Internet DRAFT - draft-xiong-pce-detnet-bounded-latency
draft-xiong-pce-detnet-bounded-latency
PCE Q. Xiong, Ed.
Internet-Draft ZTE Corporation
Intended status: Standards Track P. Liu
Expires: 27 September 2023 China Mobile
R. Gandhi
Cisco Systems, Inc.
26 March 2023
PCEP Extension for DetNet Bounded Latency
draft-xiong-pce-detnet-bounded-latency-02
Abstract
In certain networks, such as Deterministic Networking (DetNet), it is
required to consider the bounded latency for path selection. This
document describes the extensions to PCEP to carry deterministic
latency constraints and distribute deterministic paths for end-to-end
path computation in DetNet service.
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 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 27 September 2023.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Xiong, et al. Expires 27 September 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for DetNet Bounded Latenc March 2023
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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. PCEP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. METRIC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.1. End-to-End Bounded Delay Metric . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.2. End-to-End Bounded Jitter Metric . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. LSP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Deterministic Path Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3.1. Deadline TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3.2. Cycle TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3.3. Timeslot TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction
[RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP)
which is used between a Path Computation Element (PCE) and a Path
Computation Client (PCC) (or other PCE) to enable computation of
Multi-protocol Label Switching (MPLS) for Traffic Engineering Label
Switched Path (TE LSP). PCEP Extensions for the Stateful PCE Model
[RFC8231] describes a set of extensions to PCEP to enable active
control of MPLS-TE and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) tunnels. As depicted
in [RFC4655], a PCE MUST be able to compute the path of a TE LSP by
operating on the TED and considering bandwidth and other constraints
applicable to the TE LSP service request. The constraint parameters
are provided such as metric, bandwidth, delay, affinity, etc.
However these parameters can't meet the DetNet requirements.
According to [RFC8655], Deterministic Networking (DetNet) operates at
the IP layer and delivers service which provides extremely low data
loss rates and bounded latency within a network domain. The bounded
Xiong, et al. Expires 27 September 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for DetNet Bounded Latenc March 2023
latency indicates the minimum and maximum end-to-end latency from
source to destination and bounded jitter (packet delay variation).
[I-D.xiong-detnet-large-scale-enhancements] has proposed the packet
treatment which should support new functions such as queuing
mechanisms to ensure the deterministic latency. A common data fields
can be defined as per [I-D.xiong-detnet-data-fields-edp] and a
Deterministic Latency Action (DLA) option has been proposed to carry
queuing-based metadata. The computing method of end-to-end delay
bounds is defined in [RFC9320]. It is the sum of the 6 delays in
DetNet bounded latency model. And these delays should be measured
and collected by IGP, but the related mechanisms are out of this
document. The end-to-end delay bounds can also be computed as the
sum of non queuing delay bound and queuing delay bound along the
path. The upper bounds of non queuing delay are constant and depend
on the specific network and the value of queuing delay bound depends
on the queuing mechanisms deployed along the path.
As per [I-D.ietf-detnet-controller-plane-framework], explicit path
should be calculated and established in control plane to guarantee
the deterministic transimission. When the PCE is deployed, the path
computation should be applicable for DetNet networks. It is required
that bounded latency including minimum and maximum end-to-end latency
and bounded delay variation are considered during the deterministic
path selection for PCE. The bounded latency constriants should be
extended for PCEP. Moreover, the information along the deterministic
path should be provided to the PCC after the path conputation such as
queuing parameters.
This document describes the extensions to PCEP to carry deterministic
latency constraints and distribute deterministic paths for end-to-end
path computation in DetNet service.
1.1. 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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. Terminology
The terminology is defined as [RFC8655] and [RFC5440].
3. PCEP Extensions
Xiong, et al. Expires 27 September 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for DetNet Bounded Latenc March 2023
3.1. METRIC Object
The METRIC object is defined in Section 7.8 of [RFC5440], comprising
metric-value and metric-type (T field), and a flags field, comprising
a number of bit flags (B bit and C bit). This document defines two
types for the METRIC object.
3.1.1. End-to-End Bounded Delay Metric
[RFC8233] has proposed the Path Delay metric type of the METRIC
object to represent the sum of the Link Delay metric of all links
along a P2P path. This document proposes the End-to-End Bounded
Delay metric in PCEP to represent the sum of Output delay, Link
delay, Frame preemption delay, Processing delay, Regulation delay and
Queuing delay as defined in [RFC9320] along a deterministic path. Or
the End-to-End Bounded Delay metric can be encoded as the sum of non
queuing delay bound and queuing delay bound along the deterministic
path. The extensions for End-to-End Bounded Delay Metric are as
following shown:
* T=TBD1: End-to-End Bounded Delay Metric.
* The value of End-to-End Bounded Delay Metric is the encoding in
units of microseconds with 32 bits.
* The B bit MUST be set to suggest a maximum bound for the end-to-
end delay of deterministic path. The end-to-end delay must be
less than or equal to the value.
A PCC MAY use the End-to-End Bounded Latency metric in a Path
Computation Request (PCReq) message to request a deterministic path
meeting the end-to-end latency requirement. A PCE MAY use the End-
to-End Bounded Latency metric in a Path Computation Reply (PCRep)
message along with a NO-PATH object in the case where the PCE cannot
compute a path meeting this constraint. A PCE can also use this
metric to send the computed end-to-end bounded latency to the PCC.
3.1.2. End-to-End Bounded Jitter Metric
[RFC8233] has proposed the Path Delay Variation metric type of the
METRIC object to represent the sum of the Link Delay Variation metric
of all links along the path. This document proposes the End-to-End
Bounded Jitter metric in PCEP to represent the difference between the
end-to-end upper bounded latecny and the end-to-end lower bounded
latecny along a deterministic path. The extensions for End-to-End
Bounded Jitter Metric are as following shown:
* T=TBD2: End-to-End Bounded Jitter Metric.
Xiong, et al. Expires 27 September 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for DetNet Bounded Latenc March 2023
* The value of End-to-End Bounded Jitter Metric is the encoding in
units of microseconds with 32 bits.
* The B bit MUST be set to suggest a maximum bound for the end-to-
end jitter of deterministic path. The end-to-end jitter must be
less than or equal to the value.
A PCC MAY use the End-to-End Bounded Jitter metric in a PCReq message
to request a deterministic path meeting the end-to-end delay
variation requirement. A PCE MAY use the End-to-End Bounded Jitter
metric in a PCRep message along with a NO-PATH object in the case
where the PCE cannot compute a path meeting this constraint. A PCE
can also use this metric to send the computed end-to-end bounded
Jitter to the PCC.
3.2. LSP Object
The LSP Object is defined in Section 7.3 of [RFC8231]. This document
defiend a new flag (D-flag) to present the deterministic path for the
LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV carried in LSP Object as defined in [RFC9357].
D (Request for Deterministic Path) : If the bit is set to 1, it
indicates that the PCC requests PCE to compute the deterministic
path. A PCE would also set this bit to 1 to indicate that the
deterministic path is included by PCE and encoded in the PCRep, PCUpd
or PCInitiate message.
3.3. Deterministic Path Object
As defined in [RFC9320], the end-to-end delay bounds can be presented
as the sum of non queuing delay bound and queuing delay bound along
the path. The upper bounds of non queuing delay are constant and
depend on the specific network, but the value of queuing delay bound
depends on the queuing mechanisms deployed along the deterministic
path. [I-D.xiong-detnet-data-fields-edp] and a Deterministic Latency
Action (DLA) option has been proposed to carry the queuing
information. So to meet the requirements of the end-to-end delay,
the PCE should select a path with a specific queuing mechanism and
configure the related parameters to the PCC. And the PCC may insert
the queuing-based information into the pakects headers. This
document defines Deterministic Path Object (DPO) to distribute the
deterministic latency Action Information through DetNet networks.
DPO Object-Class is TBD3.
DPO Object-Type is TBD4.
The format of the DPO object body is as follows:
Xiong, et al. Expires 27 September 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for DetNet Bounded Latenc March 2023
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| DLA Type | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Deterministic Latency Action Information Optional TLVs //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: DPO Object Body Format
DLA (Deterministic Latency Action) Type (16bits): indicates the type
of queuing algorithm and each type represents the corresponding
queuing mechanisms. The type can be defined refer to the queuing
mechanisms which have been discussed such as [RFC9320]. More types
can be defined due to the new queuing mechanisms.
1: indicates the Time Aware Shaping [IIEEE802.1Qbv].
2: indicates the Credit-Based Shaper[IEEE802.1Q-2014].
3: indicates the Asynchronous Traffic Shaping [IEEE802.1Qcr].
4: indicates the Cyclic Queuing and Forwarding [IEEE802.1Qch].
5: indicates the Deadline Based Forwarding
[I-D.peng-detnet-deadline-based-forwarding].
6: indicates the Multiple Cyclic Buffers Queuing Mechanism
[I-D.dang-queuing-with-multiple-cyclic-buffers].
7: indicates the ADN mechanism defined in
[I-D.joung-detnet-asynch-detnet-framework].
8: indicates the SR TSN local deadline mechanism defined in
[I-D.stein-srtsn].
9: indicates the Packet Timeslot mechanism defined in
[I-D.peng-detnet-packet-timeslot-mechanism].
Deterministic Latency Action Infomation Optional TLVs (variable):
indicuates the corresponding Deterministic Latency Action parameters.
The current TLVs including Deadline TLV, Cycle TLV and Timeslot TLV
are proposed as following sections.
Xiong, et al. Expires 27 September 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for DetNet Bounded Latenc March 2023
3.3.1. Deadline TLV
Deadline TLV is optional for the Deterministic Path Object. The
deadline-based queuing mechanism has been proposed in
[I-D.stein-srtsn] and [I-D.peng-detnet-deadline-based-forwarding].
The deadlines along the path should be computed at PCE and configured
to the PCC, and then inserted into the packet headers. When the
Queuing Algorithm Type is set to indicate the deadline-based queuing
mechanisms, the Deadline TLV should be used to carry the deadline
parameters.
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 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Deadline |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Deadline TLV
Type (16bits): TBD3, indicates the type of Deadline TLV.
Length (16bits): indicated the length of Deadline TLV.
Deadline (32bits): indicates the deadline time for a node to forward
a DetNet flow.
3.3.2. Cycle TLV
Cycle TLV is optional for the Deterministic Path Object. The cyclic-
based queuing mechanism has been proposed in [IEEE802.1Qch] and
improved in [I-D.dang-queuing-with-multiple-cyclic-buffers]. The
clycle along the path should be computed at PCE and configured to the
PCC, and then inserted into the packet headers. When the Queuing
Algorithm Type is set to indicate the cycle-based queuing mechanisms,
the Cycle TLV should be used to carry the cycle parameters.
Xiong, et al. Expires 27 September 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for DetNet Bounded Latenc March 2023
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 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Cycle Profile ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Cycle ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Cycle TLV
Type (16bits): TBD4, indicates the type of Cycle TLV.
Length (16bits): indicated the length of Cycle TLV.
Cycle Profile ID (32bits): indicates the profile ID which the cyclic
queue applied at a node.
Cycle ID (32bits): indicates the Cycle ID for a node to forward a
DetNet flow.
3.3.3. Timeslot TLV
Timeslot TLV is optional for the Deterministic Path Object. The
timeslot-based queuing mechanism has been proposed in
[I-D.peng-detnet-packet-timeslot-mechanism]. The timeslot ID along
the path should be computed at PCE and configured to the PCC, and
then inserted into the packet headers. When the Queuing Algorithm
Type is set to indicate the Timeslot-based queuing mechanisms, the
Timeslot TLV should be used to carry the parameters.
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 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Timeslot ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Timeslot TLV
Type (16bits): TBD4, indicates the type of Timeslot TLV.
Xiong, et al. Expires 27 September 2023 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for DetNet Bounded Latenc March 2023
Length (16bits): indicated the length of Timeslot TLV.
Timeslot ID (32bits): indicates the Timeslot ID for a node to forward
a DetNet flow.
4. Security Considerations
TBA
5. IANA Considerations
TBA
6. Acknowledgements
TBA
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[I-D.dang-queuing-with-multiple-cyclic-buffers]
Liu, B. and J. Dang, "A Queuing Mechanism with Multiple
Cyclic Buffers", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
dang-queuing-with-multiple-cyclic-buffers-00, 22 February
2021, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dang-
queuing-with-multiple-cyclic-buffers-00>.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-controller-plane-framework]
Malis, A. G., Geng, X., Chen, M., Qin, F., Varga, B., and
C. J. Bernardos, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet)
Controller Plane Framework", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-detnet-controller-plane-framework-04, 13
March 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
ietf-detnet-controller-plane-framework-04>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6]
Li, C., Negi, M. S., Sivabalan, S., Koldychev, M.,
Kaladharan, P., and Y. Zhu, "Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment
Routing leveraging the IPv6 dataplane", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-16, 6
March 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-16>.
[I-D.joung-detnet-asynch-detnet-framework]
Joung, J., Ryoo, J., Cheung, T., Li, Y., and P. Liu,
"Asynchronous Deterministic Networking Framework for
Xiong, et al. Expires 27 September 2023 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for DetNet Bounded Latenc March 2023
Large-Scale Networks", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-joung-detnet-asynch-detnet-framework-01, 24 October
2022, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-joung-
detnet-asynch-detnet-framework-01>.
[I-D.peng-6man-deadline-option]
Peng, S., Tan, B., and P. Liu, "Deadline Option", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-peng-6man-deadline-option-
01, 11 July 2022, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-peng-6man-deadline-option-01>.
[I-D.peng-detnet-deadline-based-forwarding]
Peng, S., Liu, P., and D. Yang, "Deadline Based
Deterministic Forwarding", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-peng-detnet-deadline-based-forwarding-05, 12
March 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
peng-detnet-deadline-based-forwarding-05>.
[I-D.peng-detnet-packet-timeslot-mechanism]
Peng, S., Liu, A., Liu, P., and D. Yang, "Generic Packet
Timeslot Scheduling Mechanism", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-peng-detnet-packet-timeslot-
mechanism-01, 10 March 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-peng-detnet-
packet-timeslot-mechanism-01>.
[I-D.stein-srtsn]
Stein, Y. J., "Segment Routed Time Sensitive Networking",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-stein-srtsn-01, 29
August 2021, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
stein-srtsn-01>.
[I-D.xiong-detnet-data-fields-edp]
Xiong, Q. and D. Yang, "Data Fields for DetNet Enhanced
Data Plane", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
xiong-detnet-data-fields-edp-00, 10 March 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xiong-detnet-
data-fields-edp-00>.
[I-D.xiong-detnet-large-scale-enhancements]
Xiong, Q., Du, Z., Zhao, J., and D. Yang, "Enhanced DetNet
Data Plane (EDP) Framework for Scaling Deterministic
Networks", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-xiong-
detnet-large-scale-enhancements-02, 13 March 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xiong-detnet-
large-scale-enhancements-02>.
Xiong, et al. Expires 27 September 2023 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for DetNet Bounded Latenc March 2023
[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>.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and J. Ash, "A Path
Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[RFC4915] Psenak, P., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Nguyen, L., and P.
Pillay-Esnault, "Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF",
RFC 4915, DOI 10.17487/RFC4915, June 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4915>.
[RFC5120] Przygienda, T., Shen, N., and N. Sheth, "M-ISIS: Multi
Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to
Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)", RFC 5120,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5120, February 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5120>.
[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>.
[RFC6549] Lindem, A., Roy, A., and S. Mirtorabi, "OSPFv2 Multi-
Instance Extensions", RFC 6549, DOI 10.17487/RFC6549,
March 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6549>.
[RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
[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>.
Xiong, et al. Expires 27 September 2023 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for DetNet Bounded Latenc March 2023
[RFC8233] Dhody, D., Wu, Q., Manral, V., Ali, Z., and K. Kumaki,
"Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) to Compute Service-Aware Label Switched
Paths (LSPs)", RFC 8233, DOI 10.17487/RFC8233, September
2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8233>.
[RFC8655] Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas,
"Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8655, October 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8655>.
[RFC8664] Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,
and J. Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8664,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8664, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8664>.
[RFC9320] Finn, N., Le Boudec, J.-Y., Mohammadpour, E., Zhang, J.,
and B. Varga, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Bounded
Latency", RFC 9320, DOI 10.17487/RFC9320, November 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9320>.
[RFC9357] Xiong, Q., "Label Switched Path (LSP) Object Flag
Extension for Stateful PCE", RFC 9357,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9357, February 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9357>.
Authors' Addresses
Quan Xiong (editor)
ZTE Corporation
China
Email: xiong.quan@zte.com.cn
Peng Liu
China Mobile
Beijing
China
Email: liupengyjy@chinamobile.com
Rakesh Gandhi
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Canada
Email: rgandhi@cisco.com
Xiong, et al. Expires 27 September 2023 [Page 12]
