PCE Controlled ID Space
draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-01
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Active".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Cheng Li , Mach Chen , Jie Dong , Zhenbin Li , Aijun Wang | ||
| Last updated | 2018-12-18 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-01
Network Working Group C. Li
Internet-Draft M. Chen
Intended status: Experimental J. Dong
Expires: June 21, 2019 Z. Li
Huawei Technologies
A. Wang
China Telecom
December 18, 2018
PCE Controlled ID Space
draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-01
Abstract
The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides
mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path
computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests.
The Stateful PCE extensions allow stateful control of Multiprotocol
Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched Paths
(LSPs) using PCEP. Furthermore, PCEP can be used for computing paths
in SR networks.
Stateful PCE provide active control of MPLS-TE LSPs via PCEP, for a
model where the PCC delegates control over one or more locally
configured LSPs to the PCE. Further, stateful PCE could also create
and delete PCE-initiated LSPs itself. A PCE-based central controller
(PCECC) simplify the processing of a distributed control plane by
blending it with elements of Software-Defined Networking (SDN) and
without necessarily completely replacing it.
In some use cases, such as PCECC, Binding Segment Identifier (SID)
for Segment Routing (SR), there are requirements for a stateful PCE
to make allocation of labels, SIDs, etc. These use cases require for
a PCE to be aware of the various identifier space from which to make
allocations on behalf of PCC. This documents specify a mechanism for
a PCC to inform the PCE of the identifier space under its control via
PCEP. The identifier could be MPLS label, SID or another future
identifier to be allocated by a PCE.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
Li, et al. Expires June 21, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PCE Controlled ID Space December 2018
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 21, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Use cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. PCE-based Central Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.1. PCECC for MPLS/SR-MPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.2. PCECC for SRv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Binding SID Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Open Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1.1. LABEL-CONTROL-SPACE TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1.2. FUNCT-ID-CONTROL-SPACE TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Li, et al. Expires June 21, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PCE Controlled ID Space December 2018
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction
[RFC5440] defines the stateless Path Computation Element
communication Protocol (PCEP) for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to
perform path computations in response to Path Computation Clients
(PCCs) requests. For supporting stateful operations, [RFC8231]
specifies a set of extensions to PCEP to enable stateful control of
LSPs within and across PCEP sessions in compliance with [RFC4657].
Furthermore, [RFC8281] describes the setup, maintenance, and teardown
of PCE-initiated LSPs under the stateful PCE model, without the need
for local configuration on the PCC, thus allowing for a dynamic
network that is centrally controlled and deployed.
[RFC8283] introduces the architecture for PCE as a central
controller, it examines the motivations and applicability for PCEP as
a control protocol in this environment, and introduces the
implications for the protocol. Also,
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] specifies the
procedures and PCEP protocol extensions for using the PCE as the
central controller, where LSPs are calculated/setup/initiated and
label forwarding entries are downloaded through extending PCEP.
However, the document assumes that label range to be used by a PCE is
known and set on both PCEP peers. This extension adds the capability
to advertise the range via a PCEP extension.
Similarly, [I-D.zhao-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr] specifies
the procedures and PCEP protocol extensions when a PCE-based
controller is also responsible for configuring the forwarding actions
on the routers (SR SID distribution in this case), in addition to
computing the paths for packet flows in a segment routing network and
telling the edge routers what instructions to attach to packets as
they enter the network. However, the document assumes that label
range to be used by a PCE is known and set on both PCEP peers. This
extension adds the capability to advertise the range (from SRGB or
SRLB of the node) via a PCEP extension.
In addition, [I-D.dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6]
specifies the procedures and PCEP protocol extensions of PCECC for
SRv6. An SRv6 SID is represented as LOC:FUNCT where LOC is the L
most significant bits and FUNCT is the 128-L least significant bits.
The FUNCT part of the SID is an opaque identification of a local
function bound to the SID. This extension adds the capability to
advertise the range of Function ID (FUNCT part) via a PCEP extension.
Once the PCC/node has given control over an ID space (for example
labels), the PCC/node MUST NOT allocate the ID from this ID space.
Li, et al. Expires June 21, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PCE Controlled ID Space December 2018
For example, a PCC/node MUST NOT use this labels from the PCE
controlled label space to make allocation for VPN Prefix distributed
via BGP or labels used for LDP/RSVP-TE signalling. This is done to
make sure that the PCE control over ID space does not conflict with
the existing node allocation.
The usecase are described in Section 3. The ID space range
information can be advertised via the TLVs in the Open message. The
detailed procedures will be described in Section 4, and the objects'
format will be introduced in Section 5.
2. Terminology
This memo makes use of the terms defined in [RFC5440], [RFC8231],
[RFC8283] and [RFC8402].
2.1. 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.
3. Use cases
3.1. PCE-based Central Control
A PCE-based central controller (PCECC) can simplify the processing of
a distributed control plane by blending it with elements of SDN and
without necessarily completely replacing it. Thus, the LSP/SR path
can be calculated/setup/initiated and the label/SID forwarding
entries can also be downloaded through a centralized PCE server to
each network devices along the path while leveraging the existing PCE
technologies as much as possible.
3.1.1. PCECC for MPLS/SR-MPLS
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] describe a mode
where LSPs are provisioned as explicit label instructions at each hop
on the end-to-end path. Each router along the path must be told what
label forwarding instructions to program and what resources to
reserve. The controller uses PCEP to communicate with each router
along the path of the end-to-end LSP. For this to work, the PCE-
based controller will take responsibility for managing some part of
the MPLS label space for each of the routers that it controls as
described in section 3.1.2. of [RFC8283]. A mechanism for a PCC to
Li, et al. Expires June 21, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PCE Controlled ID Space December 2018
inform the PCE of such a label space to control is needed within
PCEP.
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] specifies extensions to PCEP that
allow a stateful PCE to compute, update or initiate SR-TE paths.
[I-D.zhao-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr] describes the
mechanism for PCECC to allocate and provision the node/prefix/
adjacency label (SID) via PCEP. To make such allocation, PCE needs
to be aware of the label space from Segment Routing Global Block
(SRGB) or Segment Routing Local Block (SRLB) [RFC8402] of the node
that it controls. A mechanism for a PCC to inform the PCE of such a
label space to control is needed within PCEP. The full SRGB/SRLB of
a node could be learned via existing IGP or BGP-LS mechanism.
3.1.2. PCECC for SRv6
[I-D.dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6] describes the
mechanism for PCECC to allocate and provision the SRv6 SID via PCEP.
An SRv6 SID is represented as LOC:FUNCT where LOC is the L most
significant bits and FUNCT is the 128-L least significant bits. The
FUNCT part of the SID is an opaque identification of a local function
bound to the SID. To make such allocation, PCE needs to be aware of
the Function ID space (FUNCT part) of the node that it controls. A
mechanism for a PCC to inform the PCE of such a Function ID space to
control is needed within PCEP.
3.2. Binding SID Allocation
The headend of an SR Policy binds a Binding SID to its policy
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]. The instantiation of which
may involve a list of SIDs. Currently Binding SID are allocated by
the node, but there is an inherent advantage in the Binding SID to be
allocated by a PCE to allow SR policies to be dynamically created,
updated according to the network status and operations. Therefore, a
PCE needs to obtain the authority and control to allocate Binding SID
actively from the PCC's label space as described in above use case.
4. Overview
During PCEP Initialization Phase, Open messages are exchanged between
PCCs and PCEs. The OPEN object may also contain a set of TLVs used
to convey capabilities in the Open message. The ID in this document,
could be a MPLS label, SRv6 Function ID or any other future ID space
for PCE to control and allocate from. A PCC can include a
corresponding ID-CONTROL-SPACE TLVs in the OPEN Object to inform the
corresponding ID space information that it wants the PCE to control.
This TLV MUST NOT be included by the PCE and MUST be ignored on
Li, et al. Expires June 21, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PCE Controlled ID Space December 2018
receipt by a PCC. This is an optional TLV, the PCE could be aware of
the ID space from some other means outside of PCEP.
For delegating multiple types of ID space, multiple TLVs
corresponding to each ID type MUST be included in a Open message.
The ID type can be MPLS label or other ID. The following ID-CONTROL-
SPACE TLV is defined in this document -
o LABEL-CONTROL-SPACE - for MPLS Labels (including for SR-MPLS)
o FUNCTION-ID-CONTROL-SPACE - for SRv6 SID Function ID
The procedure of ID space control to PCE is shown below:
+-+-+ +-+-+
|PCC| |PCE|
+-+-+ +-+-+
| |
| Open msg (LABEL-CONTROL-SPACE,etc) |
| |
|-------- |
| \ Open msg |
| \ -----------------------------|
| \/ |
| /\ |
| / ---------------------------->|
| / |
|<------ Keepalive |
| ----------------------------|
|Keepalive / |
|-------- / |
| \/ |
| /\ |
|<------ ------------------------------>|
| |
Figure 1: ID space control to PCE
If the ID space control procedure is successful, the PCE will return
a KeepAlive message to the PCC. If there is any error in processing
the corresponding TLV, an Error (PCErr) message will be sent to the
PCC with Error-Type=1 (PCEP session establishment failure) and Error-
value=TBD (ID space control failure).
After this process, a stateful PCE can learn the PCE controlled ID
spaces of a node (PCC) under its control. A PCE can then allocate
IDs within the control ID space. For example, a PCE can actively
Li, et al. Expires June 21, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PCE Controlled ID Space December 2018
allocate labels and download forwarding instructions for the PCECC
LSP as described in [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller].
A PCE can also allocate labels from SRGB/SRLB for PCECC-SR
[I-D.zhao-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr]. The full SRGB/SRLB
of a node could be learned via existing IGP or BGP-LS mechanism.
5. Objects
5.1. Open Object
For advertising the PCE controlled ID space to a PCE, this document
defines several TLVs within the Open object.
5.1.1. LABEL-CONTROL-SPACE TLV
For a PCC to inform the label space under the PCE control, this
document defines a new LABEL-CONTROL-SPACE TLV.
The LABEL-CONTROL-SPACE TLV is an optional TLV for use in the OPEN
object, and its format is shown in the following figure:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type=TBA | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Block | Flags |A|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Start (1) | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Range (1) | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Start (n) | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Range (n) | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: LABEL-CONTROL-SPACE TLV
The type (16 bits) of the TLV is TBA. The length field (16 bits) and
has a variable value.
Li, et al. Expires June 21, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft PCE Controlled ID Space December 2018
Block(8 bits): the number of ID blocks. The range of a block is
described by a start field and a range field.
Flags (24 bits): Following flags are currently defined
o A-flag: All space flag, set when all the label space is delegated
to a PCE. When A-flag is set, the pair of Start and End SHOULD
NOT appear unless the PCC needs to notify the entire ID space to a
PCE.
The unassigned bits of Flags field MUST be set to 0 on transmission
and MUST be ignored on receipt.
Start(i) (24 bits): indicates the beginning of the label block i.
Range(i) (24 bits): indicates the range of the label block i.
Reserved: SHOULD be set to 0 on transmission and MUST be ignored on
reception.
LABEL-CONTROL-SPACE TLV SHOULD be included only once in a Open
Message. On receipt, only the first instance is processed and others
MUST be ignored.
A stateful PCE can actively allocate labels and download forwarding
instructions for the PCECC LSP as described in
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller]. A PCE can also
allocate labels from SRGB/SRLB for PCECC-SR
[I-D.zhao-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr] and Binding Segments
can be selected for the PCE controlled space.
5.1.2. FUNCT-ID-CONTROL-SPACE TLV
For a PCC to inform the SRv6 SID Function ID space under the PCE
control, this document defines a new FUNCT-ID-CONTROL-SPACE TLV.
The FUNCT-ID-CONTROL-SPACE TLV is an optional TLV for use in the OPEN
object, and its format is shown in the following figure:
Li, et al. Expires June 21, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft PCE Controlled ID Space December 2018
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type=TBA | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Block | Flags |L|A|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Start (1) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Range (1) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ...... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Start (n) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Range (n) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Loc Size | Locator (variable)... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: FUNCT-ID-CONTROL-SPACE TLV
The type (16 bits) of the TLV is TBA. The length field (16 bits) and
has a variable value.
Block(8 bits): the number of ID blocks. The range of a block is
described by a start field and a range field.
Flags (24 bits): Following flags are currently defined
o A-flag: All space flag, set when all the Function ID space is
delegated to a PCE. When A-flag is set, the pair of Start and End
SHOULD NOT appear unless the PCC needs to notify the entire ID
space to a PCE.
Li, et al. Expires June 21, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft PCE Controlled ID Space December 2018
o L-flag: Locator flag, set when the locator information is included
in this TLV. If L-flag is unset, Loc Size and variable Locator
field will not be included in this TLV, and the ID spaces are
applicable to all Locators.
The unassigned bits of Flags field MUST be set to 0 on transmission
and MUST be ignored on receipt.
Start(i) (128 bits): indicates the beginning of the Function ID block
i.
Range(i) (128 bits): indicates the range of the Function ID block i.
Loc size(8 bits): indicates the bit length of a Locator. Appears
only when the L-flag is set.
Locator (variable length): the value of a Locator. The Function ID
spaces specified in this TLV are associated with this locator.
As per [RFC5440], the value portion of the PCEP TLV needs to be
4-bytes aligned, so a FUNCT-ID-CONTROL-SPACE TLV is padded with
trailing zeros to a 4-byte boundary.
Multiple FUNCT-ID-CONTROL-SPACE TLVs can be included in a OPEN
message to specify the Function ID space of locators.
A stateful PCE can actively allocate SRv6 SID and download forwarding
instructions for the PCECC SRv6 path as described in
[I-D.dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6].
Note that SRv6 SID allocation involves LOC:FUNCT; the LOC is assumed
to be known at PCE and FUNCT is allocated from the PCE controlled
Function ID block.
6. Other Considerations
In case of multiple PCEs, a PCC MAY decide to give control over
different ID space to each instance of the PCE. In case a PCC
includes the same ID space to multiple PCEs, the PCE SHOULD use
synchronization mechanism (such as [I-D.litkowski-pce-state-sync]) to
avoid allocating the same ID.
The PCE would allocated ID from the PCE controlled ID space. The PCC
would not allocated ID by itself from this space as long as it has an
active PCEP session to a PCE to which it has given control over the
ID space.
Li, et al. Expires June 21, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft PCE Controlled ID Space December 2018
Note that if there is any change in the ID space, the PCC MUST bring
the session down and re-establish the session with new TLVs. During
state synchronization the PCE would need to consider the new ID space
into consideration and SHOULD re-establish the LSP/SR-paths if
needed.
The PCC can take control back of the ID space by closing the PCEP
session and not including the PCE Controlled ID space TLVs specified
in this document.
7. IANA Considerations
TBA.
8. Security Considerations
TBA.
9. Contributors
Dhruv Dhody
Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
India
EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
10. Acknowledgements
TBA.
11. References
11.1. 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>.
Li, et al. Expires June 21, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft PCE Controlled ID Space December 2018
[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>.
[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>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>.
[RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281>.
[RFC8283] Farrel, A., Ed., Zhao, Q., Ed., Li, Z., and C. Zhou, "An
Architecture for Use of PCE and the PCE Communication
Protocol (PCEP) in a Network with Central Control",
RFC 8283, DOI 10.17487/RFC8283, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8283>.
11.2. Informative References
[RFC4657] Ash, J., Ed. and J. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic
Requirements", RFC 4657, DOI 10.17487/RFC4657, September
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4657>.
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing]
Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,
and J. Hardwick, "PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing",
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-14 (work in progress),
October 2018.
Li, et al. Expires June 21, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft PCE Controlled ID Space December 2018
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller]
Zhao, Q., Li, Z., Dhody, D., Karunanithi, S., Farrel, A.,
and C. Zhou, "PCEP Procedures and Protocol Extensions for
Using PCE as a Central Controller (PCECC) of LSPs", draft-
ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-00 (work in
progress), November 2018.
[I-D.zhao-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr]
Zhao, Q., Li, Z., Dhody, D., Karunanithi, S., Farrel, A.,
and C. Zhou, "PCEP Procedures and Protocol Extensions for
Using PCE as a Central Controller (PCECC) of SR-LSPs",
draft-zhao-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr-03 (work
in progress), June 2018.
[I-D.litkowski-pce-state-sync]
Litkowski, S., Sivabalan, S., and D. Dhody, "Inter
Stateful Path Computation Element communication
procedures", draft-litkowski-pce-state-sync-04 (work in
progress), October 2018.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
Filsfils, C., Sivabalan, S., daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d.,
bogdanov@google.com, b., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing
Policy Architecture", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-
policy-02 (work in progress), October 2018.
[I-D.dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6]
Dhody, D. and Z. Li, "PCEP Procedures and Protocol
Extensions for Using PCE as a Central Controller (PCECC)
for SRv6", draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-
srv6-00 (work in progress), October 2018.
Authors' Addresses
Cheng Li
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China
EMail: chengli13@huawei.com
Li, et al. Expires June 21, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft PCE Controlled ID Space December 2018
Mach(Guoyi) Chen
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China
EMail: Mach.chen@huawei.com
Jie Dong
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China
EMail: jie.dong@huawei.com
Zhenbin Li
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China
EMail: lizhenbin@huawei.com
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
Beiqijia Town,
Beijing, Changping District 102209
China
EMail: wangaj.bri@chinatelecom.cn
Li, et al. Expires June 21, 2019 [Page 14]