💾 Archived View for gemini.bortzmeyer.org › rfc-mirror › rfc8233.txt captured on 2022-01-08 at 15:09:21.
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-11-30)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) D. Dhody
Request for Comments: 8233 Q. Wu
Category: Standards Track Huawei
ISSN: 2070-1721 V. Manral
Nano Sec Co
Z. Ali
Cisco Systems
K. Kumaki
KDDI Corporation
September 2017
Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
to Compute Service-Aware Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
Abstract
In certain networks, such as, but not limited to, financial
information networks (e.g., stock market data providers), network
performance criteria (e.g., latency) are becoming as critical to data
path selection as other metrics and constraints. These metrics are
associated with the Service Level Agreement (SLA) between customers
and service providers. The link bandwidth utilization (the total
bandwidth of a link in actual use for the forwarding) is another
important factor to consider during path computation.
IGP Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions describe mechanisms
with which network performance information is distributed via OSPF
and IS-IS, respectively. The Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements
(PCEs) to perform path computations in response to Path Computation
Client (PCC) requests. This document describes the extension to PCEP
to carry latency, delay variation, packet loss, and link bandwidth
utilization as constraints for end-to-end path computation.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8233.
Dhody, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 8233 Service-Aware LSPs September 2017
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................3
1.1. Requirements Language ......................................4
2. Terminology .....................................................4
3. PCEP Extensions .................................................5
3.1. Extensions to METRIC Object ................................5
3.1.1. Path Delay Metric ...................................6
3.1.1.1. Path Delay Metric Value ....................7
3.1.2. Path Delay Variation Metric .........................7
3.1.2.1. Path Delay Variation Metric Value ..........8
3.1.3. Path Loss Metric ....................................8
3.1.3.1. Path Loss Metric Value .....................9
3.1.4. Non-Understanding / Non-Support of
Service-Aware Path Computation ......................9
3.1.5. Mode of Operation ..................................10
3.1.5.1. Examples ..................................11
3.1.6. Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) .........................11
3.1.6.1. P2MP Path Delay Metric ....................11
3.1.6.2. P2MP Path Delay Variation Metric ..........12
3.1.6.3. P2MP Path Loss Metric .....................12
3.2. Bandwidth Utilization .....................................12
3.2.1. Link Bandwidth Utilization (LBU) ...................12
3.2.2. Link Reserved Bandwidth Utilization (LRBU) .........13
3.2.3. Bandwidth Utilization (BU) Object ..................13
3.2.3.1. Elements of Procedure .....................14
3.3. Objective Functions .......................................15
4. Stateful PCE and PCE Initiated LSPs ............................16
5. PCEP Message Extension .........................................17
5.1. The PCReq Message .........................................17
5.2. The PCRep Message .........................................18
5.3. The PCRpt Message .........................................19
6. Other Considerations ...........................................20
Dhody, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 8233 Service-Aware LSPs September 2017
6.1. Inter-domain Path Computation .............................20
6.1.1. Inter-AS Links .....................................20
6.1.2. Inter-Layer Path Computation .......................20
6.2. Reoptimizing Paths ........................................21
7. IANA Considerations ............................................21
7.1. METRIC Types ..............................................21
7.2. New PCEP Object ...........................................22
7.3. BU Object .................................................22
7.4. OF Codes ..................................................22
7.5. New Error-Values ..........................................23
8. Security Considerations ........................................23
9. Manageability Considerations ...................................24
9.1. Control of Function and Policy ............................24
9.2. Information and Data Models ...............................24
9.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring .........................24
9.4. Verify Correct Operations .................................24
9.5. Requirements on Other Protocols ...........................24
9.6. Impact on Network Operations ..............................24
10. References ....................................................25
10.1. Normative References .....................................25
10.2. Informative References ...................................26
Appendix A. PCEP Requirements .....................................28
Acknowledgments ...................................................29
Contributors ......................................................30
Authors' Addresses ................................................31
1. Introduction
Real-time network performance information is becoming critical in the
path computation in some networks. Mechanisms to measure latency,
delay variation, and packet loss in an MPLS network are described in
[RFC6374]. It is important that latency, delay variation, and packet
loss are considered during the path selection process, even before
the Label Switched Path (LSP) is set up.
Link bandwidth utilization based on real-time traffic along the path
is also becoming critical during path computation in some networks.
Thus, it is important that the link bandwidth utilization is factored
in during the path computation.
The Traffic Engineering Database (TED) is populated with network
performance information like link latency, delay variation, packet
loss, as well as parameters related to bandwidth (residual bandwidth,
available bandwidth, and utilized bandwidth) via TE Metric Extensions
in OSPF [RFC7471] or IS-IS [RFC7810] or via a management system.
[RFC7823] describes how a Path Computation Element (PCE) [RFC4655]
can use that information for path selection for explicitly routed
LSPs.
Dhody, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 8233 Service-Aware LSPs September 2017
A Path Computation Client (PCC) can request a PCE to provide a path
meeting end-to-end network performance criteria. This document
extends the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
[RFC5440] to handle network performance constraints that include any
combination of latency, delay variation, packet loss, and bandwidth
utilization constraints.
[RFC7471] and [RFC7810] describe various considerations regarding:
o Announcement thresholds and filters
o Announcement suppression
o Announcement periodicity and network stability
The first two provide configurable mechanisms to bound the number of
re-advertisements in IGP. The third provides a way to throttle
announcements. Section 1.2 of [RFC7823] also describes the
oscillation and stability considerations while advertising and
considering service-aware information.
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2. Terminology
The following terminology is used in this document.
IGP: Interior Gateway Protocol; either of the two routing
protocols, Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) or Intermediate
System to Intermediate System (IS-IS).
IS-IS: Intermediate System to Intermediate System
LBU: Link Bandwidth Utilization (see Section 3.2.1)
LRBU: Link Reserved Bandwidth Utilization (see Section 3.2.2)
MPLP: Minimum Packet Loss Path (see Section 3.3)
MRUP: Maximum Reserved Under-Utilized Path (see Section 3.3)
MUP: Maximum Under-Utilized Path (see Section 3.3)
Dhody, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 8233 Service-Aware LSPs September 2017
OF: Objective Function; a set of one or more optimization
criteria used for the computation of a single path (e.g.,
path cost minimization) or for the synchronized computation
of a set of paths (e.g., aggregate bandwidth consumption
minimization, etc.). (See [RFC5541].)
OSPF: Open Shortest Path First
PCC: Path Computation Client; any client application requesting
a path computation to be performed by a Path Computation
Element.
PCE: Path Computation Element; an entity (component,
application, or network node) that is capable of computing
a network path or route based on a network graph and
applying computational constraints.
RSVP: Resource Reservation Protocol
TE: Traffic Engineering
TED: Traffic Engineering Database
3. PCEP Extensions
This section defines PCEP extensions (see [RFC5440]) for requirements
outlined in Appendix A. The proposed solution is used to support
network performance and service-aware path computation.
3.1. Extensions to METRIC Object
The METRIC object is defined in Section 7.8 of [RFC5440], comprising
metric-value and metric-type (T field), and a flags field, comprising
a number of bit flags (B bit and P bit). This document defines the
following types for the METRIC object.
o T=12: Path Delay metric (Section 3.1.1)
o T=13: Path Delay Variation metric (Section 3.1.2)
o T=14: Path Loss metric (Section 3.1.3)
o T=15: P2MP Path Delay metric (Section 3.1.6.1)
o T=16: P2MP Path Delay Variation metric (Section 3.1.6.2)
o T=17: P2MP Path Loss metric (Section 3.1.6.3)
Dhody, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 8233 Service-Aware LSPs September 2017
The following terminology is used and expanded along the way.
o A network comprises of a set of N links {Li, (i=1...N)}.
o A path P of a point-to-point (P2P) LSP is a list of K links
{Lpi,(i=1...K)}.
3.1.1. Path Delay Metric
The Link Delay metric is defined in [RFC7471] and [RFC7810] as
"Unidirectional Link Delay". The Path Delay metric type of the
METRIC object in PCEP represents the sum of the Link Delay metric of
all links along a P2P path. Specifically, extending on the above-
mentioned terminology:
o A Link Delay metric of link L is denoted D(L).
o A Path Delay metric for the P2P path P = Sum {D(Lpi), (i=1...K)}.
This is as per the sum of means composition function (Section 4.2.5
of [RFC6049]). Section 1.2 of [RFC7823] describes oscillation and
stability considerations, and Section 2.1 of [RFC7823] describes the
calculation of the end-to-end Path Delay metric. Further,
Section 4.2.9 of [RFC6049] states when this composition function may
fail.
Metric Type T=12: Path Delay metric
A PCC MAY use the Path Delay metric in a Path Computation Request
(PCReq) message to request a path meeting the end-to-end latency
requirement. In this case, the B bit MUST be set to suggest a bound
(a maximum) for the Path Delay metric that must not be exceeded for
Dhody, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 8233 Service-Aware LSPs September 2017
the PCC to consider the computed path as acceptable. The Path Delay
metric must be less than or equal to the value specified in the
metric-value field.
A PCC can also use this metric to ask PCE to optimize the path delay
during path computation. In this case, the B bit MUST be cleared.
A PCE MAY use the Path Delay metric in a Path Computation Reply
(PCRep) message along with a NO-PATH object in the case where the PCE
cannot compute a path meeting this constraint. A PCE can also use
this metric to send the computed Path Delay metric to the PCC.
3.1.1.1. Path Delay Metric Value
[RFC7471] and [RFC7810] define "Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV" to
advertise the link delay in microseconds in a 24-bit field.
[RFC5440] defines the METRIC object with a 32-bit metric value
encoded in IEEE floating point format (see [IEEE.754]).
Consequently, the encoding for the Path Delay metric value is
quantified in units of microseconds and encoded in IEEE floating
point format. The conversion from 24-bit integer to 32-bit IEEE
floating point could introduce some loss of precision.
3.1.2. Path Delay Variation Metric
The Link Delay Variation metric is defined in [RFC7471] and [RFC7810]
as "Unidirectional Delay Variation". The Path Delay Variation metric
type of the METRIC object in PCEP encodes the sum of the Link Delay
Variation metric of all links along the path. Specifically,
extending on the above-mentioned terminology:
o A delay variation of link L is denoted DV(L) (average delay
variation for link L).
o A Path Delay Variation metric for the P2P path P = Sum {DV(Lpi),
(i=1...K)}.
Section 1.2 of [RFC7823] describes oscillation and stability
considerations, and Section 2.1 of [RFC7823] describes the
calculation of the end-to-end Path Delay Variation metric. Further,
Section 4.2.9 of [RFC6049] states when this composition function may
fail.
Note that the IGP advertisement for link attributes includes the
average delay variation over a period of time. An implementation,
therefore, MAY use the sum of the average delay variation of links
along a path to derive the delay variation of the path. An
end-to-end bound on delay variation is typically used as constraint
Dhody, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 8233 Service-Aware LSPs September 2017
in the path computation. An implementation MAY also use some
enhanced composition function for computing the delay variation of a
path with better accuracy.
Metric Type T=13: Path Delay Variation metric
A PCC MAY use the Path Delay Variation metric in a PCReq message to
request a path meeting the path delay variation requirement. In this
case, the B bit MUST be set to suggest a bound (a maximum) for the
Path Delay Variation metric that must not be exceeded for the PCC to
consider the computed path as acceptable. The path delay variation
must be less than or equal to the value specified in the metric-value
field.
A PCC can also use this metric to ask the PCE to optimize the path
delay variation during path computation. In this case, the B flag
MUST be cleared.
A PCE MAY use the Path Delay Variation metric in a PCRep message
along with a NO-PATH object in the case where the PCE cannot compute
a path meeting this constraint. A PCE can also use this metric to
send the computed end-to-end Path Delay Variation metric to the PCC.
3.1.2.1. Path Delay Variation Metric Value
[RFC7471] and [RFC7810] define "Unidirectional Delay Variation
Sub-TLV" to advertise the link delay variation in microseconds in a
24-bit field. [RFC5440] defines the METRIC object with a 32-bit
metric value encoded in IEEE floating point format (see [IEEE.754]).
Consequently, the encoding for the Path Delay Variation metric value
is quantified in units of microseconds and encoded in IEEE floating
point format. The conversion from 24-bit integer to 32-bit IEEE
floating point could introduce some loss of precision.
3.1.3. Path Loss Metric
[RFC7471] and [RFC7810] define "Unidirectional Link Loss". The Path
Loss (as a packet percentage) metric type of the METRIC object in
PCEP encodes a function of the unidirectional loss metrics of all
links along a P2P path. The end-to-end packet loss for the path is
represented by this metric. Specifically, extending on the above
mentioned terminology:
o The percentage link loss of link L is denoted PL(L).
o The fractional link loss of link L is denoted FL(L) = PL(L)/100.
Dhody, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 8233 Service-Aware LSPs September 2017
o The percentage Path Loss metric for the P2P path P = (1 -
((1-FL(Lp1)) * (1-FL(Lp2)) * .. * (1-FL(LpK)))) * 100 for a path P
with links Lp1 to LpK.
This is as per the composition function described in Section 5.1.5 of
[RFC6049].
Metric Type T=14: Path Loss metric
A PCC MAY use the Path Loss metric in a PCReq message to request a
path meeting the end-to-end packet loss requirement. In this case,
the B bit MUST be set to suggest a bound (a maximum) for the Path
Loss metric that must not be exceeded for the PCC to consider the
computed path as acceptable. The Path Loss metric must be less than
or equal to the value specified in the metric-value field.
A PCC can also use this metric to ask the PCE to optimize the path
loss during path computation. In this case, the B flag MUST be
cleared.
A PCE MAY use the Path Loss metric in a PCRep message along with a
NO-PATH object in the case where the PCE cannot compute a path
meeting this constraint. A PCE can also use this metric to send the
computed end-to-end Path Loss metric to the PCC.
3.1.3.1. Path Loss Metric Value
[RFC7471] and [RFC7810] define "Unidirectional Link Loss Sub-TLV" to
advertise the link loss in percentage in a 24-bit field. [RFC5440]
defines the METRIC object with a 32-bit metric value encoded in IEEE
floating point format (see [IEEE.754]). Consequently, the encoding
for the Path Loss metric value is quantified as a percentage and
encoded in IEEE floating point format.
3.1.4. Non-Understanding / Non-Support of Service-Aware Path
Computation
If a PCE receives a PCReq message containing a METRIC object with a
type defined in this document, and the PCE does not understand or
support that metric type, and the P bit is clear in the METRIC object
header, then the PCE SHOULD simply ignore the METRIC object as per
the processing specified in [RFC5440].
If the PCE does not understand the new METRIC type, and the P bit is
set in the METRIC object header, then the PCE MUST send a PCEP Error
(PCErr) message containing a PCEP-ERROR Object with Error-Type = 4
(Not supported object) and Error-value = 4 (Unsupported parameter)
[RFC5440][RFC5441].
Dhody, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 8233 Service-Aware LSPs September 2017
If the PCE understands but does not support the new METRIC type, and
the P bit is set in the METRIC object header, then the PCE MUST send
a PCErr message containing a PCEP-ERROR Object with Error-Type = 4
(Not supported object) with Error-value = 5 (Unsupported network
performance constraint). The path computation request MUST then be
canceled.
If the PCE understands the new METRIC type, but the local policy has
been configured on the PCE to not allow network performance
constraint, and the P bit is set in the METRIC object header, then
the PCE MUST send a PCErr message containing a PCEP-ERROR Object with
Error-Type = 5 (Policy violation) with Error-value = 8 (Not allowed
network performance constraint). The path computation request MUST
then be canceled.
3.1.5. Mode of Operation
As explained in [RFC5440], the METRIC object is optional and can be
used for several purposes. In a PCReq message, a PCC MAY insert one
or more METRIC objects:
o To indicate the metric that MUST be optimized by the path
computation algorithm (path delay, path delay variation, or path
loss).
o To indicate a bound on the METRIC (path delay, path delay
variation, or path loss) that MUST NOT be exceeded for the path to
be considered as acceptable by the PCC.
In a PCRep message, the PCE MAY insert the METRIC object with an
Explicit Route Object (ERO) so as to provide the METRIC (path delay,
path delay variation, or path loss) for the computed path. The PCE
MAY also insert the METRIC object with a NO-PATH object to indicate
that the metric constraint could not be satisfied.
The path computation algorithmic aspects used by the PCE to optimize
a path with respect to a specific metric are outside the scope of
this document.
All the rules of processing the METRIC object as explained in
[RFC5440] are applicable to the new metric types as well.
Dhody, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 8233 Service-Aware LSPs September 2017
3.1.5.1. Examples
If a PCC sends a path computation request to a PCE where the metric
to optimize is the path delay and the path loss must not exceed the
value of M, then two METRIC objects are inserted in the PCReq
message:
o First METRIC object with B=0, T=12, C=1, metric-value=0x0000
o Second METRIC object with B=1, T=14, metric-value=M
As per [RFC5440], if a path satisfying the set of constraints can be
found by the PCE and there is no policy that prevents the return of
the computed metric, then the PCE inserts one METRIC object with B=0,
T=12, metric-value= computed path delay. Additionally, the PCE MAY
insert a second METRIC object with B=1, T=14, metric-value=computed
path loss.
3.1.6. Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP)
This section defines the following types for the METRIC object to be
used for the P2MP TE LSPs.
3.1.6.1. P2MP Path Delay Metric
The P2MP Path Delay metric type of the METRIC object in PCEP encodes
the Path Delay metric for the destination that observes the worst
delay metric among all destinations of the P2MP tree. Specifically,
extending on the above-mentioned terminology:
o A P2MP tree T comprises a set of M destinations {Dest_j,
(j=1...M)}.
o The P2P Path Delay metric of the path to destination Dest_j is
denoted by PDM(Dest_j).
o The P2MP Path Delay metric for the P2MP tree T = Maximum
{PDM(Dest_j), (j=1...M)}.
The value for the P2MP Path Delay metric type (T) = 15.
Dhody, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 8233 Service-Aware LSPs September 2017
3.1.6.2. P2MP Path Delay Variation Metric
The P2MP Path Delay Variation metric type of the METRIC object in
PCEP encodes the Path Delay Variation metric for the destination that
observes the worst delay variation metric among all destinations of
the P2MP tree. Specifically, extending on the above-mentioned
terminology:
o A P2MP tree T comprises a set of M destinations {Dest_j,
(j=1...M)}.
o The P2P Path Delay Variation metric of the path to the destination
Dest_j is denoted by PDVM(Dest_j).
o The P2MP Path Delay Variation metric for the P2MP tree T = Maximum
{PDVM(Dest_j), (j=1...M)}.
The value for the P2MP Path Delay Variation metric type (T) = 16.
3.1.6.3. P2MP Path Loss Metric
The P2MP Path Loss metric type of the METRIC object in PCEP encodes
the path packet loss metric for the destination that observes the
worst packet loss metric among all destinations of the P2MP tree.
Specifically, extending on the above-mentioned terminology:
o A P2MP tree T comprises of a set of M destinations {Dest_j,
(j=1...M)}.
o The P2P Path Loss metric of the path to destination Dest_j is
denoted by PLM(Dest_j).
o The P2MP Path Loss metric for the P2MP tree T = Maximum
{PLM(Dest_j), (j=1...M)}.
The value for the P2MP Path Loss metric type (T) = 17.
3.2. Bandwidth Utilization
3.2.1. Link Bandwidth Utilization (LBU)
The LBU on a link, forwarding adjacency, or bundled link is populated
in the TED ("Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth Sub-TLV" in [RFC7471]
and [RFC7810]). For a link or forwarding adjacency, the bandwidth
utilization represents the actual utilization of the link (i.e., as
measured in the router). For a bundled link, the bandwidth
Dhody, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 8233 Service-Aware LSPs September 2017
utilization is defined to be the sum of the component link bandwidth
utilization. This includes traffic for both RSVP-TE and non-RSVP-TE
label switched path packets.
The LBU in percentage is described as the (utilized bandwidth /
maximum bandwidth) * 100.
The "maximum bandwidth" is defined in [RFC3630] and [RFC5305] and
"utilized bandwidth" in [RFC7471] and [RFC7810].
3.2.2. Link Reserved Bandwidth Utilization (LRBU)
The LRBU on a link, forwarding adjacency, or bundled link can be
calculated from the TED. The utilized bandwidth includes traffic for
both RSVP-TE and non-RSVP-TE LSPs; the reserved bandwidth utilization
considers only the RSVP-TE LSPs.
The reserved bandwidth utilization can be calculated by using the
residual bandwidth, available bandwidth, and utilized bandwidth
described in [RFC7471] and [RFC7810]. The actual bandwidth by
non-RSVP-TE traffic can be calculated by subtracting the available
bandwidth from the residual bandwidth ([RFC7471] and [RFC7810]),
which is further deducted from utilized bandwidth to get the reserved
bandwidth utilization. Thus,
reserved bandwidth utilization = utilized bandwidth - (residual
bandwidth - available bandwidth)
The LRBU in percentage is described as the (reserved bandwidth
utilization / maximum reservable bandwidth) * 100.
The "maximum reservable bandwidth" is defined in [RFC3630] and
[RFC5305]. The "utilized bandwidth", "residual bandwidth", and
"available bandwidth" are defined in [RFC7471] and [RFC7810].
3.2.3. Bandwidth Utilization (BU) Object
The BU object is used to indicate the upper limit of the acceptable
link bandwidth utilization percentage.
The BU object MAY be carried within the PCReq message and PCRep
messages.
BU Object-Class is 35.
BU Object-Type is 1.
Dhody, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 8233 Service-Aware LSPs September 2017
The format of the BU object body is as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Bandwidth Utilization |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
BU Object Body Format
Reserved (24 bits): This field MUST be set to zero on transmission
and MUST be ignored on receipt.
Type (8 bits): Represents the bandwidth utilization type. Two
values are currently defined.
* Type 1 is LBU (Link Bandwidth Utilization)
* Type 2 is LRBU (Link Residual Bandwidth Utilization)
Bandwidth Utilization (32 bits): Represents the bandwidth
utilization quantified as a percentage (as described in Sections
3.2.1 and 3.2.2) and encoded in IEEE floating point format (see
[IEEE.754]).
The BU object body has a fixed length of 8 bytes.
3.2.3.1. Elements of Procedure
A PCC that wants the PCE to factor in the bandwidth utilization
during path computation includes a BU object in the PCReq message. A
PCE that supports this object MUST ensure that no link on the
computed path has the LBU or LRBU percentage exceeding the given
value.
A PCReq or PCRep message MAY contain multiple BU objects so long as
each is for a different bandwidth utilization type. If a message
contains more than one BU object with the same bandwidth utilization
type, the first MUST be processed by the receiver and subsequent
instances MUST be ignored.
If the BU object is unknown/unsupported, the PCE is expected to
follow procedures defined in [RFC5440]. That is, if the P bit is
set, the PCE sends a PCErr message with error type 3 or 4 (Unknown /
Not supported object) and error value 1 or 2 (unknown / unsupported
Dhody, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 8233 Service-Aware LSPs September 2017
object class / object type), and the related path computation request
will be discarded. If the P bit is cleared, the PCE is free to
ignore the object.
If the PCE understands but does not support path computation requests
using the BU object, and the P bit is set in the BU object header,
then the PCE MUST send a PCErr message with a PCEP-ERROR Object
Error-Type = 4 (Not supported object) with Error-value = 5
(Unsupported network performance constraint), and the related path
computation request MUST be discarded.
If the PCE understands the BU object but the local policy has been
configured on the PCE to not allow network performance constraint,
and the P bit is set in the BU object header, then the PCE MUST send
a PCErr message with a PCEP-ERROR Object Error-Type = 5 (Policy
violation) with Error-value = 8 (Not allowed network performance
constraint). The path computation request MUST then be canceled.
If path computation is unsuccessful, then a PCE MAY insert a BU
object (along with a NO-PATH object) into a PCRep message to indicate
the constraints that could not be satisfied.
Usage of the BU object for P2MP LSPs is outside the scope of this
document.
3.3. Objective Functions
[RFC5541] defines a mechanism to specify an objective function that
is used by a PCE when it computes a path. The new metric types for
path delay and path delay variation can continue to use the existing
objective function -- Minimum Cost Path (MCP) [RFC5541]. For path
loss, the following new OF is defined.
o A network comprises a set of N links {Li, (i=1...N)}.
o A path P is a list of K links {Lpi,(i=1...K)}.
o The percentage link loss of link L is denoted PL(L).
o The fractional link loss of link L is denoted FL(L) = PL(L) / 100.
o The percentage path loss of a path P is denoted PL(P), where PL(P)
= (1 - ((1-FL(Lp1)) * (1-FL(Lp2)) * .. * (1-FL(LpK)))) * 100.
Objective Function Code: 9
Name: Minimum Packet Loss Path (MPLP)
Description: Find a path P such that PL(P) is minimized.
Dhody, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 8233 Service-Aware LSPs September 2017
Two additional objective functions -- namely, the Maximum Under-
Utilized Path (MUP) and the Maximum Reserved Under-Utilized Path
(MRUP) are needed to optimize bandwidth utilization. These two new
objective function codes are defined below.
These objective functions are formulated using the following
additional terminology:
o The bandwidth utilization on link L is denoted u(L).
o The reserved bandwidth utilization on link L is denoted ru(L).
o The maximum bandwidth on link L is denoted M(L).
o The maximum reservable bandwidth on link L is denoted R(L).
The description of the two new objective functions is as follows.
Objective Function Code: 10
Name: Maximum Under-Utilized Path (MUP)
Description: Find a path P such that (Min {(M(Lpi)- u(Lpi))
/ M(Lpi), i=1...K } ) is maximized.
Objective Function Code: 11
Name: Maximum Reserved Under-Utilized Path (MRUP)
Description: Find a path P such that (Min {(R(Lpi)- ru(Lpi))
/ R(Lpi), i=1...K } ) is maximized.
These new objective functions are used to optimize paths based on the
bandwidth utilization as the optimization criteria.
If the objective functions defined in this document are unknown/
unsupported by a PCE, then the procedure as defined in Section 3.1.1
of [RFC5541] is followed.
4. Stateful PCE and PCE Initiated LSPs
[RFC8231] specifies a set of extensions to PCEP to enable stateful
control of MPLS-TE and GMPLS LSPs via PCEP and the maintaining of
these LSPs at the stateful PCE. It further distinguishes between an
active and a passive stateful PCE. A passive stateful PCE uses LSP
state information learned from PCCs to optimize path computations but
does not actively update LSP state. In contrast, an active stateful
PCE utilizes the LSP delegation mechanism to update LSP parameters in
those PCCs that delegated control over their LSPs to the PCE.
[PCE-INITIATED] describes the setup, maintenance, and teardown of
Dhody, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 8233 Service-Aware LSPs September 2017
PCE-initiated LSPs under the stateful PCE model. The document
defines the PCInitiate message that is used by a PCE to request a PCC
to set up a new LSP.
The new metric type and objective functions defined in this document
can also be used with the stateful PCE extensions. The format of
PCEP messages described in [RFC8231] and [PCE-INITIATED] uses
<intended-attribute-list> and <attribute-list>, respectively, (where
the <intended-attribute-list> is the attribute-list defined in
Section 6.5 of [RFC5440] and extended in Section 5.2 of this
document) for the purpose of including the service-aware parameters.
The stateful PCE implementation MAY use the extension of PCReq and
PCRep messages as defined in Sections 5.1 and 5.2 to enable the use
of service-aware parameters during passive stateful operations.
5. PCEP Message Extension
Message formats in this document are expressed using Routing Backus-
Naur Form (RBNF) as used in [RFC5440] and defined in [RFC5511].
5.1. The PCReq Message
The extensions to the PCReq message are:
o new metric types using existing METRIC object
o a new optional BU object
o new objective functions using existing OF object [RFC5541]
Dhody, et al. Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 8233 Service-Aware LSPs September 2017
The format of the PCReq message (with [RFC5541] and [RFC8231] as a
base) is updated as follows:
<PCReq Message> ::= <Common Header>
[<svec-list>]
<request-list>
where:
<svec-list> ::= <SVEC>
[<OF>]
[<metric-list>]
[<svec-list>]
<request-list> ::= <request> [<request-list>]
<request> ::= <RP>
<END-POINTS>
[<LSP>]
[<LSPA>]
[<BANDWIDTH>]
[<bu-list>]
[<metric-list>]
[<OF>]
[<RRO>[<BANDWIDTH>]]
[<IRO>]
[<LOAD-BALANCING>]
and where:
<bu-list>::=<BU>[<bu-list>]
<metric-list> ::= <METRIC>[<metric-list>]
5.2. The PCRep Message
The extensions to the PCRep message are:
o new metric types using existing METRIC object
o a new optional BU object (during unsuccessful path computation, to
indicate the bandwidth utilization as a reason for failure)
o new objective functions using existing OF object [RFC5541]
Dhody, et al. Standards Track [Page 18]
RFC 8233 Service-Aware LSPs September 2017
The format of the PCRep message (with [RFC5541] and [RFC8231] as a
base) is updated as follows:
<PCRep Message> ::= <Common Header>
[<svec-list>]
<response-list>
where:
<svec-list> ::= <SVEC>
[<OF>]
[<metric-list>]
[<svec-list>]
<response-list> ::= <response> [<response-list>]
<response> ::= <RP>
[<LSP>]
[<NO-PATH>]
[<attribute-list>]
[<path-list>]
<path-list> ::= <path> [<path-list>]
<path> ::= <ERO>
<attribute-list>
and where:
<attribute-list> ::= [<OF>]
[<LSPA>]
[<BANDWIDTH>]
[<bu-list>]
[<metric-list>]
[<IRO>]
<bu-list>::=<BU>[<bu-list>]
<metric-list> ::= <METRIC> [<metric-list>]
5.3. The PCRpt Message
A Path Computation LSP State Report message (also referred to as
PCRpt message) is a PCEP message sent by a PCC to a PCE to report the
current state or delegate control of an LSP. The BU object in a
PCRpt message specifies the upper limit set at the PCC at the time of
LSP delegation to an active stateful PCE.
Dhody, et al. Standards Track [Page 19]
RFC 8233 Service-Aware LSPs September 2017
The format of the PCRpt message is described in [RFC8231], which uses
the <intended-attribute-list>, which is the attribute-list defined in
Section 6.5 of [RFC5440] and extended by PCEP extensions.
The PCRpt message can use the updated <attribute-list> (as extended
in Section 5.2) for the purpose of including the BU object.
6. Other Considerations
6.1. Inter-domain Path Computation
[RFC5441] describes the Backward Recursive PCE-Based Computation
(BRPC) procedure to compute an end-to-end optimized inter-domain path
by cooperating PCEs. The new metric types defined in this document
can be applied to end-to-end path computation, in a similar manner to
the existing IGP or TE metrics. The new BU object defined in this
document can be applied to end-to-end path computation, in a similar
manner to a METRIC object with its B bit set to 1.
All domains should have the same understanding of the METRIC (path
delay variation, etc.) and the BU object for end-to-end inter-domain
path computation to make sense. Otherwise, some form of metric
normalization as described in [RFC5441] MUST be applied.
6.1.1. Inter-AS Links
The IGP in each neighbor domain can advertise its inter-domain TE
link capabilities. This has been described in [RFC5316] (IS-IS) and
[RFC5392] (OSPF). The network performance link properties are
described in [RFC7471] and [RFC7810]. The same properties must be
advertised using the mechanism described in [RFC5392] (OSPF) and
[RFC5316] (IS-IS).
6.1.2. Inter-Layer Path Computation
[RFC5623] provides a framework for PCE-based inter-layer MPLS and
GMPLS traffic engineering. Lower-layer LSPs that are advertised as
TE links into the higher-layer network form a Virtual Network
Topology (VNT). The advertisement into the higher-layer network
should include network performance link properties based on the
end-to-end metric of the lower-layer LSP. Note that the new metrics
defined in this document are applied to end-to-end path computation,
even though the path may cross multiple layers.
Dhody, et al. Standards Track [Page 20]
RFC 8233 Service-Aware LSPs September 2017
6.2. Reoptimizing Paths
[RFC6374] defines the measurement of loss, delay, and related metrics
over LSPs. A PCC can utilize these measurement techniques. In case
it detects a degradation of network performance parameters relative
to the value of the constraint it gave when the path was set up, or
relative to an implementation-specific threshold, it MAY ask the PCE
to reoptimize the path by sending a PCReq with the R bit set in the
RP object, as per [RFC5440].
A PCC may also detect the degradation of an LSP without making any
direct measurements, by monitoring the TED (as populated by the IGP)
for changes in the network performance parameters of the links that
carry its LSPs. The PCC can issue a reoptimization request for any
impacted LSPs. For example, a PCC can monitor the link bandwidth
utilization along the path by monitoring changes in the bandwidth
utilization parameters of one or more links on the path in the TED.
If the bandwidth utilization percentage of any of the links in the
path changes to a value less than that required when the path was set
up, or otherwise less than an implementation-specific threshold, then
the PCC can issue a reoptimization request to a PCE.
A stateful PCE can also determine which LSPs should be reoptimized
based on network events or triggers from external monitoring systems.
For example, when a particular link deteriorates and its loss
increases, this can trigger the stateful PCE to automatically
determine which LSPs are impacted and should be reoptimized.
7. IANA Considerations
7.1. METRIC Types
IANA maintains the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers"
registry at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep>. Within this
registry, IANA maintains a subregistry for "METRIC Object T Field".
Six new metric types are defined in this document for the METRIC
object (specified in [RFC5440]).
IANA has made the following allocations:
Value Description Reference
----------------------------------------------------------
12 Path Delay metric RFC 8233
13 Path Delay Variation metric RFC 8233
14 Path Loss metric RFC 8233
15 P2MP Path Delay metric RFC 8233
16 P2MP Path Delay variation metric RFC 8233
17 P2MP Path Loss metric RFC 8233
Dhody, et al. Standards Track [Page 21]
RFC 8233 Service-Aware LSPs September 2017
7.2. New PCEP Object
IANA maintains Object-Types within the "PCEP Objects" registry. IANA
has made the following allocation:
Object Object Name Reference
Class Type
------------------------------------------------------
35 0 Reserved RFC 8233
1 BU RFC 8233
7.3. BU Object
IANA has created a new subregistry, named "BU Object Type Field",
within the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers"
registry to manage the Type field of the BU object. New values are
to be assigned by Standards Action [RFC8126]. Each value should be
tracked with the following qualities:
o Type
o Name
o Reference
The following values are defined in this document:
Type Name Reference
---------------------------------------------------------------
0 Reserved RFC 8233
1 LBU (Link Bandwidth Utilization) RFC 8233
2 LRBU (Link Residual Bandwidth Utilization) RFC 8233
7.4. OF Codes
IANA maintains the "Objective Function" subregistry (described in
[RFC5541]) within the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP)
Numbers" registry. Three new objective functions have been defined
in this document.
Dhody, et al. Standards Track [Page 22]
RFC 8233 Service-Aware LSPs September 2017
IANA has made the following allocations:
Code Name Reference
Point
-----------------------------------------------------------------
9 Minimum Packet Loss Path (MPLP) RFC 8233
10 Maximum Under-Utilized Path (MUP) RFC 8233
11 Maximum Reserved Under-Utilized Path (MRUP) RFC 8233
7.5. New Error-Values
IANA maintains a registry of Error-Types and Error-values for use in
PCEP messages. This is maintained as the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error
Types and Values" subregistry of the "Path Computation Element
Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry.
IANA has made the following allocations:
Two new Error-values are defined for the Error-Type "Not supported
object" (type 4) and "Policy violation" (type 5).
Error-Type Meaning and error values Reference
-------------------------------------------------------------
4 Not supported object
Error-value
5: Unsupported network RFC 8233
performance constraint
5 Policy violation
Error-value
8: Not allowed network RFC 8233
performance constraint
8. Security Considerations
This document defines new METRIC types, a new BU object, and new OF
codes that do not add any new security concerns beyond those
discussed in [RFC5440] and [RFC5541] in itself. Some deployments may
find the service-aware information like delay and packet loss to be
extra sensitive and could be used to influence path computation and
setup with adverse effect. Additionally, snooping of PCEP messages
with such data or using PCEP messages for network reconnaissance may
give an attacker sensitive information about the operations of the
network. Thus, such deployment should employ suitable PCEP security
Dhody, et al. Standards Track [Page 23]
RFC 8233 Service-Aware LSPs September 2017
mechanisms like TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO) [RFC5925] or
[PCEPS]. The procedure based on Transport Layer Security (TLS) in
[PCEPS] is considered a security enhancement and thus is much better
suited for the sensitive service-aware information.
9. Manageability Considerations
9.1. Control of Function and Policy
The only configurable item is the support of the new constraints on a
PCE, which MAY be controlled by a policy module on an individual
basis. If the new constraint is not supported/allowed on a PCE, it
MUST send a PCErr message accordingly.
9.2. Information and Data Models
[RFC7420] describes the PCEP MIB. There are no new MIB Objects for
this document.
9.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
The mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness
detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already
listed in [RFC5440].
9.4. Verify Correct Operations
The mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new
operation verification requirements in addition to those already
listed in [RFC5440].
9.5. Requirements on Other Protocols
The PCE requires the TED to be populated with network performance
information like link latency, delay variation, packet loss, and
utilized bandwidth. This mechanism is described in [RFC7471] and
[RFC7810].
9.6. Impact on Network Operations
The mechanisms defined in this document do not have any impact on
network operations in addition to those already listed in [RFC5440].
Dhody, et al. Standards Track [Page 24]
RFC 8233 Service-Aware LSPs September 2017
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3630>.
[RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October
2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5305>.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
[RFC5511] Farrel, A., "Routing Backus-Naur Form (RBNF): A Syntax
Used to Form Encoding Rules in Various Routing Protocol
Specifications", RFC 5511, DOI 10.17487/RFC5511, April
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5511>.
[RFC5541] Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., and Y. Lee, "Encoding of
Objective Functions in the Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5541,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5541, June 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5541>.
[RFC7471] Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., Atlas, A., and S.
Previdi, "OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
Extensions", RFC 7471, DOI 10.17487/RFC7471, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7471>.
[RFC7810] Previdi, S., Ed., Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., and
Q. Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions",
RFC 7810, DOI 10.17487/RFC7810, May 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7810>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
Dhody, et al. Standards Track [Page 25]
RFC 8233 Service-Aware LSPs September 2017
[RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>.
10.2. Informative References
[IEEE.754]
IEEE, "Standard for Binary Floating-Point Arithmetic",
IEEE Standard 754-2008, DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2008.4610935,
August 2008.
[PCE-INITIATED]
Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "PCEP
Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
Model", Work in Progress,
draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-10, June 2017.
[PCEPS] Lopez, D., Dios, O., Wu, W., and D. Dhody, "Secure
Transport for PCEP", Work in Progress,
draft-ietf-pce-pceps-16, September 2017.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[RFC5316] Chen, M., Zhang, R., and X. Duan, "ISIS Extensions in
Support of Inter-Autonomous System (AS) MPLS and GMPLS
Traffic Engineering", RFC 5316, DOI 10.17487/RFC5316,
December 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5316>.
[RFC5392] Chen, M., Zhang, R., and X. Duan, "OSPF Extensions in
Support of Inter-Autonomous System (AS) MPLS and GMPLS
Traffic Engineering", RFC 5392, DOI 10.17487/RFC5392,
January 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5392>.
[RFC5441] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Zhang, R., Bitar, N., and JL. Le Roux,
"A Backward-Recursive PCE-Based Computation (BRPC)
Procedure to Compute Shortest Constrained Inter-Domain
Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths", RFC 5441,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5441, April 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5441>.
Dhody, et al. Standards Track [Page 26]
RFC 8233 Service-Aware LSPs September 2017
[RFC5623] Oki, E., Takeda, T., Le Roux, JL., and A. Farrel,
"Framework for PCE-Based Inter-Layer MPLS and GMPLS
Traffic Engineering", RFC 5623, DOI 10.17487/RFC5623,
September 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5623>.
[RFC5925] Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP
Authentication Option", RFC 5925, DOI 10.17487/RFC5925,
June 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5925>.
[RFC6049] Morton, A. and E. Stephan, "Spatial Composition of
Metrics", RFC 6049, DOI 10.17487/RFC6049, January 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6049>.
[RFC6374] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay
Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6374, September 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6374>.
[RFC7420] Koushik, A., Stephan, E., Zhao, Q., King, D., and J.
Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
(PCEP) Management Information Base (MIB) Module",
RFC 7420, DOI 10.17487/RFC7420, December 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7420>.
[RFC7823] Atlas, A., Drake, J., Giacalone, S., and S. Previdi,
"Performance-Based Path Selection for Explicitly Routed
Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using TE Metric Extensions",
RFC 7823, DOI 10.17487/RFC7823, May 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7823>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
Dhody, et al. Standards Track [Page 27]
RFC 8233 Service-Aware LSPs September 2017
Appendix A. PCEP Requirements
End-to-end service optimization based on latency, delay variation,
packet loss, and link bandwidth utilization are key requirements for
service providers. The following associated key requirements are
identified for PCEP:
1. A PCE supporting this specification MUST have the capability to
compute end-to-end paths with latency, delay variation, packet
loss, and bandwidth utilization constraints. It MUST also
support the combination of network performance constraints
(latency, delay variation, loss,...) with existing constraints
(cost, hop-limit,...).
2. A PCC MUST be able to specify any network performance constraint
in a PCReq message to be applied during the path computation.
3. A PCC MUST be able to request that a PCE optimizes a path using
any network performance criteria.
4. A PCE that supports this specification is not required to provide
service-aware path computation to any PCC at any time.
Therefore, it MUST be possible for a PCE to reject a PCReq
message with a reason code that indicates service-aware path
computation is not supported. Furthermore, a PCE that does not
support this specification will either ignore or reject such
requests using pre-existing mechanisms; therefore, the requests
MUST be identifiable to legacy PCEs, and rejections by legacy
PCEs MUST be acceptable within this specification.
5. A PCE SHOULD be able to return end-to-end network performance
information of the computed path in a PCRep message.
6. A PCE SHOULD be able to compute multi-domain (e.g., Inter-AS,
Inter-Area, or Multi-Layer) service-aware paths.
Such constraints are only meaningful if used consistently: for
instance, if the delay of a computed path segment is exchanged
between two PCEs residing in different domains, a consistent way of
defining the delay must be used.
Dhody, et al. Standards Track [Page 28]
RFC 8233 Service-Aware LSPs September 2017
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Alia Atlas, John E. Drake, David Ward, Young
Lee, Venugopal Reddy, Reeja Paul, Sandeep Kumar Boina, Suresh Babu,
Quintin Zhao, Chen Huaimo, Avantika, and Adrian Farrel for their
useful comments and suggestions.
Also, the authors gratefully acknowledge reviews and feedback
provided by Qin Wu, Alfred Morton, and Paul Aitken during performance
directorate review.
Thanks to Jonathan Hardwick for shepherding this document and
providing valuable comments. His help in fixing the editorial and
grammatical issues is also appreciated.
Thanks to Christian Hopps for the routing directorate review.
Thanks to Jouni Korhonen and Alfred Morton for the operational
directorate review.
Thanks to Christian Huitema for the security directorate review.
Thanks to Deborah Brungard for being the responsible AD.
Thanks to Ben Campbell, Joel Jaeggli, Stephen Farrell, Kathleen
Moriarty, Spencer Dawkins, Mirja Kuehlewind, Jari Arkko, and Alia
Atlas for the IESG reviews.
Dhody, et al. Standards Track [Page 29]
RFC 8233 Service-Aware LSPs September 2017
Contributors
Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems
Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com
Siva Sivabalan
Cisco Systems
Email: msiva@cisco.com
George Swallow
Cisco Systems
Email: swallow@cisco.com
Stefano Previdi
Cisco Systems, Inc
Via Del Serafico 200
Rome 00191
Italy
Email: sprevidi@cisco.com
Udayasree Palle
Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
India
Email: udayasree.palle@huawei.com
Avantika
Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
India
Email: avantika.sushilkumar@huawei.com
Xian Zhang
Huawei Technologies
F3-1-B R&D Center, Huawei Base Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen, Guangdong 518129
China
Email: zhang.xian@huawei.com
Dhody, et al. Standards Track [Page 30]
RFC 8233 Service-Aware LSPs September 2017
Authors' Addresses
Dhruv Dhody
Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
India
Email: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
Qin Wu
Huawei Technologies
101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012
China
Email: bill.wu@huawei.com
Vishwas Manral
Nano Sec Co
3350 Thomas Rd.
Santa Clara, CA
United States of America
Email: vishwas@nanosec.io
Zafar Ali
Cisco Systems
Email: zali@cisco.com
Kenji Kumaki
KDDI Corporation
Email: ke-kumaki@kddi.com
Dhody, et al. Standards Track [Page 31]