draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-06.txt   draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-07.txt 
PCE Working Group S. Sivabalan PCE Working Group S. Sivabalan
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc. Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track J. Tantsura Intended status: Standards Track J. Tantsura
Expires: May 24, 2018 Individual Expires: June 22, 2018 Individual
I. Minei I. Minei
Google, Inc. Google, Inc.
R. Varga R. Varga
Pantheon Technologies SRO Pantheon Technologies SRO
J. Hardwick J. Hardwick
Metaswitch Networks Metaswitch Networks
November 20, 2017 December 19, 2017
Conveying path setup type in PCEP messages Conveying path setup type in PCEP messages
draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-06 draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-07
Abstract Abstract
A Path Computation Element can compute traffic engineering paths (TE A Path Computation Element can compute Traffic Engineering paths (TE
paths) through a network that are subject to various constraints. paths) through a network that are subject to various constraints.
Currently, TE paths are label switched paths (LSPs) which are set up Currently, TE paths are Label Switched Paths (LSPs) which are set up
using the RSVP-TE signaling protocol. However, other TE path setup using the RSVP-TE signaling protocol. However, other TE path setup
methods are possible within the PCE architecture. This document methods are possible within the PCE architecture. This document
proposes an extension to PCEP to allow support for different path proposes an extension to PCEP to allow support for different path
setup methods over a given PCEP session. setup methods over a given PCEP session.
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", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
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 http://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 May 24, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 22, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 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
(http://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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
skipping to change at page 2, line 41 skipping to change at page 2, line 41
7.3. PCEP-Error Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.3. PCEP-Error Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
[RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) for [RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element communication
communication between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a Path Protocol (PCEP) for communication between a Path Computation Client
Computation Element (PCE), or between a PCE and a PCE. A PCC (PCC) and a Path Computation Element (PCE), or between a PCE and a
requests a path subject to various constraints and optimization PCE. A PCC requests a path subject to various constraints and
criteria from a PCE. The PCE responds to the PCC with a hop-by-hop optimization criteria from a PCE. The PCE responds to the PCC with a
path in an Explicit Route Object (ERO). The PCC uses the ERO to set hop-by-hop path in an Explicit Route Object (ERO). The PCC uses the
up the path in the network. ERO to set up the path in the network.
[RFC8231] specifies extensions to PCEP that allow a PCC to delegate [RFC8231] specifies extensions to PCEP that allow a PCC to delegate
its LSPs to a PCE. The PCE can then update the state of LSPs its LSPs to a PCE. The PCE can then update the state of LSPs
delegated to it. In particular, the PCE may modify the path of an delegated to it. In particular, the PCE may modify the path of an
LSP by sending a new ERO. The PCC uses this ERO to re-route the LSP LSP by sending a new ERO. The PCC uses this ERO to re-route the LSP
in a make-before-break fashion. [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] in a make-before-break fashion. [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]
specifies a mechanism allowing a PCE to dynamically instantiate an specifies a mechanism allowing a PCE to dynamically instantiate an
LSP on a PCC by sending the ERO and characteristics of the LSP. The LSP on a PCC by sending the ERO and characteristics of the LSP. The
PCC creates the LSP using the ERO and other attributes sent by the PCC creates the LSP using the ERO and other attributes sent by the
PCE. PCE.
skipping to change at page 3, line 24 skipping to change at page 3, line 24
a TLV called "PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY" which allows a PCEP speaker a TLV called "PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY" which allows a PCEP speaker
to announce the path setup types it supports when the PCEP session is to announce the path setup types it supports when the PCEP session is
established. When a new path setup type (other than RSVP-TE) is established. When a new path setup type (other than RSVP-TE) is
introduced for setting up a path, a path setup type code and, introduced for setting up a path, a path setup type code and,
optionally, a sub-TLV pertaining to the new path setup type will be optionally, a sub-TLV pertaining to the new path setup type will be
defined by the document that specifies the new path setup type. defined by the document that specifies the new path setup type.
When multiple path setup types are deployed in a network, a given When multiple path setup types are deployed in a network, a given
PCEP session may have to simultaneously support more than one path PCEP session may have to simultaneously support more than one path
setup type. In this case, the intended path setup type needs to be setup type. In this case, the intended path setup type needs to be
either explicitly indicated or implied in the appropriate PCEP explicitly indicated in the appropriate PCEP messages, unless the
messages (when necessary) so that both the PCC and the PCE can take path setup type is RSVP-TE (which is assumed to be the path setup
the necessary steps to set up the path. This document introduces a type if no other setup type is indicated). This is so that both the
generic TLV called "PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV" and specifies the base PCC and the PCE can take the necessary steps to set up the path.
procedures to facilitate this operational model. This document introduces a generic TLV called "PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV"
and specifies the base procedures to facilitate this operational
model.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
The following terminologies are used in this document: The following terminologies are used in this document:
ERO: Explicit Route Object. ERO: Explicit Route Object.
LSR: Label Switching Router. LSR: Label Switching Router.
PCC: Path Computation Client. PCC: Path Computation Client.
skipping to change at page 4, line 8 skipping to change at page 4, line 8
PCEP: Path Computation Element Protocol. PCEP: Path Computation Element Protocol.
PST: Path Setup Type. PST: Path Setup Type.
TLV: Type, Length, and Value. TLV: Type, Length, and Value.
3. Path Setup Type Capability TLV 3. Path Setup Type Capability TLV
A PCEP speaker indicates which PSTs it supports during the PCEP A PCEP speaker indicates which PSTs it supports during the PCEP
Initialization phase, as follows. When the PCEP session is created, initialization phase, as follows. When the PCEP session is created,
it sends an Open message with an OPEN object containing the PATH- it sends an Open message with an OPEN object containing the PATH-
SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV. The format of this TLV is as follows. SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV. The format of this TLV is as follows.
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type (TBD1) | Length | | Type (TBD1) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | PST length | | Reserved | PST length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
// List of PSTs (variable) // // List of PSTs padded to 4-byte alignment (variable) //
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
// Optional sub-TLVs (variable) // // Optional sub-TLVs (variable) //
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV Figure 1: PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV
The TLV type is TBD1 (to be assigned by IANA). Its reserved field The TLV type is TBD1 (to be assigned by IANA). Its reserved field
MUST be set to zero. The other fields in the TLV are as follows. MUST be set to zero. The other fields in the TLV are as follows.
PST length: The length of the list of supported PSTs, in octets, PST length: The length of the list of supported PSTs, in bytes,
excluding padding. excluding padding.
List of PSTs: A list of the PSTs that the PCEP speaker supports. List of PSTs: A list of the PSTs that the PCEP speaker supports.
Each PST is a single octet in length. Duplicate entries in this Each PST is a single byte in length. Duplicate entries in this
list MUST be ignored. The PCEP speaker MUST pad the list with list MUST be ignored. The PCEP speaker MUST pad the list with
zeros so that it is a muliple of four octets in length. zeros so that it is a muliple of four bytes in length.
Optional sub-TLVs: A list of sub-TLVs associated with the supported Optional sub-TLVs: A list of sub-TLVs associated with the supported
PSTs. Each sub-TLV MUST obey the rules for TLV formatting defined PSTs. Each sub-TLV MUST obey the rules for TLV formatting defined
in ([RFC5440]). That is, each sub-TLV MUST be padded to a four in ([RFC5440]). That is, each sub-TLV MUST be padded to a four
byte alignment, and the length field of each sub-TLV MUST NOT byte alignment, and the length field of each sub-TLV MUST NOT
include the padding bytes. This document does not define any sub- include the padding bytes. This document does not define any sub-
TLVs. TLVs.
This document defines the following PST value: This document defines the following PST value:
skipping to change at page 5, line 21 skipping to change at page 5, line 21
(Reception of an invalid object) and Error-Value = 11 (Malformed (Reception of an invalid object) and Error-Value = 11 (Malformed
object) and MUST close the PCEP session. The PCEP speaker MAY object) and MUST close the PCEP session. The PCEP speaker MAY
include the malformed OPEN object in the PCErr message as well. include the malformed OPEN object in the PCErr message as well.
If a PCEP speaker receives an OPEN object with more than one PATH- If a PCEP speaker receives an OPEN object with more than one PATH-
SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV then it MUST ignore all but the first SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV then it MUST ignore all but the first
instance of this TLV. instance of this TLV.
The absence of the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV from the OPEN The absence of the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV from the OPEN
object is equivalent to a PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV containing a object is equivalent to a PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV containing a
single PST of 0 (RSVP-TE signaling protocol) and no sub-TLVs. It is single PST of 0 (RSVP-TE signaling protocol) and no sub-TLVs. A PCEP
RECOMMENDED that a PCEP speaker omits the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY speaker MAY omit the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV if the only PST
TLV if the only PST it supports is RSVP-TE. If a PCEP speaker it supports is RSVP-TE. If a PCEP speaker supports other PSTs
supports other PSTs besides RSVP-TE, then it SHOULD include the PATH- besides RSVP-TE, then it SHOULD include the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-
SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV in its OPEN object. CAPABILITY TLV in its OPEN object.
If a PCEP speaker does not recognize the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY If a PCEP speaker does not recognize the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY
TLV, it MUST ignore the TLV in accordance with ([RFC5440]). If a TLV, it MUST ignore the TLV in accordance with ([RFC5440]).
PCEP speaker recognizes the TLV but does not support the TLV, it MUST
send a PCErr message with Error-Type = 2 (Capability not supported)
and MUST close the PCEP session.
4. Path Setup Type TLV 4. Path Setup Type TLV
When a PCEP session is used to set up TE paths using different When a PCEP session is used to set up TE paths using different
methods, the corresponding PCE and PCC must be aware of the path methods, the corresponding PCE and PCC must be aware of the path
setup method used. That means, a PCE must be able to specify paths setup method used. That means, a PCE must be able to specify paths
in the correct format and a PCC must be able take control plane and in the correct format and a PCC must be able take control plane and
forwarding plane actions appropriate to the PST. forwarding plane actions appropriate to the PST.
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type (28) | Length | | Type (28) | Length (4) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | PST | | Reserved | PST |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV Figure 2: PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV
PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV is an optional TLV associated with the RP PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV is an optional TLV associated with the RP
([RFC5440]) and the SRP ([RFC8231]) objects. Its format is shown in ([RFC5440]) and the SRP ([RFC8231]) objects. Its format is shown in
the above figure. The TLV type is 28. Its reserved field MUST be the above figure. The TLV type is 28. Its reserved field MUST be
set to zero. The one octet value contains the PST as defined for the set to zero. The one byte value contains the PST as defined for the
PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV. PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV.
The absence of the PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV is equivalent to a PATH-SETUP- The absence of the PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV is equivalent to a PATH-SETUP-
TYPE TLV with a PST value of 0 (RSVP-TE). It is RECOMMENDED that a TYPE TLV with a PST value of 0 (RSVP-TE). A PCEP speaker MAY omit
PCEP speaker omits the TLV if the PST is RSVP-TE. If the RP or SRP the TLV if the PST is RSVP-TE. If the RP or SRP object contains more
object contains more than one PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV, only the first TLV than one PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV, only the first TLV MUST be processed
MUST be processed and the rest MUST be ignored. and the rest MUST be ignored.
If a PCEP speaker does not recognize the PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV, it MUST If a PCEP speaker does not recognize the PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV, it MUST
ignore the TLV in accordance with ([RFC5440]). If a PCEP speaker ignore the TLV in accordance with ([RFC5440]).
recognizes the TLV but does not support the TLV, it MUST send PCErr
with Error-Type = 2 (Capability not supported).
5. Operation 5. Operation
During the PCEP Initialization phase, if a PCEP speaker receives a During the PCEP initialization phase, if a PCEP speaker receives a
PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV from its peer, it MUST infer that the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV from its peer, it MUST consider that
peer suports only the PSTs listed in the TLV. If the PCEP speaker the peer suports only the PSTs listed in the TLV. If the PCEP
and its peer have no PSTs in common, then the PCEP speaker MUST send speaker and its peer have no PSTs in common, then the PCEP speaker
a PCErr message with Error-Type = 21 (Invalid traffic engineering MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type = 21 (Invalid traffic
path setup type) and Error-Value = 2 (Mismatched path setup type) and engineering path setup type) and Error-Value = 2 (Mismatched path
close the PCEP session. setup type) and close the PCEP session.
If the peer has sent no PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV, then the PCEP If the peer has sent no PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV, then the PCEP
speaker MUST infer that the peer supports path setup using at least speaker MUST infer that the peer supports path setup using at least
RSVP-TE. The PCEP speaker MAY also infer that the peer supports RSVP-TE. The PCEP speaker MAY also infer that the peer supports
other path setup types, but the means of inference are outside the other path setup types, but the means of inference are outside the
scope of this document. scope of this document.
When a PCC sends a PCReq message to a PCE ([RFC5440]), it MUST When a PCC sends a PCReq message to a PCE ([RFC5440]), it MUST
include the PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV in the RP object, unless the intended include the PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV in the RP object, unless the intended
PST is RSVP-TE, in which case it MAY omit the PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV. PST is RSVP-TE, in which case it MAY omit the PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV.
skipping to change at page 9, line 21 skipping to change at page 9, line 21
10.1. Normative References 10.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]
Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "PCEP Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "PCEP
Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
Model", draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-11 (work in Model", draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-11 (work in
progress), October 2017. progress), October 2017.
[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, <https://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5440] 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)", RFC 5440, Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, <https://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
editor.org/info/rfc5440>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
[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, <https://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017,
editor.org/info/rfc8231>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>.
10.2. Informative References 10.2. Informative 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, <https://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
editor.org/info/rfc4655>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[RFC4657] Ash, J., Ed. and J. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation [RFC4657] Ash, J., Ed. and J. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic
Requirements", RFC 4657, DOI 10.17487/RFC4657, September Requirements", RFC 4657, DOI 10.17487/RFC4657, September
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4657>. 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4657>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Siva Sivabalan Siva Sivabalan
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
2000 Innovation Drive 2000 Innovation Drive
 End of changes. 26 change blocks. 
58 lines changed or deleted 55 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.46. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/