Internet DRAFT - draft-dunbar-sfc-path-control
draft-dunbar-sfc-path-control
SFC working group L. Dunbar
Internet Draft A. Malis
Intended status: Standard Track Huawei
Expires: September 2015
March 6, 2015
Framework for Service Function Path Control
draft-dunbar-sfc-path-control-01.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may not be
modified, and derivative works of it may not be created, except to
publish it as an RFC and to translate it into languages other than
English.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 6, 2015.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Dunbar, et al. Expires September 6, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SFC Path Control March 2015
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.
Abstract
This draft describes the framework of Service Function Path
Control when some service functions on the path fail or need to be
replaced.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................3
2. Conventions used in this document..............................3
3. Terminology....................................................3
4. Background.....................................................4
4.1. Multiple Entities of one Service Function.................4
4.2. Rendered Service Path (RSP)...............................5
4.2.1. SFF-sequence and SFF-SF-sequence representation......5
4.3. Multiple ways of Controlling RSP..........................7
4.4. Impact of Virtualized Service Functions to SFP............8
5. Steering Policies to SFF.......................................9
6. Local Restoration of Service Functions........................10
7. Global Restoration of Service functions.......................12
7.1. Encoding the Exact SFF-SF-sequence in Data Packets.......12
7.2. Dynamic establishment of an RSP..........................13
7.3. Out-Of-Band Signaling of changes on SFP..................14
7.4. Hybrid Method............................................14
8. Regional Restoration of Service Function......................14
9. Conclusion and Recommendation.................................15
10. Manageability Considerations.................................15
11. Security Considerations......................................15
12. IANA Considerations..........................................15
13. References...................................................16
13.1. Normative References....................................16
13.2. Informative References..................................16
14. Acknowledgments..............................................16
Dunbar, et al. Expires September 6, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SFC Path Control March 2015
1. Introduction
This draft describes the framework of Service Function Path (SFP)
control when some functions on the path fail or need to be
replaced.
SFP control for failed/moved/deleted service functions become more
crucial in virtualized environments (e.g. ETSI NFV), where service
functions are instantiated as VMs on servers. There is higher
chance of state changes for those Service functions as the result
of being decommissioned or replaced when over-utilized.
2. 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].
In this document, these words will appear with that interpretation
only when in ALL CAPS. Lower case uses of these words are not to
be interpreted as carrying RFC-2119 significance.
3. Terminology
This draft uses the following terminologies defined by SFC-arch.
RSP: Rendered Service Path [SRC-arch]
SF: Service Function [SFC-arch].
SFC: Service Function Chain [SFC-arch].
SFF: Service Function Forwarder [SFC-arch].
SFP: Service Function Path [SFC-arch].
Here are the terminologies specific for this draft:
VSFI: SFC Visible Service Function Instance.
Dunbar, et al. Expires September 6, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SFC Path Control March 2015
SFIC: Service Function Instance Component. One service
function (e.g. NAT44) could have two different service function
instantiations, one that applies policy-set-A (NAT44-A) and
other that applies policy-set-B (NAT44-B). There could be
multiple "entities" of NAT44-B (e.g. one "entity" only has 10G
capability), and many "entities" of NAT44-B. Each entity has its
own unique address. The "entity" in this context is called
"Service Function Instance Component" (SFIC).
Service Chain: The sequence of service functions, e.g. Chain#1
{s1, s4, s6}, Chain#2{s4, s7} at functional level. Also see the
definition of "Service Function Chain" in [SFC-Problem].
Service Chain Instance Path: The actual Service Function
Instance Components selected for a service chain.
VNF: Virtualized Network Function [NFV-Terminology].
4. Background
4.1. Multiple Entities of one Service Function
One service function (say, NAT44) could have two different service
function instantiations, one that applies to policy-set-A (NAT44-
A) and other that applies to policy-set-B (NAT44-B). There could
be multiple "entities" of NAT44-A (e.g. one "entity" only has 10G
capability), and many "entities" of NAT44-B. Each entity has its
own unique address (or Locator in [SFC-Reduction]). The "Entity"
in this context is called "Service Function Instance Component"
(SFIC).
Identical SFICs could be attached to different Service Function
Forwarder (SFF) nodes. It is also possible to have multiple
identical SFICs attached to one Service Function Forwarder (SFF)
node, especially in a Network Function Virtualization (NFV)
environment where each SFIC is a virtual service function with
limited capacity.
At the functional level, the order of service functions, e.g.
Chain#1 {s1, s4, s6}, Chain#2{s4, s7}, is important, but very
often which SFIC of the Service Function "s1" is selected for the
Chain #1 is not.
Some SFICs are visible to Service Chain Path. Sometimes a
collection of SFICs can appear as one single entity to the Service
Dunbar, et al. Expires September 6, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SFC Path Control March 2015
Chain Path. When multiple SFICs are attached to one SFF, the
collection of all those SFICs can appear as a single Service
Function to the Service Chain Path. As described in Section 5.5 of
[SFC-arch], the SFF can make local decision in choosing the SFIC
among the collection of directly attached identical SFICs. The
individual SFIC in this collection doesn't have to be visible to
the SFP, the classifier, or orchestration.
It is also possible that multiple SFICs of one service function
can be reached by different SFF nodes as depicted by Figure 5 of
[SFC-arch].
For the ease of description, the term "Service Function Instance"
is used in this draft to represent the identical SFICs that are
visible to the SFP. The identical SFICs attached to different SFFs
are obviously visible to SFP. But the identical SFICs attached to
one SFF via different ports can be local to the SFF, i.e. not
visible to the SFP.
4.2. Rendered Service Path (RSP)
[SFC-arch] defines RSP as the constrained specification of where
packets assigned to a certain service chain must go.
RSP can be logically represented by an ordered sequence of SFF
nodes [SFF-sequence] and an ordered sequence of SFs on each SFF of
the list [SFF-SF-sequence].
RSP can also be SF-sequence without specifying which SFFs for the
SFs.
The SFF-SF-sequence can be explicitly encoded in the SFC header
for the SFP, or can be passed down, as "traffic steering
policies", to the relevant SFF nodes.
4.2.1. SFF-sequence and SFF-SF-sequence representation
Logically, the SFF-sequence is represented by a list of SFF nodes.
For a Chain sf2 -> sf3 -> sf4 over the network depicted by the
Figure 5 of SFC-arch (shown below with some minor changes), one
RSP could be for packets to traverse sf2 & sf3 attached to sff-a
followed by the sf4 attached to SFF-c. The corresponding SFF-
sequence for the RSP is [sff-a -> sff-c]. The corresponding SFF-
SF-sequence is [(sff-a: sf2->sf3)-> (sff-c: sf4)].
Dunbar, et al. Expires September 6, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SFC Path Control March 2015
The SFF-sequence and/or SFF-SF-sequence, e.g. {sff-a, sff-c}, can
be explicitly encoded in the SFC header for the SFP.
Alternatively, the SFF-sequence and/or SFF-SF-sequence can be
passed down, as "traffic steering policies", to the "sff-a" and
"sff-c" nodes for the SFP. The traffic steering policies can be
represented as "matching" & "action".
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
|sf2| |sf2| |sf3| |sf3| |sf4| |sf4|
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
| | | | | |
+-----+-----+ +-----+-----+
| |
+ +
+----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
source+-->|sffx|+-->|sff-a|+->|sff-b|+-->|sff-c|+-->|sff-d|+-->destination
+----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
+ + +
| | |
+---+ +---+ +---+
|sf1| |sf4| |sf3|
+---+ +---+ +---+
Figure 1:Service Function Attachment diagram
Suppose the SFC ID for this SFP is "yellow", the policy to "sff-a"
can be:
Matching | Action
--------------------------------------+-------------------------
SFC ID="yellow"& ingress = sffx-port | next-hop: "sf2" &VID
SFC ID = "yellow" & ingress= sf2-port | next-hop: "sf3" &VID
SFC ID = "yellow" & ingress=sf3-port | next-hop: sff-b
Figure 2:Traffic Steering Policy to a SFF node
Dunbar, et al. Expires September 6, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft SFC Path Control March 2015
4.3. Multiple ways of Controlling RSP
How SFF-SF-sequence is selected for a given SFP to form the actual
RSP is outside the scope of this draft. It is assumed that there
is an external entity (e.g. service chain orchestration system)
that is responsible for computing the SFF-sequence or SFF-SF-
sequence for any given SFC.
This document focuses on the framework of replacing service
functions for a given SFP/RSP.
To make the description easier, the following Service Chain
architecture reference is used:
Some head end Service Chain Classifier can be configured with (or
has the ability to specify) the exact SFF-SF-sequence for a given
SFC. Some Classifier may only specify the SFF-sequence for a given
SFC. Some Classifier may not specify SFF-sequence for a given SFC.
The SFF-SF-sequence or SFF-sequence can be
1. encoded in SFC header of every data packet;
2. Dynamic establishment of SFF-SF-sequence based on a SF-
Sequence, which is almost like a list of IP addresses with
each address representing one SF on the list; or
3. Dynamically programmed into relevant SFF nodes by a
centralized network controller or a network management
system, e.g. via I2RS interface.
The benefit of the Approach 1) above, i.e. encoding the exact path
in every data packet, is no contention when there is change of
RSP. The approach 1) above is basically "two dimensional" Source
Routing, not only with explicit SFF nodes on the path, but also
with exact SF sequence by each SFF node. Here are some issues
associated with the Approach 1):
- For large flows, i.e. large number of packets in the flow,
repeating the SFF-sequence/SFF-SF-sequence encoding in all
packets may not be optimal, e.g. it can waste bandwidth which
is not suitable for environment where bandwidth is limited.
- Whenever there is any state change to the SFs or SFFs on the
path, the head end classification node has to be notified to
encode a different path in data packets.
Dunbar, et al. Expires September 6, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft SFC Path Control March 2015
The approach 2) and 3) above are more appropriate for RSPs that
don't change frequently. Not encoding the exact SFF-SF path in
every data packet is beneficial to large flows.
When the in-band or out-of-band signaling methods are used to send
the flow steering policies to the relevant SFF nodes, the packets
associated with the SFP don't need to carry the SFF-SF-sequence or
SFF-sequence. The forwarding nodes, e.g. SFFs, can establish the
proper forwarding based on the steering policies. So they don't
need to interpret the sequence carried by each packet.
The out-of-band method doesn't require the head end Service Chain
Classifier to be configured with, nor has the capability to
specify, the exact RSP. The out-of-band steering policies can be
sent from an external entity, such as a centralized network
controller or service chain orchestration system, e.g. via I2RS
interface. Under this scenario, it doesn't require the head end
Chain Classifier node to be aware of any change on the RSP.
There are times that it might not be feasible for the head end
Service Chain Classifier to be notified of the changes of SFF-
sequence or SFF-SF-Sequence for a given SFP because of the time
taken for the notification and the limited capability of the
Classifier nodes.
If each Service Function has a large number of SFICs, it scales
better if the Classifier node doesn't need to be notified with
status of SFICs on a SFP.
4.4. Impact of Virtualized Service Functions to SFP
When a SFP consists of virtualized service functions, e.g. in an
ETSI NFV environment, the likelihood of changes to the
corresponding RSP can be higher due to:
- Higher failure rate of virtualized service functions because
most of them will not have build-in protection mechanism
- When a virtualized function is over-utilized, it is
relatively easy to replace it by another one (SFIC) or
instantiate more SFICs to take over the work load.
Dunbar, et al. Expires September 6, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft SFC Path Control March 2015
5. Steering Policies to SFF
It is assumed that there is an external service function chain
manager or an orchestration system that computes the Service
Function Path including the sequence of SFF nodes and the sequence
of service functions for flows to traverse within each SFF node.
It is beyond the scope of this draft on how the Service Function
Chain orchestration system computes the path. This draft focuses
on how & what the Service Function Orchestration pass to the
Service Function Forwarder node on the specific policies, as shown
in Figure below.
The SFF nodes are interconnected by tunnels, such as GRE, VxLAN,
etc, and the SF are attached to a SFF node via Ethernet link or
other link types. Therefore, the steering policies to a SFF node
for service function chain depends on if the packet comes from
previous SFF or comes from a specific SF. I.e. the SFC Service
Layer Steering policies have to be ingress port specific. There
are multiple different steering policies for one flow within one
SFF and each set of steering policies is specific for an ingress
port.
The semantics of traffic steering rules is "Match" and "Action",
similar to the "route" described in [I-D.ietf-i2rs-rib-info-
model]. The "match" & "action" for different ports can be
different. The matching criteria for SFF can be more
sophisticated. For example, the matching criteria could be any
fields in the data packets:
- Ingress port
- destination MAC,
- source MAC,
- VLAN_id,
- destination IP,
- source IP,
- TCP port,
- UDP port,
- QoS field,
- packet size, etc, or
- combination of any fields above.
Dunbar, et al. Expires September 6, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft SFC Path Control March 2015
Ingress Port & match
|
|
+-------+---------+--+----+--------+-------+---------+-------+
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
L3Header L2header L4 VLAN VN ID size event ..
A SFF node may not support some of the matching criteria listed
above. It is important that Service Function Chain Orchestration
System can retrieve the supported matching criteria by the SFF
nodes.
The "Actions" for traffic steering could be to steer to the
attached service function or instance via a specific port with
specific VLAN-ID added, or next SFF nodes with specific VxLAN
header.
When steering to the attached service function, the action has to
include if additional VLAN-ID has to be added, or some header
field of the packets have to be removed (for packets with certain
header that is not supported by the attached service functions).
Action
|
|
+------------------------+-------------+-------+-----
| | | |
| | | |
Ingress from last SFF Steer to next SF | Egress to next SFF
Decapsulate packet header Add MAC header | Encapsulate VxLAN
| (SFF header, MPLS header, ..)
|
Ingress from SF
Remove MAC header
Encapsulate SFC header
6. Local Restoration of Service Functions
When one SF Forwarder (SFF) node has multiple Service Function
Instance Components (SFICs) of the same service function attached,
the SFF can make a local decision on which SFIC is selected for a
a given SFP, as described in Section 5.5 of [SFC-arch].
Dunbar, et al. Expires September 6, 2015 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft SFC Path Control March 2015
E.g. In the diagram below, The SF Forwarder (SFF) "A" has two
instances of Service Function #7(SF7-1 & SF7-2), and 3 instances
of Service Function #2 (SF2-2, SF2-4, SF2-5).
+----+ +---+ +---+ +---+
| SF2| |SF2| |SF2| |SFx|
| -2 | |-4 | |-5 | |-1 |
+----+ +---+ +---+ +---+
| | | |
+------+-------+-------+
|
+----+ +---+ | +---+ +---+
| SF7| |SF7| | |SF5| |SF5|
| -1 | |-2 | | |-2 | |-4 |
+----+ +---+ | +---+ +---+
: / / /
: / / /-----/
\ / / /
+--------------+ +---------- +----+
-- >| Chain |-- | SFF |------| SFF| ---->
|classifier | | A | | C |
+--------------+ +----------+ +----+
Figure 3:Local Restoration of Service Functions
For a service function chain that consists of "Service Function
#7" followed by "Service Function #2", which is represented by
SF7->SF2, the steering policy to SFF "A" could be simply SF7->SF2
without specifying which components of SF7 & SF2 are selected. In
order for a SFF node to make local decision to choose one of the
identical SFICs for a service function, the SFF node has to be
aware of the SFICs for a given function on the SFP. The SFF node
can be notified or configured with such information:
SF7 == {Port# for SF7-1, Port# for SF7-3}
SF2 == {Port# for SF2-2, Port# for SF2-4, Port# SF2-5}.
The multiple components within the {} represents the equal SFICs
that the SFF can select locally.
Dunbar, et al. Expires September 6, 2015 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft SFC Path Control March 2015
The local protection and restoration is relatively simple and
clean. ECMP can be used to balance all the available SFICs
attached locally.
7. Global Restoration of Service functions
Sometimes changing the SFP's RSP involves using SFICs at different
SFF nodes.
For a Chain sf2 -> sf3 -> sf4 in the Figure 5 of SFC-arch (with
some minor changes):
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
|sf2| |sf2| |sf3| |sf3| |sf4| |sf4|
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
| | | | | |
+-----+-----+ +-----+-----+
| |
+ +
+---+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
source+-->|sff|+-->|sff-a|+->|sff-b|+-->|sff-c|+-->|sff-d|+-->destination
+---+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
+ + +
| | |
+---+ +---+ +---+
|sf1| |sf4| |sf3|
+---+ +---+ +---+
Figure 4: Global Restoration of Service Functions
Original Service Chain path: sf2 & sf3 at SFF-a; sf4 at SFF-c.
When the "sf3" attached to "sff-a" fails or over-utilized, the RSP
needs to use the sf3 attached to "sff-c". The Path becomes:
- sf2 at "sff-a"; sf3 & sf4 at "sff-c".
This section examines possible ways to achieve the restoration
when the change of SFP involves multiple SFF nodes.
7.1. Encoding the Exact SFF-SF-sequence in Data Packets
If the detailed SFF-SF-sequence is encoded in data packets, the SC
Classifier needs to be notified of the changes of the RSP. The
Classifier either gets notified of the exact SFF-SF-sequence from
Dunbar, et al. Expires September 6, 2015 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft SFC Path Control March 2015
external entity (e.g. controller or orchestration) or has the
ability reconstruct the new RSP. The later approach needs protocol
for the Classifier to be aware (or updated) of all the visible
SFICs' states and their runtime topology.
Encoding the exact SFF-SF-sequence in every packet won't cause any
contention issue among all the involved nodes when changes occur.
As mentioned in the previous section, encoding exact RSP path in
every packet has the benefit and the issues of source routing.
This approach may not be optimal when the RSP doesn't change very
frequently, as in minutes or hours, or bandwidth is limited.
7.2. Dynamic establishment of an RSP
A similar method to MPLS RSVP-TE [RSVP-TE] signaling can be
considered to dynamically establish the SFF-SF-sequence based on
the SF-sequence.
Here is the overview of this approach. More details will be added
later.
- The external controller computes the Service Chain Instance
Path or Service Chain path at functional level and sent to
the head end classifier node.
- The (segment) Head end Classifier node uses "Request for
Path" signaling (like MPLS's RSVP) to establish the RSP to
the nodes that on the path.
- All the nodes on the path establish the SF Forwarding Rule
to the directly attached service functions (or the service
function instances), and the appropriate tunnel from the
egress port to the next SFF node for the given SFP.
- When the Path Confirmation is received (i.e. all the nodes
along the path have completed the SF Forwarding Rule
establishment and tunnel establishment), the head end can
put user data along the pre-established Tunnel (e.g.
VxLAN).
The drawback of this approach is that the head end node might
receive packets belonging to the service function chain before all
the involved nodes (SFF or SF) have made the needed changes.
Dunbar, et al. Expires September 6, 2015 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft SFC Path Control March 2015
It is very similar to the issues encountered by MPLS Fast Reroute
[FRR]. MPLS FRR allows that packets to be dropped when a
restoration path is being dynamically signaled because there was
not a pre-established backup path.
7.3. Out-Of-Band Signaling of changes on SFP
If the out-of-band method is used, i.e. sending the updated flow
steering policies to indicate the changes of the SFP path, there
could be issues of synchronization and race conditions. For
example, if the SFF "A" and SFF "C" get flow steering policies at
slightly different times, some packets of the flow might miss some
service functions on the chain.
In SDN or SDN-like environments, changes to a SFP can be
dynamically programmed to relevant SFF nodes via out-of-band
signal form a central controller or Network Management System (as
in I2RS).
This approach does not require using end to end signaling protocol
among Classier nodes and SFF nodes. But there may be problems
introduced (such as loops or dropped packets) if SFF nodes are not
updated in the proper order or not at the same time; the nodes
should be updated in a similar time scale to the use of a
signaling protocol. In addition, the network may have a single
point of failure if the controller or NMS is not itself redundant.
7.4. Hybrid Method
For global restoration of service functions on a SFP, it is
worthwhile to explore a hybrid mode, i.e. when there are changes
involving using identical SFICs at different SFF nodes, the SC
Classifier node is informed to encode the explicit SFFs for each
SF in the SFC header of the data packets until all the involved
SFF nodes complete the installation of the new steering policy for
the path.
8. Regional Restoration of Service Function
It might not be always be feasible for the head end Service Chain
Classifier to be aware of the exact SFICs selected for a given SFP
due to too many SFICs for each SF, notifications not being
promptly sent to the classifier node, or other reasons. Then
Regional restoration should be considered.
Dunbar, et al. Expires September 6, 2015 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft SFC Path Control March 2015
This is not about multiple same-function SFICs attached to one SFF
node. Those SFICs can be handled by the SFF via local load balance
as described in SFC-Arch.
Regional restoration can take the similar approach as the Global
restoration: choosing a regional ingress node that can take over
the responsibility of installing the new steering policies to the
involved SFF nodes or network nodes.
The Regional ingress node should be:
- on the data path of the flow of the given service chain;
- in front of the relevant the SFF nodes or network nodes that
are impacted by the change of the Service Chain Path;
- capable of encoding the detailed Service Chain Path to the
Service Chain Header of data packets of the identified
flow; and
- capable of removing the detailed Service Chain Path encoding
in data packets after all the impacted SFF nodes and
network nodes completed the policy installation.
9. Conclusion and Recommendation
TBD
10. Manageability Considerations
TBD
11. Security Considerations
TBD
12. IANA Considerations
This document requires no IANA actions. RFC Editor: Please remove
this section before publication.
Dunbar, et al. Expires September 6, 2015 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft SFC Path Control March 2015
13. References
13.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
13.2. Informative References
[SFC-Problem] P. Quinn, et al, "Service Function Chaining Problem
statement", draft-ietf-sfc-problem-statement-02, work in
progress, April 2014
[NFV-Terminology] ETSI NFV ISG, "Network Functions Virtualisation
(NFV); Terminology for Main Concepts in NFV", ETSI GS
NFV 003 V1.1.1, Oct. 2013,
http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gs/NFV/001_099/003/01.0
1.01_60/gs_NFV003v010101p.pdf
[SFC-Reduction] R. Parker, "Service Function Chaining: Chain to
Path Reduction", draft-parker-sfc-chain-to-path-00, work
in progress, Nov. 2013
[RSVP-TE] D. Awduche, Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[FRR] P. Pan, Swallow, G., and Atlas, A., "Fast Reroute
Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090, May
2005
14. Acknowledgments
Many thanks to Ron Bonica for the discussion in formulating the
content for the draft.
This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.
Dunbar, et al. Expires September 6, 2015 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft SFC Path Control March 2015
Authors' Addresses
Linda Dunbar
Huawei Technologies
5340 Legacy Drive, Suite 175
Plano, TX 75024, USA
Phone: (469) 277 5840
Email: ldunbar@huawei.com
Andrew G. Malis
Huawei Technologies
USA
Email: agmalis@gmail.com
Dunbar, et al. Expires September 6, 2015 [Page 17]
