Internet DRAFT - draft-dong-mpls-frr-resource-class
draft-dong-mpls-frr-resource-class
Network Working Group J. Dong
Internet-Draft M. Chen
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies
Expires: May 3, 2012 C. Villamizar
OCCNC, LLC
October 31, 2011
MPLS-TE Fast Reroute Resource Classification
draft-dong-mpls-frr-resource-class-01
Abstract
This document describes simple and backward compatible extensions to
Fast-Reroute (FRR) MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE). The purpose of
these extensions include the following. These extensions provide a
classification of SRLG to support LSP with differing protection
requirements. These extensions allow highly reliable nodes or links,
typically resources with redundancy at a lower layer, to be
identified to allow LSP to optionally not consider these resources as
potential points of failure.
Requirements Language
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 [RFC2119].
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
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://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 May 3, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
Dong, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE FRR Resource Classification October 2011
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://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. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. TE FRR Resource Class Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Setting Default Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Backwards Compatibility with Legacy PLR . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. Backwards Compatibility with Legacy Ingress . . . . . . . 5
4. TE FRR Resource Class Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. IGP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. OSPF Node Reliability sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.2. OSPF Link Reliability sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.3. IS-IS Node Reliability TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.4. IS-IS Link Reliability TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.5. Shared Risk Node Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.6. Extended Shared Risk Link Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. RSVP-TE Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1. Resource Attribute Bit Mask . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Protocol Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. To Be Completed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.1. OSPF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.2. IS-IS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.3. RSVP-TE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Dong, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE FRR Resource Classification October 2011
1. Introduction
MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE) Fast Reroute (FRR) [RFC4090] is widely
used for protecting MPLS-TE LSPs from local failures. TE FRR
implementations today can consistently achieve redirection of traffic
from a single resource failure to other local resources in 10s of
milliseconds. TE FRR can therefore provide high availability for
service carried on the TE LSP.
The existing TE FRR defines several protection and switching modes
which are designed to apply to all protected LSPs regardless of what
kind of availability is required by the service. Protection must
accomodate the most strict protection requirements of any service
carried, even though protection of low probability failures are not
appropriate for other services. Where this occurs, the result can be
greater requirements for network resources and higher network costs.
This document first describes the flexibility limitations in existing
TE FRR that are addressed and then proposes a flexible TE FRR
mechanism to address them.
2. Problem Statement
MPLS-TE LSPs may be used to carry services which require different
levels of availability. MPLS-TE FRR mechanism defined in [RFC4090]
can only provide the same local protection level for LSPs regardless
of the availability requirement of the services.
In some cases network nodes with sufficient internal redundancy
mechanisms could be considered sufficiently immune to node failures
for most services. Similarly, some links could also be considered
sufficiently redundant for most services. Examples of reliable links
are link bundle and multipath links that do not use common media,
such as parallel physical links deployed within a provider facility.
Thus for most services such nodes and links could be considered
sufficiently reliable that they do not need be protected at LSP
level.
A subset of LSP may require extremely high availability. Commonly
cited examples include communications among emergency first
responders (police, fire, etc) and application for which loss of
connectivity may result in large financial losses (financial
services, e-commerce, trading). These services may require
protection against Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) which would be
expected to cause failure in extremely rare circumstances. This same
high level of protection is unnecessary for most services.
Dong, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE FRR Resource Classification October 2011
In order to provide different levels of local protection for
different kinds of services, a more flexible TE FRR mechanism is
required. Resource classes and resource class affinity are proposed
to address this.
3. TE FRR Resource Class Overview
To support different levels of local protection, a classification of
node and link reliability is defined. This information is carried in
the TE link state database (TED). A classification may be associated
with a node, a link, or an SRLG. Extensions are defined for OSPF-TE
and ISIS-TE.
To support a decision at the point of local repair (PLR), an
extension is defined for RSVP-TE. The requirements of a specific LSP
is defined in the RSVP-TE PATH message. The requirements are
expressed as changes from a default behavior.
3.1. Setting Default Behavior
Signaling can be reduced by configuring a default behavior at
potential PLR. If the majority of services do not require protection
from relatively reliable nodes and/or links, setting configured
defaults to this behavior allows a small reduction in the size of
RSVP-TE PATH messages.
Using a new TLV to define SRLG which are disabled by default can
improve backward compatibility with respect to legacy PLR in cases
where it is preferred that these legacy PLR ignore these low
probability SRLG for all LSP. Using the SRLG extensions understood
by the legacy PLR allows these PLR to consider low probability SRLG
for all LSP, with extension affecting only the PLR implementing this
specification.
3.2. Backwards Compatibility with Legacy PLR
Legacy PLR will ignore distinctions between relatively reliable nodes
or links and low probability SRLG and those which are relatively
unreliable. These PLRs may choose protection paths which error on
the side of providing more protection for some services than is
required. At worst, this has an impact on network cost, but still
would represent a lower cost than if the extensions were unavailable
at all nodes.
SRLG can be defined such that legacy PLR either always consider the
SRLG or always ignore the SRLG. Only the PLR implementing this
specification will be able to selectively apply classes of SRLG on a
Dong, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE FRR Resource Classification October 2011
per LSP basis.
3.3. Backwards Compatibility with Legacy Ingress
Legacy Ingress will not provide any extensions which allow LSP to be
treated differently from the default. In a brownfield installation
the defaults can be set to provide the level of protection that had
been available. Extensions can then be used by LSR implementing this
specification to indicate LSP which require some protection, but less
than this default, or more protection than this default.
4. TE FRR Resource Class Protocol Extensions
This document defines the following extensions.
1. new TLVs in OSPF and IS-IS to provide a means of host or link
reliability classification.
2. new TLVs in OSPF and IS-IS to provide SRLG classification.
3. a new alternate SRLG TLV for OSPF and IS-IS to allow definition
of SRLG that will be ignored by legacy PLR.
4. an extension to RSVP-TE to allow per LSP deviations from default
protection to be specified.
5. IGP Extensions
5.1. OSPF Node Reliability sub-TLV
The reliability of a node is specified using a Node Reliability sub-
TLV of the Node Attribute TLV [RFC5786]. Length of this sub-TLV is
variable. The format 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TBD | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags | Node Classification Bit Map |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Zero or more SRNG |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The type code is TBA for Node Reliability sub-TLV.
Dong, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE FRR Resource Classification October 2011
The length field is set to four plus the number of SRNG included time
the size of an SRNG.
The Flags field is reserved for future use.
The 3-octet Node Classification Bit Map is a bit map which may be
used by operator to specify inclusion of the node in a set of
operator defined classifications.
The format of SRNG is common to OSPF and ISIS and is defined in
Section 5.5
5.2. OSPF Link Reliability sub-TLV
The reliability of link is specified using a Link Reliability sub-TLV
of the Link TLV [RFC3630]. Length of this sub-TLV is variable. The
format is as follow:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags | Link Classification Bit Map |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Zero or more Extended SRLG |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Flags field is reserved for future use.
The 3 octet Link Classification Bit Map is a bit map which may be
used by operator to specify inclusion of the link in a set of
operator defined classifications.
The format of Extended SRLG is common to OSPF and ISIS and is defined
in Section 5.5
5.3. IS-IS Node Reliability TLV
The reliability of node is specified using a Node Reliability TLV
with TLV Type TBA. Length of this TLV is variable. The format is as
follows:
Dong, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE FRR Resource Classification October 2011
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TBD | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags | Node Classification Bit Map |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Zero or more SRNG |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Flags field is reserved for future use.
The 3 octet Node Classification Bit Map is a bit map which may be
used by operator to specify inclusion of the node in a set of
operator defined classifications.
The format of SRNG is common to OSPF and ISIS and is defined in
Section 5.5
5.4. IS-IS Link Reliability TLV
The reliability of link is specified using a Link Reliability sub-TLV
of the TLV 22 [RFC5305]. Length of this sub-TLV is variable. The
format is as follow:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags | Link Classification Bit Map |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Zero or more Extended SRLG |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Flags field is reserved for future use.
The 3 octet Link Classification Bit Map is a bit map which may be
used by operator to specify inclusion of the link in a set of
operator defined classifications.
The format of Extended SRLG is common to OSPF and ISIS and is defined
in Section 5.5
5.5. Shared Risk Node Group
The Shared Risk Node Group (SRNG) is carried within either the OSPF
Node Reliability sub-TLV (see Section 5.1) or the IS-IS Node
Reliability TLV (see Section 5.3). The SRNG is 8 bytes. The format
Dong, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE FRR Resource Classification October 2011
is as follow:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Shared Risk Node Group Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags | SRNG Classification Bit Map |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Shared Risk Node Group Number (SRLG) is a 32 bit number used to
specify the inclusion of the node within a set of nodes which share a
common resource that therefore can be expected to fail simultaneously
if that resource becomes unavailable. The SRLG is a operator
assigned number which identified the resource.
The Flags field is reserved for future use.
The 3-octet SRNG Classification Bit Map is a bit map which may be
used by operator to specify inclusion of the SRNG in a set of
operator defined classifications.
5.6. Extended Shared Risk Link Group
The Extended Shared Risk Link Group (ESRLG) is carried within either
the OSPF Link Reliability sub-TLV (see Section 5.2) or the IS-IS Link
Reliability TLV (see Section 5.4). The ESRLG is 8 bytes. The format
is as follow:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Extended Shared Risk Link Group Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags | SRLG Classification Bit Map |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Extended Shared Risk Link Group Number (ESRLG) is a 32 bit number
used to specify the inclusion of the link within a set of links which
share a common resource that therefore can be expected to fail
simultaneously if that resource becomes unavailable. The SRLG is a
operator assigned number which identified the resource.
The Flags field is reserved for future use.
The 3-octet SRLG Classification Bit Map is a bit map which may be
Dong, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE FRR Resource Classification October 2011
used by operator to specify inclusion of the SRLG in a set of
operator defined classifications.
The Extended Shared Risk Link Group Number (ESRLG) may be given the
same number as an advertised SRLG when the desired behavior for
legacy PLR is to have the legacy PLR always protect against failure
of the ESRLG. If the desired behavior for legacy PLR is to have the
legacy PLR never protect against failure of the ESRLG, then the ESRLG
number must not conflict with an SRLG number.
6. RSVP-TE Extensions
6.1. Resource Attribute Bit Mask
The Resource Attribute Bit Mask is defined in LSP_ATRTRIBUTE Object.
The LSP_ATRTRIBUTE is defined in [RFC5420]. The format of the
Resource Attribute Bit Mask 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TBD | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OP| Ap| Resv | Resource Attribute Bit Mask |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The 2 bit Operation field (OP) specifies one of the following
operations. The following values are defined for the Operation
field.
00 Include if any set
01 Include if all set
10 Exclude if any set
11 Exclude if all set
The 2 bit Apply field (Ap) is a bit map which indicates which context
the bit mask is applied to. The following values are defined for the
Apply field.
00 Apply the mask to Node Reliability values
Dong, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE FRR Resource Classification October 2011
01 Apply the mask to Link Reliability values
10 Apply the mask to SRNG Reliability values
11 Apply the mask to ESRLG Reliability values
The 3-octet Resource Attribute Bit Mask is a bit mask applied to the
3-octet resource classifications specified for nodes, links, SRNG, or
ESRLG. The Apply field indicates which type of resource
classification to apply the mask to. The Operation field indicates
what action to take as a result of the mask operation.
7. Protocol Actions
The Node Reliability and Link Reliability are assigned to nodes and
links according to configuration on the LSR advertising the
containing TLV. The Resource Attribute Bit Mask is assigned
according to configuration on the ingress LSR for a given LSP.
The action taken at a PLR for a given LSP are as follows.
If no protection is required, as indicated by the "protection
desired" bit in the RSVP-TE Flags SESSION_ATTRIBUTE [RFC3209] not
being set, then no protection path is created at a potential PLR.
This behavior is unchanged.
If link disjoint protection if required, as indicated by the
"protection desired" bit set and the "Node protection desired" bit
not set [RFC4090], then protection path SHOULD NOT be established for
links which are included as a result of applying the Resource
Attribute Bit Masks for the LSP to the Link Classification Bit Map of
the link, then for links which need local protection, the protection
paths must be disjoint with respect to all SRLGs and ESRLGs included,
except SRLGs excluded as a result of applying the Resource Attribute
Bit Masks for the LSP to the SRLG Classification Bit Map.
If node disjoint protection if required, as indicated by the
"protection desired" bit set and the "Node protection desired" bit
set, then protection path SHOULD not be established for nodes or
links which are included as a result of applying the corresponding
Resource Attribute Bit Masks for the LSP to the Node Classification
Bit Map of the node or Link Classification Bit Map of the link. Then
for nodes and links which need local protection, the protection paths
must be disjoint with respect to all SRLG, SRNG and ESRLG included,
except SRNG and SRLG excluded as a result of applying the
corresponding Resource Attribute Bit Masks for the LSP to the SRNG
Classification Bit Map and the SRLG Classification Bit Map
Dong, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE FRR Resource Classification October 2011
respectively.
The action taken in the absence of any Resource Attribute Bit Masks
in all cases is identical to the action that would be taken by a
legacy PLR. Inclusion of one or more Resource Attribute Bit Mask
modifies this behavior.
8. To Be Completed
An LSP may have many Resource Attribute Bit Masks. It may be more
efficient to define a container for the Resource Attribute Bit Masks
and include that container in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES. Whether to use
such a container rather than include multiple Resource Attribute Bit
Masks directly in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES is up for discussion.
9. IANA Considerations
9.1. OSPF
The registry for the Node Attribute TLV is defined in [RFC5786].
IANA is requested to assign a new sub-TLV codepoint for the Node
Reliability sub-TLV carried in the Node Attribute TLV.
Value Sub-TLV Reference
----- ------- ---------
TBA Node Reliability sub-TLV this document
The registry for the Link TLV is defined in [RFC3630]. IANA is
requested to assign a new sub-TLV codepoint for the Link Reliability
sub-TLV carried in the Link TLV.
Value Sub-TLV Reference
----- ------- ---------
TBA Link Reliability sub-TLV this document
9.2. IS-IS
IANA is requested to assign a new TLV codepoint for Node Reliability
TLV.
Type TLV Reference
----- ------- ---------
TBA Node Reliability sub-TLV this document
The registry for TLV 22 is defined in [RFC5305]. IANA is requested
to assign a new sub-TLV codepoint for the Link Reliability sub-TLV
Dong, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE FRR Resource Classification October 2011
which is carried in TLV 22.
Value Sub-TLV Reference
----- ------- ---------
TBA Link Reliability sub-TLV this document
9.3. RSVP-TE
IANA is requested to assign a new type codepoint for the "Resource
Attribute Bit Mask" TLV in the Attribute TLV Space. It is carried in
the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object (class = 197, C-Type = 1).
Type: TBA
Name: Resource Attribute Bit Mask
Allowed on LSP_ATTRIBUTES: Yes
Allowed on LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES: No
10. Security Considerations
The function described in this document does not create any new
security issues for the OSPF and IS-IS protocols and does not
introduce any new security issues above those identified in [RFC3209]
and [RFC4090].
11. Acknowledgements
TBD
12. 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.
[RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630,
September 2003.
[RFC4090] Pan, P., Swallow, G., and A. Atlas, "Fast Reroute
Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090,
May 2005.
Dong, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE FRR Resource Classification October 2011
[RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
Engineering", RFC 5305, October 2008.
[RFC5420] Farrel, A., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, JP., and A.
Ayyangarps, "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP
Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 5420, February 2009.
[RFC5786] Aggarwal, R. and K. Kompella, "Advertising a Router's
Local Addresses in OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE)
Extensions", RFC 5786, March 2010.
Authors' Addresses
Jie Dong
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Building, No.156 Beiqing Rd
Beijing 100095
China
Email: jie.dong@huawei.com
Mach Chen
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Building, No.156 Beiqing Rd
Beijing 100095
China
Email: mach.chen@huawei.com
Curtis Villamizar
OCCNC, LLC
Email: curtis@occnc.com
Dong, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 13]