Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Extensions for Path Key Support
RFC 5553
| Document | Type | RFC - Proposed Standard (May 2009; No errata) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Richard Bradford , Vasseur Jp , Adrian Farrel | ||
| Last updated | 2018-12-20 | ||
| Replaces | draft-bradford-ccamp-path-key-ero | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
| Reviews | |||
| Stream | WG state | (None) | |
| Document shepherd | No shepherd assigned | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 5553 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | Ross Callon | ||
| Send notices to | (None) | ||
Network Working Group A. Farrel, Ed.
Request for Comments: 5553 Old Dog Consulting
Category: Standards Track R. Bradford
JP. Vasseur
Cisco Systems, Inc.
May 2009
Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Extensions for Path Key Support
Status of This Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Farrel, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 5553 RSVP Extensions for Path Key Support May 2009
Abstract
The paths taken by Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched
Paths (LSPs) may be computed by Path Computation Elements (PCEs).
Where the TE LSP crosses multiple domains, such as Autonomous Systems
(ASes), the path may be computed by multiple PCEs that cooperate,
with each responsible for computing a segment of the path.
To preserve confidentiality of topology within each AS, the PCEs
support a mechanism to hide the contents of a segment of a path (such
as the segment of the path that traverses an AS), called the
Confidential Path Segment (CPS), by encoding the contents as a Path
Key Subobject (PKS) and embedding this subobject within the result of
its path computation.
This document describes how to carry Path Key Subobjects in the
Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Explicit Route Objects (EROs)
and Record Route Objects (RROs) so as to facilitate confidentiality
in the signaling of inter-domain TE LSPs.
1. Introduction
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) are signaled
using the TE extensions to the Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP-
TE) [RFC3209], [RFC3473]. The routes followed by MPLS and GMPLS TE
LSPs may be computed by Path Computation Elements (PCEs) [RFC4655].
Where the TE LSP crosses multiple domains [RFC4726], such as
Autonomous Systems (ASes), the path may be computed by multiple PCEs
that cooperate, with each responsible for computing a segment of the
path. To preserve confidentiality of topology with each AS, the PCE
Communications Protocol (PCEP) [RFC5440] supports a mechanism to hide
the contents of a segment of a path, called the Confidential Path
Segment (CPS), by encoding the contents as a Path Key Subobject (PKS)
[RFC5520].
This document defines RSVP-TE protocol extensions necessary to
support the use of Path Key Subobjects in MPLS and GMPLS signaling by
including them in Explicit Route Objects (EROs) and Record Route
Object (RROs) so as to facilitate confidentiality in the signaling of
inter-domain TE LSPs.
Farrel, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 5553 RSVP Extensions for Path Key Support May 2009
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
1.2. Usage Scenario
Figure 1 shows a simple network constructed of two ASes. An LSP is
desired from the ingress in AS-1 to the egress in AS-2. As described
in [RFC4655], the ingress Label Switching Router (LSR) acts as a Path
Computation Client (PCC) and sends a request to its PCE (PCE-1).
PCE-1 can compute the path within AS-1 but has no visibility into
AS-2. So PCE-1 cooperates with PCE-2 to complete the path
computation.
However, PCE-2 does not want to share the information about the path
across AS-2 with nodes outside the AS. So, as described in
[RFC5520], PCE-2 reports the AS-2 path segment using a PKS rather
than the explicit details of the path.
PCE-1 can now return the path to be signaled to the ingress LSR in a
path computation response with the AS-2 segment still hidden as a
PKS.
In order to set up the LSP, the ingress LSR signals using RSVP-TE and
encodes the path reported by PCE-1 in the Explicit Route Object
(ERO). This process is as normal for RSVP-TE but requires that the
PKS is also included in the ERO, using the mechanisms defined in this
document.
When the signaling message (the RSVP-TE Path message) reaches ASBR-2
(Autonomous System Border Router), it consults PCE-2 to 'decode' the
PKS and return the expanded explicit path segment to ASBR-2. (The
information that PCE-2 uses to decode the PKS is encoded within the
PKS itself.) The PKS is replaced in the ERO with the expanded
information about the path.
Farrel, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 5553 RSVP Extensions for Path Key Support May 2009
----------------------------- ----------------------------
| AS-1 | | AS-2 |
| | | |
| ------- | | ------- |
| | PCE-1 |<---------------+--+-->| PCE-2 | |
| ------- | | ------- |
| ^ | | ^ |
| | | | | |
| v | | v |
| ------- ---- | | ---- |
| | PCC | - - |ASBR| | | |ASBR| - - ------ |
| |Ingress|--|A|--|B|--| 1 |-+--+-| 2 |--|C|--|D|--|Egress| |
| ------- - - ----- | | ---- - - ------ |
| | | |
----------------------------- ----------------------------
Figure 1: A Simple Network to Demonstrate the Use of the PKS
Note that PCE-2 may in some case be co-located with ASBR-2.
2. Terminology
CPS: Confidential Path Segment. A segment of a path that contains
nodes and links that the AS policy requires to not be disclosed
outside the AS.
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.
PKS: Path Key Subobject. A subobject of an Explicit Route Object
that encodes a CPS so as to preserve confidentiality.
3. RSVP-TE Path Key Subobject
The Path Key Subobject (PKS) may be carried in the Explicit Route
Object (ERO) of an RSVP-TE Path message [RFC3209]. The PKS is a
fixed-length subobject containing a Path Key and a PCE-ID. The Path
Key is an identifier or token used to represent the CPS within the
context of the PCE identified by the PCE-ID. The PCE-ID identifies
the PCE that can decode the Path Key using a reachable IPv4 or IPv6
address of the PCE. In most cases, the decoding PCE is also the PCE
that computed the Path Key and the associated path. Because of the
IPv4 and IPv6 variants, two subobjects are defined as follows.
Farrel, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 5553 RSVP Extensions for Path Key Support May 2009
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type | Length | Path Key |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PCE-ID (4 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: RSVP-TE Path Key Subobject using an
IPv4 address for the PCE-ID
L
The L bit SHOULD NOT be set, so that the subobject represents a
strict hop in the explicit route.
Type
Subobject Type for a Path Key with a 32-bit PCE-ID as assigned by
IANA.
Length
The Length contains the total length of the subobject in bytes,
including the Type and Length fields. The Length is always 8.
PCE-ID
A 32-bit identifier of the PCE that can decode this key. The
identifier MUST be unique within the scope of the domain that the
CPS crosses and MUST be understood by the LSR that will act as
PCC for the expansion of the PKS. The interpretation of the
PCE-ID is subject to domain-local policy. It MAY be an IPv4
address of the PCE that is always reachable and MAY be an address
that is restricted to the domain in which the LSR that is called
upon to expand the CPS lies. Other values that have no meaning
outside the domain (for example, the Router ID of the PCE) MAY be
used to increase security or confidentiality.
Farrel, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 5553 RSVP Extensions for Path Key Support May 2009
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type | Length | Path Key |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PCE-ID (16 bytes) |
| |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: RSVP-TE Path Key Subobject using an
IPv6 address for the PCE-ID
L
As above.
Type
Subobject Type for a Path Key with a 128-bit PCE-ID as assigned
by IANA.
Length
The Length contains the total length of the subobject in bytes,
including the Type and Length fields. The Length is always 20.
PCE-ID
A 128-bit identifier of the PCE that can decode this key. The
identifier MUST be unique within the scope of the domain that the
CPS crosses and MUST be understood by the LSR that will act as
PCC for the expansion of the PKS. The interpretation of the
PCE-ID is subject to domain-local policy. It MAY be an IPv6
address of the PCE that is always reachable, and MAY be an
address that is restricted to the domain in which the LSR that is
called upon to expand the CPS lies. Other values that have no
meaning outside the domain (for example, the IPv6 TE Router ID)
MAY be used to increase security (see Section 4).
Note: The twins of these subobjects are carried in PCEP messages as
defined in [RFC5520].
Farrel, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 5553 RSVP Extensions for Path Key Support May 2009
3.1. Explicit Route Object Processing Rules
The basic processing rules of an ERO are not altered. Refer to
[RFC3209] for details. In particular, an LSR is not required to
"look ahead" in the ERO beyond the first subobject that is non-local.
[RFC5520] requires that any path fragment generated by a PCE that
contains a PKS be such that the PKS is immediately preceded by a
subobject that identifies the head end of the PKS (for example, an
incoming interface or a node ID). This rule is extended to the PKS
in the ERO so that the following rules are defined.
- If an LSR receives a Path message where the first subobject of the
ERO is a PKS, it MUST respond with a PathErr message carrying the
error code/value combination "Routing Problem" / "Bad initial
subobject".
- If an LSR strips all local subobjects from an ERO carried in a Path
message (according to the procedures in [RFC3209]) and finds that
the next subobject is a PKS, it MUST attempt to resolve the PKS to
a CPS.
Resolution of the PKS MAY take any of the following forms or use
some other technique subject to local policy and network
implementation.
o The LSR can use the PCE-ID contained in the PKS to contact the
identified PCE using PCEP [RFC5440] and request that the PKS be
expanded.
o The LSR can contact any PCE using PCEP [RFC5440] to request that
the PKS be expanded, relying on cooperation between the PCEs.
o The LSR can use the information in the PKS to index a CPS
previously supplied to it by the PCE that originated the PKS.
If a CPS is derived, the path fragment SHOULD be inserted into the
ERO of the Path message as a direct replacement for the PKS. Other
processing of the CPS and ERO are permitted as described in
[RFC3209].
This processing can give rise to the following error cases:
o PCE-ID cannot be matched to a PCE to decode the PKS.
The LSR sends a PathErr message with the error code "Routing
Problem" and the new error value "Unknown PCE-ID for PKS
expansion" (see Section 6.3).
Farrel, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 5553 RSVP Extensions for Path Key Support May 2009
o PCE identified by the PCE-ID cannot be reached.
The LSR sends a PathErr message with the error code "Routing
Problem" and the new error value "Unreachable PCE for PKS
expansion" (see Section 6.3).
o The PCE is unable to decode the PKS, perhaps because the Path Key
has expired.
The LSR sends a PathErr message with the error code "Routing
Problem" and the new error value "Unknown Path Key for PKS
expansion" (see Section 6.3).
o PKS cannot be decoded for policy reasons.
The LSR sends a PathErr message with the error code "Policy
Control Failure" and the error value "Inter-domain policy
failure".
o Addition of CPS to ERO causes Path message to become too large.
The LSR MAY replace part of the ERO with loose hops [RFC3209] or
with a further PKS, according to local policy, if the loss of
specifics within the explicit path is acceptable. If the LSR is
unable to take steps to reduce the size of the ERO, it MUST send
a PathErr message with the error code "Routing Problem" and the
new error value "ERO too large for MTU" (see Section 6.3).
- An LSR that is called on to process a PKS within an ERO but that
does not recognize the subobject, will react according to [RFC3209]
and send a PathErr message with the error code/value combination
"Routing Problem" / "Bad Explicit Route Object".
3.2. Reporting Path Key Segments in Record Route Objects
The Record Route Object (RRO) is used in RSVP-TE to record the route
traversed by an LSP. The RRO may be present on a Path message and on
a Resv message. The intention of [RFC3209] is that an RRO on a Resv
message that is received by an ingress LSR is suitable for use as an
ERO on a Path message sent by that LSR to achieve an identical LSP.
The PKS offers an alternative that can be more useful to diagnostics.
When the signaling message crosses a domain boundary, the path
segment that needs to be hidden (that is, a CPS) MAY be replaced in
the RRO with a PKS. In the case of an RRO on a Resv message, the PKS
used SHOULD be the one originally signaled in the ERO of the Path
message. On a Path message, the PKS SHOULD identify the LSR
replacing the CPS and provide a Path Key that can be used to expand
Farrel, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 5553 RSVP Extensions for Path Key Support May 2009
the path segment. In the latter case, the Path Key and its expansion
SHOULD be retained by the LSR that performs the substitution for at
least the lifetime of the LSP. In both cases, the expansion of the
PKS SHOULD be made available to diagnostic tools under the control of
local policy.
4. Security Considerations
The protocol interactions required by the mechanisms described in
this document are point-to-point and can be authenticated and made
secure as described in [RFC5440] and [RFC3209]. The protocol
interactions for PCEP are listed in [RFC5520], while general
considerations for securing RSVP-TE in MPLS-TE and GMPLS networks can
be found in [MPLS-SEC].
Thus, security issues can be dealt with using standard techniques for
securing and authenticating point-to-point communications. In
addition, it is RECOMMENDED that the PCE providing a PKS expansion
check that the LSR that issued the request for PKS expansion is the
head end of the resulting CPS.
Further protection can be provided by using a PCE-ID to identify the
decoding PCE that is only meaningful within the domain that contains
the LSR at the head of the CPS. This may be either an IP address
that is only reachable from within the domain or some non-address
value. The former requires configuration of policy on the PCEs; the
latter requires domain-wide policy.
The following specific security issues need to be considered.
- Confidentiality of the CPS. The question to be answered is whether
other network elements can probe a PCE for the expansion of PKSs,
possibly generating Path Keys at random. This can be protected
against by only allowing PKS expansion to be successfully completed
if requested by the LSR that is at the head end of the resulting
CPS. Under specific circumstances, PKS expansion might also be
allowed by configured management stations.
The CPS itself may be kept confidential as it is exchanged in the
PCEP and RSVP-TE protocols using standard security mechanisms
defined for those protocols.
- Determination of information by probing. In addition to the
probing described above, a node might deduce information from the
error responses that are generated when PKS expansion fails as
described in Section 3.1. Any LSR that determines that supplying
one of the detailed error codes described in Section 3.1 might
Farrel, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 5553 RSVP Extensions for Path Key Support May 2009
provide too much information that could be used as part of a
systematic attack MAY simply use the error code/value "Policy
Control Failure" / "Inter-domain policy failure" in all cases.
- Authenticity of the Path Key. A concern is that the Path Key in
the PKS will be altered or faked, leading to erroneous Path Key
expansion and use of the wrong CPS. The consequence would be a bad
ERO in a Path message, causing the LSP to be set up incorrectly and
resulting in incorrect network resource usage, diversion of traffic
to where it can be intercepted, or failure to set up the LSP.
These problems can be prevented by protecting the protocol
exchanges in PCEP and RSVP-TE using the security techniques
described in [RFC5440], [RFC3209], and [MPLS-SEC].
- Resilience to denial-of-service (DoS) attacks. A PCE can be
attacked through a flood of Path Key expansion requests -- this
issue is addressed in [RFC5520] and is out of scope for this
document. A further attack might consist of sending a flood of
RSVP-TE Path messages with deliberately spurious PKSs. This attack
is prevented by ensuring the integrity of the Path messages using
standard RSVP-TE security mechanisms and by enforcing the RSVP-TE
chain-of-trust security model.
5. Manageability Considerations
5.1. Control of Function through Configuration and Policy
Policy forms an important part of the use of PKSs in EROs and RROs.
There are local and domain-wide policies that SHOULD be available for
configuration in an implementation.
- Handling of an ERO containing a PKS. As described in Section 3.1,
an LSR that receives a Path message containing a PKS can be
configured to reject the Path message according to policy.
- Handling of PKS requests at a PCE. As described in Section 3.1, in
[RFC5520], and in [RFC5394], a PCE can be configured with policy
regarding how it should handle requests for PKS expansion.
- PKS expansion. Section 3.1 explains that the PKS can be expanded
by the local LSR, the specific PCE identified in the PKS, any PCE
acting as a proxy, or by some other method. The behavior of the
LSR needs to be locally configurable but is subject to the domain-
wide policy.
- Interpretation of PCE-ID. The interpretation of the PCE-ID
component of PKSs is subject to domain-local policy and needs to be
configurable as such. See Section 3 and Section 4 for the options.
Farrel, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 5553 RSVP Extensions for Path Key Support May 2009
- ERO too large. The behavior of an LSR when it finds that adding a
CPS to the ERO causes the Path message to be too large is an
implementation choice. However, implementations may choose to
provide configuration of behavior as described in Section 3.1.
- Masking of RRO. As described in Section 3.2, a border router can
choose to mask segments of the path by replacing them with PKSs.
This behavior needs to be configurable, with the default being to
not hide any part of the RRO.
- Inspection / decoding of PKS by diagnostic tools. A PCE can allow
access from management or diagnostic tools to request the expansion
of a PKS. Note that this must be regulated with the security and
confidentiality behavior described in Section 4.
- Hiding of reason codes. An LSR can support the configuration of
local policy to hide reason codes associated with the failure to
expand a PKS and, as described in Section 4, report all errors as
policy failures.
The treatment of a path segment as a CPS, and its substitution in a
PCRep ERO with a PKS, is a PCE function and is described in
[RFC5520].
6. IANA Considerations
6.1. Explicit Route Object Subobjects
IANA maintains a registry called "Resource Reservation Protocol
(RSVP) Parameters" with a subregistry called "Class Names, Class
Numbers, and Class Types".
Within this subregistry, there is a definition of the EXPLICIT_ROUTE
object with Class Number 20. The object definition lists a number of
acceptable subobjects for the Class Type 1.
IANA has allocated two further subobjects as described in Section 3.
The resulting entry in the registry is as follows.
20 EXPLICIT_ROUTE [RFC3209]
Class Types or C-Types:
1 Type 1 Explicit Route [RFC3209]
Subobject type
64 Path Key with 32-bit PCE-ID [RFC5553]
65 Path Key with 128-bit PCE-ID [RFC5553]
Farrel, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 5553 RSVP Extensions for Path Key Support May 2009
Note well: [RFC5520] defines the PKS for use in PCEP. IANA has
assigned the same subobject numbers for use in RSVP-TE as are
assigned for the PKS in PCEP. The numbers above are the same as in
[RFC5520].
6.2. Record Route Objects Subobjects
IANA maintains a registry called "Resource Reservation Protocol
(RSVP) Parameters" with a subregistry called "Class Names, Class
Numbers, and Class Types".
Within this subregistry, there is a definition of the ROUTE_RECORD
object (also known as the RECORD_ROUTE object) with Class Number 21.
The object definition lists a number of acceptable subobjects for the
Class Type 1.
IANA has allocated two further subobjects as described in Section 3.
The resulting entry in the registry is as follows.
21 ROUTE_RECORD [RFC3209]
(also known as RECORD_ROUTE)
Class Types or C-Types:
1 Type 1 Route Record [RFC3209]
Subobject type
64 Path Key with 32-bit PCE-ID [RFC5553]
65 Path Key with 128-bit PCE-ID [RFC5553]
Note well: IANA is requested to use the same subobject numbers as are
defined for the EXPLICIT_ROUTE object in Section 6.1.
6.3. Error Codes and Error Values
IANA maintains a registry called "Resource Reservation Protocol
(RSVP) Parameters" with a subregistry called "Error Codes and
Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes".
Within this subregistry, there is a definition of the "Routing
Problem" error code with error code value 24. The definition lists a
number of error values that may be used with this error code.
IANA has allocated further error values for use with this error code
as described in Section 3.1. The resulting entry in the registry is
as follows.
Farrel, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 5553 RSVP Extensions for Path Key Support May 2009
24 Routing Problem [RFC3209]
This Error Code has the following globally defined Error
Value sub-codes:
31 = Unknown PCE-ID for PKS expansion [RFC5553]
32 = Unreachable PCE for PKS expansion [RFC5553]
33 = Unknown Path Key for PKS expansion [RFC5553]
34 = ERO too large for MTU [RFC5553]
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC
3473, January 2003.
7.2. Informative References
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and J. Ash, "A Path
Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
August 2006.
[RFC4726] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and A. Ayyangar, "A Framework
for Inter-Domain Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic
Engineering", RFC 4726, November 2006.
[RFC5394] Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., Berger, L., and J. Ash,
"Policy-Enabled Path Computation Framework", RFC 5394,
December 2008.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed., and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
March 2009.
[RFC5520] Bradford, R., Ed., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel,
"Preserving Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path
Computation Using a Path-Key-Based Mechanism", RFC 5520,
April 2009.
Farrel, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 5553 RSVP Extensions for Path Key Support May 2009
[MPLS-SEC] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", Work in Progress, March 2009.
Authors' Addresses
Adrian Farrel
Old Dog Consulting
EMail: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Rich Bradford
Cisco Systems, Inc.
1414 Massachusetts Avenue
Boxborough, MA - 01719
USA
EMail: rbradfor@cisco.com
Jean-Philippe Vasseur
Cisco Systems, Inc
11, Rue Camille Desmoulins
L'Atlantis
92782 Issy Les Moulineaux
France
EMail: jpv@cisco.com
Farrel, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]