a set of TE LSPs may need to be re-optimized it could well be that a set of TE LSPs may need to be re-optimized
concurrently. In an extreme case, the TE LSPs may need to be concurrently. In an extreme case, the TE LSPs may need to be
globally re-optimized. globally re-optimized.
In loaded networks, with large size TE LSPs, a sequential re- In loaded networks, with large size TE LSPs, a sequential re-
optimization may not produce substantial improvements in terms of optimization may not produce substantial improvements in terms of
overall network optimization. Sequential re-optimization refers to a overall network optimization. Sequential re-optimization refers to a
path computation method in which to compute the re-optimized path of path computation method that computes the re-optimized path of
one TE LSP at a time without giving any consideration to the other TE one TE LSP at a time without giving any consideration to the other TE
LSPs that need to be re-optimized in the network. The potential for LSPs that need to be re-optimized in the network. The potential for
network-wide gains from reoptimization of TE LSPs sequentially is network-wide gains from reoptimization of TE LSPs sequentially is
dependent upon the network usage and size of the TE LSPs being dependent upon the network usage and size of the TE LSPs being
optimized. However, the key point remains: computing the reoptimized optimized. However, the key point remains: computing the reoptimized
path of one TE LSP at a time without giving any consideration to the path of one TE LSP at a time without giving any consideration to the
other TE LSPs in the network could result in sub-optimal use of other TE LSPs in the network could result in sub-optimal use of
network resources. This may be far more visible in an optical network resources. This may be far more visible in an optical
network with a low ratio of potential TE LSPs per link, and far less network with a low ratio of potential TE LSPs per link, and far less
visible in packet networks with micro-flow TE LSPs. visible in packet networks with micro-flow TE LSPs.
skipping to change at page 16, line 7 skipping to change at page 16, line 7
optimization is required, a new flag, the M flag, is defined in the optimization is required, a new flag, the M flag, is defined in the
RP object as follows. RP object as follows.
M bit (Make-before-break - 1 bit): when set, this indicates that a M bit (Make-before-break - 1 bit): when set, this indicates that a
make-before-break reoptimization is required for this request. make-before-break reoptimization is required for this request.
When M bit is not set, this implies that a break-before-make When M bit is not set, this implies that a break-before-make
reoptimization is allowed for this request. Note that M bit can be reoptimization is allowed for this request. Note that M bit can be
set only if the R (Reoptimization) flag is set. set only if the R (Reoptimization) flag is set.
Two new bit flags are defined to be carried in the Flags field
in the RP Object.
Bit 22 (D-bit): When set, report of the request order is required.
Bit 21 (M-bit): When set, make-before-break is required.
5.4. The Order Response 5.4. The Order Response
The PCE MUST specify the order number in response to the Order The PCE MUST specify the order number in response to the Order
Request made by the PCC in the PCReq message if so requested by the Request made by the PCC in the PCReq message if so requested by the
setting of the D bit in the RP object in the PCReq message. To setting of the D bit in the RP object in the PCReq message. To
support such ordering indication a new optional TLV, the Order TLV, support such ordering indication a new optional TLV, the Order TLV,
is defined in the RP object. is defined in the RP object.
The Order TLV is an optional TLV in the RP object, that indicates the The Order TLV is an optional TLV in the RP object, that indicates the
order in which the old TE LSP must be removed and the new TE LSP must order in which the old TE LSP must be removed and the new TE LSP must
skipping to change at page 18, line 42 skipping to change at page 18, line 42
limit. The value, for example, 10% means that 110 Mbps can be limit. The value, for example, 10% means that 110 Mbps can be
reserved on a 100Mbps link. reserved on a 100Mbps link.
Reserved bits (24 bits) of the GLOBAL CONSTRAINTS Object SHOULD be Reserved bits (24 bits) of the GLOBAL CONSTRAINTS Object SHOULD be
transmitted as zero and SHOULD be ignored upon receipt. transmitted as zero and SHOULD be ignored upon receipt.
The exclusion of the list of nodes/links from a global path The exclusion of the list of nodes/links from a global path
computation can be done by including the XRO object following the GC computation can be done by including the XRO object following the GC
object in the new SVEC list definition. object in the new SVEC list definition.
Optional TLVs may be included within the GC object body to specify
additional global constraints. The TLV format and processing is
consistent with Section 7.1 of RFC5440. Any TLVs will be allocated
from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" registry. Note that no TLVs are
defined in this document.
5.6. Error Indicator 5.6. Error Indicator
To indicate errors associated with the global concurrent path To indicate errors associated with the global concurrent path
optimization request, a new Error-Type (14) and subsequent error- optimization request, a new Error-Type (14) and subsequent error-
values are defined as follows for inclusion in the PCEP-ERROR object: values are defined as follows for inclusion in the PCEP-ERROR object:
A new Error-Type (15) and subsequent error-values are defined as A new Error-Type (15) and subsequent error-values are defined as
follows: follows:
Error-Type=15 and Error-Value=1: if a PCE receives a global Error-Type=15 and Error-Value=1: if a PCE receives a global
skipping to change at page 19, line 21 skipping to change at page 19, line 26
Error-Type=15; Error-Value=2: if a PCE receives a global concurrent Error-Type=15; Error-Value=2: if a PCE receives a global concurrent
path optimization request and the PCE is not capable of global path optimization request and the PCE is not capable of global
concurrent optimization, the PCE MUST send a PCErr message with a concurrent optimization, the PCE MUST send a PCErr message with a
PCEP-ERROR Object (Error-Type=15) and an Error-Value (Error-Value=2). PCEP-ERROR Object (Error-Type=15) and an Error-Value (Error-Value=2).
The PCE stops processing the request. The corresponding global The PCE stops processing the request. The corresponding global
concurrent path optimization MUST be cancelled at the PCC. concurrent path optimization MUST be cancelled at the PCC.
To indicate an error associated with policy violation, a new error To indicate an error associated with policy violation, a new error
value "global concurrent optimization not allowed" should be added to value "global concurrent optimization not allowed" should be added to
an existing error code for policy violation (Error-Type=5) as defined an existing error code for policy violation (Error-Type=5) as defined
in [PCEP]. in [RFC5440].
Error-Type=5; Error-Value=5: if a PCE receives a global concurrent Error-Type=5; Error-Value=5: if a PCE receives a global concurrent
path optimization request which is not compliant with administrative path optimization request which is not compliant with administrative
privileges (i.e., the PCE policy does not support global concurrent privileges (i.e., the PCE policy does not support global concurrent
optimization), the PCE sends a PCErr message with a PCEP-ERROR Object optimization), the PCE sends a PCErr message with a PCEP-ERROR Object
(Error-Type=5) and an Error-Value (Error-Value=5). The PCE stops the (Error-Type=5) and an Error-Value (Error-Value=5). The PCE stops the
processing the request. The corresponding global concurrent path processing the request. The corresponding global concurrent path
computation MUST be cancelled at the PCC. computation MUST be cancelled at the PCC.
5.7. NO-PATH Indicator 5.7. NO-PATH Indicator
To communicate the reason(s) for not being able to find global To communicate the reason(s) for not being able to find global
concurrent path computation, the NO-PATH object can be used in the concurrent path computation, the NO-PATH object can be used in the
PCRep message. The format of the NO-PATH object body is defined in PCRep message. The format of the NO-PATH object body is defined in
[PCEP]. The object may contain a NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV to provide [RFC5440]. The object may contain a NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV to provide
additional information about why a path computation has failed. additional information about why a path computation has failed.
Two new bit flags are defined to be carried in the Flags field in the Two new bit flags are defined to be carried in the Flags field in the
NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV carried in the NO-PATH Object. NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV carried in the NO-PATH Object.
Bit 6: When set, the PCE indicates that no migration path was found. Bit 6: When set, the PCE indicates that no migration path was found.
Bit 7: When set, the PCE indicates no feasible solution was found Bit 7: When set, the PCE indicates no feasible solution was found
that meets all the constraints associated with global concurrent path that meets all the constraints associated with global concurrent path
optimization in the PCRep message. optimization in the PCRep message.
6. Manageability Considerations 6. Manageability Considerations
Manageability of Global Concurrent Path Computation with PCE must Manageability of Global Concurrent Path Computation with PCE must
address the following considerations: address the following considerations:
6.1. Control of Function and Policy 6.1. Control of Function and Policy
In addition to the parameters already listed in Section 8.1 of In addition to the parameters already listed in Section 8.1 of
[PCEP], a PCEP implementation SHOULD allow configuring the following [RFC5440], a PCEP implementation SHOULD allow configuring the following
PCEP session parameters on a PCC: PCEP session parameters on a PCC:
o The ability to send a GCO request. o The ability to send a GCO request.
In addition to the parameters already listed in Section 8.1 of In addition to the parameters already listed in Section 8.1 of
[PCEP], a PCEP implementation SHOULD allow configuring the following [RFC5440], a PCEP implementation SHOULD allow configuring the following
PCEP session parameters on a PCE: PCEP session parameters on a PCE:
o The support for Global Concurrent Optimization. o The support for Global Concurrent Optimization.
o The maximum number of synchronized path requests per request o The maximum number of synchronized path requests per request
message. message.
o A set of GCO specific policies (authorized sender, request rate o A set of GCO specific policies (authorized sender, request rate
limiter, etc). limiter, etc).
skipping to change at page 20, line 45 skipping to change at page 20, line 45
6.2. Information and Data Models, e.g. MIB module 6.2. Information and Data Models, e.g. MIB module
Extensions to the PCEP MIB module defined in [PCEP-MIB] should be Extensions to the PCEP MIB module defined in [PCEP-MIB] should be
defined, so as to cover the GCO information introduced in this defined, so as to cover the GCO information introduced in this
document. document.
6.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring 6.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness
detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already
listed in Section 8.3 of [PCEP]. listed in Section 8.3 of [RFC5440].
6.4. Verifying Correct Operation 6.4. Verifying Correct Operation
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new verification Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new verification
requirements in addition to those already listed in Section 8.4 of requirements in addition to those already listed in Section 8.4 of
[PCEP] [RFC5440]
6.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components 6.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components
The PCE Discovery mechanisms ([RFC5088] and [RFC5089]) may be used The PCE Discovery mechanisms ([RFC5088] and [RFC5089]) may be used
to advertise global concurrent path computation capabilities to PCCs. to advertise global concurrent path computation capabilities to PCCs.
A New Flag (value=9) in PCE-CAP-FLAGs Sub-TLV should be assigned to A New Flag (value=9) in PCE-CAP-FLAGs Sub-TLV should be assigned to
be able to indicate GCO capability. be able to indicate GCO capability.
6.6. Impact on Network Operation 6.6. Impact on Network Operation
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new network Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new network
operation requirements in addition to those already listed in Section operation requirements in addition to those already listed in Section
8.6 of [PCEP]. 8.6 of [RFC5440].
7. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
When global re-optimization is applied to an active network, it could When global re-optimization is applied to an active network, it could
be extremely disruptive. Although the real security and policy be extremely disruptive. Although the real security and policy
issues apply at the NMS, if the wrong results are returned to the issues apply at the NMS, if the wrong results are returned to the
NMS, the wrong actions may be taken in the network. Therefore, it is NMS, the wrong actions may be taken in the network. Therefore, it is
very important that the operator issuing the commands has sufficient very important that the operator issuing the commands has sufficient
authority and is authenticated, and that the computation request is authority and is authenticated, and that the computation request is
subject to appropriate policy. subject to appropriate policy.
The mechanism defined in [PCEP] to secure a PCEP session can be used The mechanism defined in [RFC5440] to secure a PCEP session can be used
to secure global concurrent path computation requests/responses. to secure global concurrent path computation requests/responses.
8. Acknowledgements 8. Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Jerry Ash, Adrian Farrel, J-P Vasseur, Ning We would like to thank Jerry Ash, Adrian Farrel, J-P Vasseur, Ning
So, Lucy Yong and Fabien Verhaeghe for their useful comments and So, Lucy Yong and Fabien Verhaeghe for their useful comments and
suggestions. suggestions.
9. IANA Considerations 9. IANA Considerations
IANA maintains a registry of PCEP parameters. IANA is requested to IANA maintains a registry of PCEP parameters. IANA is requested to
make allocations from the sub-registries as described in the make allocations from the sub-registries as described in the
following sections. following sections.
9.1. Request Parameter Bit Flags 9.1. Request Parameter Bit Flags
As described in Section 5.3, two new bit lfags are defined for As described in Section 5.3, two new bit flags are defined for
inclusion in the Flags field of the RP object. IANA is requested to inclusion in the Flags field of the RP object. IANA is requested to
make the following allocations from the "Request Parameter Bit Flags" make the following allocations from the "Request Parameter Bit Flags"
sub-registry. sub-registry.
Bit Name Description Reference Bit Name Description Reference
11 D-bit Report the request order [This.I-D] 22 D-bit Report the request order [This.I-D]
12 M-bit Make-before-break [This.I-D] 21 M-bit Make-before-break [This.I-D]
9.2. New PCEP TLV 9.2. New PCEP TLV
As described in Section 5.4, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate As described in Section 5.4, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate
the setup and delete order of TE LSPs in a GCO. IANA is requested to the setup and delete order of TE LSPs in a GCO. IANA is requested to
make the following allocation from the "PCEP TLV Types" sub-registry. make the following allocation from the "PCEP TLV Types" sub-registry.
TLV Type Meaning Reference TLV Type Meaning Reference
5 Order TLV [This.I-D] 5 Order TLV [This.I-D]
9.3. New Flag in PCE-CAP-FLAGS Sub-TLV in PCED 9.3. New Flag in PCE-CAP-FLAGS Sub-TLV in PCED
As described in Section 6.5, a new PCE-CAP-FLAGS Sub-TLV in PCED is As described in Section 6.5, a new PCE-CAP-FLAGS Sub-TLV is
defined to indicate a GCO capability. IANA is requested to make the defined to indicate a GCO capability. IANA is requested to make the
following allocation from the "PCE-CAP-FLAGS TLV Types" sub-registry. following allocation from the "PCE-CAP-FLAGS TLV Types" sub-registry.
The "PCE Capability Flags Registry" is created by section 7.2 of
RFC 5088. It is an OSPF registry.
FLAG Meaning Reference FLAG Meaning Reference
9 Global Concurrent Optimization (GCO)[This.I-D] 9 Global Concurrent Optimization (GCO)[This.I-D]
9.4. New PCEP Object 9.4. New PCEP Object
As descried in Section 5.5, a new PCEP object is defined to carry As descried in Section 5.5, a new PCEP object is defined to carry
global constraints. IANA is requested to make the following global constraints. IANA is requested to make the following
allocation from the "PCEP Objects" sub-registry. allocation from the "PCEP Objects" sub-registry.
skipping to change at page 24, line 14 skipping to change at page 24, line 14
9.6. New No-Path Reasons 9.6. New No-Path Reasons
IANA is requested to make the following allocations from the "No-Path IANA is requested to make the following allocations from the "No-Path
Reasons" sub-registry for bit flags carried in the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Reasons" sub-registry for bit flags carried in the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV
in the PCEP NO-PATH object as described in Section 5.7. in the PCEP NO-PATH object as described in Section 5.7.
Bit Bit
Number Name Reference Number Name Reference
6 No GCO migration path found [This.I-D] 26 No GCO migration path found [This.I-D]
7 No GCO solution found [This.I-D] 25 No GCO solution found [This.I-D]
10. References 10. References
10.1. Normative References 10.1. Normative References
[BRPC] Vasseur, JP., Ed., "A Backward Recursive PCE-based [BRPC] Vasseur, JP., Ed., "A Backward Recursive PCE-based
Computation (BRPC) procedure to compute shortest inter- Computation (BRPC) procedure to compute shortest inter-
domain Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths, domain Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths,
draft-ietf-pce-brpc, work in progress". draft-ietf-pce-brpc, work in progress".
[PCE-OF] Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., and Y. Lee, "Objective [PCE-OF] Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., and Y. Lee, "Objective
Function encoding in Path Computation Element Function encoding in Path Computation Element
communication and discovery protocols, communication and discovery protocols,
draft-ietf-pce-of, work in progress". draft-ietf-pce-of, work in progress".
[PCE-XRO] Oki, E. and A. Farrel, "Extensions to the Path Computation [PCE-XRO] Oki, E. and A. Farrel, "Extensions to the Path Computation
Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for Route Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for Route
Exclusions, draft-ietf-pce-pcep-xro, work in progress". Exclusions, draft-ietf-pce-pcep-xro, work in progress".
[PCEP] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) communication Protocol (PCEP) - Version 1, Element (PCE) communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
draft-ietf-pce-pcep, work in progress". March 2009.
[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, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC5088] Le Roux, J., Vasseur, J., Ikejiri, Y., and R. Zhang, "OSPF [RFC5088] Le Roux, J., Vasseur, J., Ikejiri, Y., and R. Zhang, "OSPF
Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element (PCE) Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element (PCE)
Discovery, RFC 5088, January 2008.". Discovery", RFC 5088, January 2008.
[RFC5089] Le Roux, J., Vasseur, J., Ikejiri, Y., and R. Zhang, [RFC5089] Le Roux, J., Vasseur, J., Ikejiri, Y., and R. Zhang,
"IS-IS Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element "IS-IS Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element
(PCE) Discovery, RFC 5089, January 2008.". (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5089, January 2008.
10.2. Informative References 10.2. Informative References
[PCE-MLN] Oki, E., Le Roux, J., and A. Farrel, "Framework for PCE- [PCE-MLN] Oki, E., Le Roux, J., and A. Farrel, "Framework for PCE-
based inter-layer MPLS and GMPLS traffic engineering", based inter-layer MPLS and GMPLS traffic engineering",
draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-frwk, work in progress. draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-frwk, work in progress.
[PCEP-MIB] Stephen, E. and K. Koushik, "PCE communication [PCEP-MIB] Stephen, E. and K. Koushik, "PCE communication
protocol(PCEP) Management Information Base", protocol(PCEP) Management Information Base",
draft-kkoushik-pce-pcep-mib, work in progress. draft-kkoushik-pce-pcep-mib, work in progress.
 End of changes. 25 change blocks. 
27 lines changed or deleted 41 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.35. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/