Internet Engineering Task Force H. Chen Internet-Draft Z. Li Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies Expires: July 2, 2015 N. So Tata Communications A. Liu Ericsson T. Saad Cisco Systems F. Xu Verizon M. Toy Comcast L. Huang China Mobile L. Liu UC Davis December 29, 2014 Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Egress Local Protection draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-egress-protection-00.txt Abstract This document describes extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for locally protecting egress nodes of a Traffic Engineered (TE) Label Switched Path (LSP) in a Multi- Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) network. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF 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 July 2, 2015. Copyright Notice Chen, et al. Expires July 2, 2015 [Page 1] Internet-Draft RSVP LSP Egress Protection December 2014 Copyright (c) 2014 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 (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 1.1. An Example of Egress Local Protection . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. Egress Local Protection with FRR . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.1. EGRESS_BACKUP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.2. Flags in FAST_REROUTE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.3. Path Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Egress Protection Behaviors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.1. Ingress Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.2. Transit Node and PLR Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.2.1. Signaling for One-to-One Protection . . . . . . . . . 8 5.2.2. Signaling for Facility Protection . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.2.3. Signaling for S2L Sub LSP Protection . . . . . . . . . 9 5.2.4. PLR Procedures during Local Repair . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. Considering Application Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.1. A Typical Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.2. PLR Procedure for Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.3. Egress Procedures for Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8.1. New RSVP C-Num and C-Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8.2. New TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8.3. Flags in FAST_REROUTE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 10. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Chen, et al. Expires July 2, 2015 [Page 2] Internet-Draft RSVP LSP Egress Protection December 2014 1. Introduction RFC 4090 describes two methods for protecting the transit nodes of a P2P LSP: one-to-one and facility protection. RFC 4875 specifies how to use them to protect the transit nodes of a P2MP LSP. However, they do not mention any local protection for an egress of an LSP. To protect the egresses of an LSP (P2P or P2MP), an existing approach sets up a backup LSP from a backup ingress (or the ingress of the LSP) to the backup egresses, where each egress is paired with a backup egress and protected by the backup egress. This approach may use more resources and provide slow fault recovery. This document specifies extensions to RSVP-TE for local protection of an egress of an LSP, which overcomes these disadvantages. 1.1. An Example of Egress Local Protection Figure 1 shows an example of using backup LSPs to locally protect egresses of a primary P2MP LSP from ingress R1 to two egresses: L1 and L2. The primary LSP is represented by star(*) lines and backup LSPs by hyphen(-) lines. La and Lb are the designated backup egresses for egresses L1 and L2 respectively. To distinguish an egress (e.g., L1) from a backup egress (e.g., La), an egress is called a primary egress if needed. The backup LSP for protecting L1 is from its upstream node R3 to backup egress La. The one for protecting L2 is from R5 to Lb. [R2]*****[R3]*****[L1] * \ :.....: $ **** Primary LSP * \ $ ---- Backup LSP * \ [CE1] .... BFD Session * \ $ $ Link * \ $ $ * [La] $ * [R1]******[R4]*******[R5]*****[L2] $ \ :.....: $ $ \ $ [S] \ [CE2] \ $ \ $ [Lb] Figure 1: Backup LSP for Locally Protecting Egress Chen, et al. Expires July 2, 2015 [Page 3] Internet-Draft RSVP LSP Egress Protection December 2014 During normal operations, the traffic carried by the P2MP LSP is sent through R3 to L1, which delivers the traffic to its destination CE1. When R3 detects the failure of L1, R3 switches the traffic to the backup LSP to backup egress La, which delivers the traffic to CE1. The time for switching the traffic is within tens of milliseconds. The failure of a primary egress (e.g., L1 in the figure) MAY be detected by its upstream node (e.g., R3 in the figure) through a BFD between the upstream node and the egress in MPLS networks. Exactly how the failure is detected is out of scope for this document. 1.2. Egress Local Protection with FRR Using the egress local protection and the FRR, we can locally protect the egresses, the links and the transit nodes of an LSP. The traffic switchover time is within tens of milliseconds whenever an egress, any of the links and the transit nodes of the LSP fails. The egress nodes of the LSP can be locally protected via the egress local protection. All the links and the transit nodes of the LSP can be locally protected through using the FRR. 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. 3. Terminology This document uses terminologies defined in RFC 2205, RFC 3031, RFC 3209, RFC 3473, RFC 4090, RFC 4461, and RFC 4875. 4. Protocol Extensions A new object EGRESS_BACKUP is defined for egress local protection. It contains a backup egress for a primary egress. 4.1. EGRESS_BACKUP Object The class of the EGRESS_BACKUP object is TBD-1 to be assigned by IANA. The C-Type of the EGRESS_BACKUP IPv4/IPv6 object is TBD-2/ TBD-3 to be assigned by IANA. Chen, et al. Expires July 2, 2015 [Page 4] Internet-Draft RSVP LSP Egress Protection December 2014 EGRESS_BACKUP Class Num = TBD-1, IPv4/IPv6 C-Type = TBD-2/TBD-3 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ Backup Egress IPv4/IPv6 address ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ Primary Egress IPv4/IPv6 address ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ (Subobjects) ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ o Backup Egress IPv4/IPv6 address: IPv4/IPv6 address of the backup egress node o Primary Egress IPv4/IPv6 address: IPv4/IPv6 address of the primary egress node The Subobjects are TLVs and optional. One of them is P2P LSP ID IPv4/IPv6 subobject, whose body has the following format and Type is TBD-4/TBD-5. It may be used to identify a backup LSP. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ P2P LSP Tunnel Egress IPv4/IPv6 Address (4/16 bytes) ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Reserved | Tunnel ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ Extended Tunnel ID (4/16 bytes) ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ o P2P LSP Tunnel Egress IPv4/IPv6 Address: IPv4/IPv6 address of the egress of the tunnel o Tunnel ID: A 16-bit identifier that is constant over the life of the tunnel o Extended Tunnel ID: A 4/16-byte identifier being constant over the life of the tunnel Another one is Label subobject, whose body has the format below and Type is TBD-6 to be assigned by IANA. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Label | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ (sub-TLVs ) ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Chen, et al. Expires July 2, 2015 [Page 5] Internet-Draft RSVP LSP Egress Protection December 2014 The sub-TLVs are optional. 4.2. Flags in FAST_REROUTE Two new bits of the flags in the FAST_REROUTE object may be defined. One bit (called "S2L Sub LSP Backup Desired" flag) indicates whether S2L Sub LSP is desired for protecting an egress of a P2MP LSP. When a S2L Sub LSP is desired for protecting an egress of a P2MP LSP, we should set this flag to one. The other bit (called "Other Sending UA Label" flag) indicates if another protocol is desired for sending a label as a UA label from a primary egress to a backup egress. When we want other protocol such as BGP to send a label as UA label, this flag should be set to one. 4.3. Path Message A Path message is enhanced to carry the information about a backup egress for a primary egress of an LSP by including an egress backup descriptor list. The format of the message is illustrated below. ::= [ ] [ [ | ] ...] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ...] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ... ] [] [] The egress backup descriptor list in the message is defined below. It is a sequence of EGRESS_BACKUP objects, each of which describes a pair of a primary egress and a backup egress. ::= [ ] ::= 5. Egress Protection Behaviors Chen, et al. Expires July 2, 2015 [Page 6] Internet-Draft RSVP LSP Egress Protection December 2014 5.1. Ingress Behavior To protect a primary egress of an LSP, the ingress MUST set the "label recording desired" flag and the "node protection desired" flag in the SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object. If one-to-one backup or facility backup method is desired to protect a primary egress of an LSP, the ingress SHOULD include a FAST_REROUTE object and set the "One-to-One Backup Desired" or "Facility Backup Desired" flag. If S2L Sub LSP backup method is desired to protect a primary egress of a P2MP LSP, the ingress SHOULD include a FAST_REROUTE object and set the "S2L Sub LSP Backup Desired" flag. If another protocol is desired for sending a label as a upstream assigned label to a backup egress, the ingress SHOULD set the "Other Sending UA Label" flag. Optionally, a backup egress may be configured on the ingress of an LSP to protect a primary egress of the LSP. The ingress sends a Path message for the LSP with the objects above and an optional egress backup descriptor list. For each primary egress of the LSP to be protected, the ingress adds an EGRESS_BACKUP object into the list if the backup egress is given. The object contains the primary egress and the backup egress for protecting the primary egress. 5.2. Transit Node and PLR Behavior If a transit node of an LSP receives the Path message with an egress backup descriptor list and it is not an upstream node of any primary egress of the LSP, it forwards the list unchanged. If the transit node is the upstream node of a primary egress to be protected, it determines the backup egress, obtains a path for the backup LSP and sets up the backup LSP along the path. The PLR (upstream node of the primary egress) extracts the backup egress from the respective EGRESS_BACKUP object in the egress backup descriptor list. If no matching EGRESS_BACKUP object is found or the list is empty, the PLR may apply a local policy to determine the backup egress and add an EGRESS_BACKUP object with the backup egress and primary egress into a Path message to the primary egress. After obtaining the backup egress, the PLR tries to compute a backup path from itself to the backup egress. It excludes the primary Chen, et al. Expires July 2, 2015 [Page 7] Internet-Draft RSVP LSP Egress Protection December 2014 egress to be protected when computing the path. Thus the PLR will not select any path via the primary egress. The PLR then sets up the backup LSP along the path obtained. It provides one-to-one backup protection for the primary egress if the "One-to-One Backup Desired" flag is set in the message; otherwise, it provides facility backup protection if the "Facility Backup Desired flag" is set. The PLR sets the protection flags in the RRO Sub-object for the primary egress in the Resv message according to the status of the primary egress and the backup LSP protecting the primary egress. For example, it will set the "local protection available" and the "node protection" flag indicating that the primary egress is protected when the backup LSP is up and ready for protecting the primary egress. 5.2.1. Signaling for One-to-One Protection The behavior of the upstream node of a primary egress of an LSP as a PLR is the same as that of a PLR for one-to-one backup method described in RFC 4090 except for that the upstream node creates a backup LSP from itself to a backup egress. If the LSP is a P2MP LSP and a primary egress of the LSP is also a transit node (i.e., bud node), the upstream node of the primary egress as a PLR also creates a backup LSP from itself to each of the next hops of the primary egress. When the PLR detects the failure of the primary egress, it MUST switch the packets from the primary LSP to the backup LSP to the backup egress. For the failure of the bud node of a P2MP LSP, the PLR MUST also switch the packets to the backup LSPs to the bud node's next hops, where the packets are merged into the primary LSP. 5.2.2. Signaling for Facility Protection Except for backup LSP and downstream label, the behavior of the upstream node of the primary egress of a primary LSP as a PLR follows the PLR behavior for facility backup method described in RFC 4090. For a number of primary P2P LSPs going through the same PLR to the same primary egress, the primary egress of these LSPs may be protected by one backup LSP from the PLR to the backup egress designated for protecting the primary egress. The PLR selects or creates a backup LSP from itself to the backup egress. If there is a backup LSP that satisfies the constraints given in the Path message, then this one is selected; otherwise, a Chen, et al. Expires July 2, 2015 [Page 8] Internet-Draft RSVP LSP Egress Protection December 2014 new backup LSP to the backup egress will be created. After getting the backup LSP, the PLR associates the backup LSP with a primary LSP for protecting its primary egress. The PLR records that the backup LSP is used to protect the primary LSP against its primary egress failure and includes an EGRESS_BACKUP object in the Path message to the primary egress. The object contains the backup egress and the backup LSP ID. It indicates that the primary egress SHOULD send the backup egress the service label as UA label if there is a service carried by the LSP and the primary LSP label as UA label if the label is not implicit null. A UA label can be sent via RSVP or another protocol (e.g., BGP). If "Other Sending UA Label" flag is one, the primary egress SHOULD send the UA labels to the backup egress through another protocol; otherwise, UA labels are sent via RSVP. After receiving the Path message with the EGRESS_BACKUP, the primary egress includes the information about the UA labels in the Resv message with an EGRESS_BACKUP object. When the PLR receives the Resv message with the information about the UA labels, it includes the information in the Path message for the backup LSP to the backup egress. Thus the UA labels are sent to the backup egress from the primary egress via RSVP. When the PLR detects the failure of the primary egress, it redirects the packets from the primary LSP into the backup LSP to backup egress and keeps the primary LSP label from the primary egress in the label stack if the label is not implicit null. The backup egress delivers the packets to the same destinations as the primary egress using the backup LSP label as context label and the labels under as UA labels. 5.2.3. Signaling for S2L Sub LSP Protection The S2L Sub LSP Protection is used to protect a primary egress of a P2MP LSP. Its major advantage is that the application traffic carried by the LSP is easily protected against the egress failure. The PLR determines to protect a primary egress of a P2MP LSP via S2L sub LSP protection when it receives a Path message with flag "S2L Sub LSP Backup Desired" set. The PLR sets up the backup S2L sub LSP to the backup egress, creates and maintains its state in the same way as of setting up a source to leaf (S2L) sub LSP defined in RFC 4875 from the signaling's point of view. It computes a path for the backup LSP from itself to the backup egress, constructs and sends a Path message along the path, receives and processes a Resv message responding to the Path message. Chen, et al. Expires July 2, 2015 [Page 9] Internet-Draft RSVP LSP Egress Protection December 2014 After receiving the Resv message for the backup LSP, the PLR creates a forwarding entry with an inactive state or flag called inactive forwarding entry. This inactive forwarding entry is not used to forward any data traffic during normal operations. When the PLR detects the failure of the primary egress, it changes the forwarding entry for the backup LSP to active. Thus, the PLR forwards the traffic to the backup egress through the backup LSP, which sends the traffic to its destination. 5.2.4. PLR Procedures during Local Repair When the upstream node of a primary egress of an LSP as a PLR detects the failure of the primary egress, it follows the procedures defined in section 6.5 of RFC 4090. It SHOULD notify the ingress about the failure of the primary egress in the same way as a PLR notifies the ingress about the failure of a transit node. Moreover, the PLR lets the upstream part of the primary LSP stay after the primary egress fails. It continues to send Resv message to its upstream node along the primary LSP. The downstream part of the primary LSP from the PLR to the primary egress SHOULD be removed. In the local revertive mode, the PLR re-signals each of the primary LSPs that were routed over the restored resource once it detects that the resource is restored. Every primary LSP successfully re-signaled along the restored resource is switched back. 6. Considering Application Traffic This section focuses on the application traffic carried by P2P LSPs. When a primary egress of a P2MP LSP fails, the application traffic carried by the P2MP LSP is delivered to the same destination by the backup egress since the inner label if any for the traffic is a upstream assigned label for every egress of the P2MP LSP. 6.1. A Typical Application L3VPN is a typical application. An existing solution (refer to Figure 2) for protecting L3VPN traffic against egress failure includes: 1) A multi-hop BFD session between ingress R1 and egress L1 of primary LSP; 2) A backup LSP from ingress R1 to backup egress La; 3) La sends R1 VPN backup label and related information via BGP; 4) R1 has a VRF with two sets of routes: one uses primary LSP and L1 as next hop; the other uses backup LSP and La as next hop. Chen, et al. Expires July 2, 2015 [Page 10] Internet-Draft RSVP LSP Egress Protection December 2014 CE1,CE2 in [R2]*****[R3]*****[L1] **** Primary LSP one VPN * : $ ---- Backup LSP * .................: $ .... BFD Session [R1] ..: [CE2] $ Link $ \ $ $ $ \ $ [CE1] [R4]-----[R5]-----[La](BGP sends R1 VPN backup label) Figure 2: Protect Egress for L3VPN Traffic In normal operations, R1 sends the traffic from CE1 through primary LSP with VPN label received from L1 as inner label to L1, which delivers the traffic to CE2 using VPN label. When R1 detects the failure of L1, R1 sends the traffic from CE1 via backup LSP with VPN backup label received from La as inner label to La, which delivers the traffic to CE2 using VPN backup label. A new solution (refer to Figure 3) with egress local protection for protecting L3VPN traffic includes: 1) A BFD session between R3 and egress L1 of primary LSP; 2) A backup LSP from R3 to backup egress La; 3) L1 sends La VPN label as UA label and related information; 4) L1 and La is virtualized as one. This can be achieved by configuring a same local address on L1 and La, using the address as a destination of the LSP and BGP next hop for VPN traffic. CE1,CE2 in [R2]*****[R3]*****[L1] **** Primary LSP one VPN * \ :.....: $ ---- Backup LSP * \ $ .... BFD Session [R1] \ [CE2] $ Link $ \ $ $ $ \ $ [CE1] [La](VPN label from L1 as UA label) Figure 3: Locally Protect Egress for L3VPN Traffic When R3 detects L1's failure, R3 sends the traffic from primary LSP via backup LSP to La, which delivers the traffic to CE2 using VPN label as UA label under the backup LSP label as a context label. 6.2. PLR Procedure for Applications When the PLR gets a backup LSP from itself to a backup egress for protecting a primary egress of a primary LSP, it includes an EGRESS_BACKUP object in the Path message for the primary LSP. The object contains the ID information of the backup LSP and indicates Chen, et al. Expires July 2, 2015 [Page 11] Internet-Draft RSVP LSP Egress Protection December 2014 that the primary egress SHOULD send the backup egress the application traffic label (e.g., VPN label) as UA label when needed. 6.3. Egress Procedures for Applications When a primary egress of an LSP sends the ingress of the LSP a label for an application such as a VPN, it SHOULD send the backup egress for protecting the primary egress the label as a UA label. Exactly how the label is sent is out of scope for this document. When the backup egress receives a UA label from the primary egress, it adds a forwarding entry with the label into the LFIB for the primary egress. When the backup egress receives a packet from the backup LSP, it uses the top label as a context label to find the LFIB for the primary egress and the inner label to deliver the packet to the same destination as the primary egress according to the LFIB. 7. Security Considerations In principle this document does not introduce new security issues. The security considerations pertaining to RFC 4090, RFC 4875 and other RSVP protocols remain relevant. 8. IANA Considerations 8.1. New RSVP C-Num and C-Types This document defines a new C-Num, which should be assigned by IANA. o EGRESS_BACKUP object. The C-Num should be of the form 11bbbbbb so that LSRs that do not recognize it will ignore it but forward it. Two C-Types defined for this object should be assigned by IANA. - EGRESS_BACKUP_IPv4. Recommended C-Type value 1. - EGRESS_BACKUP_IPv6. Recommended C-Type value 2. 8.2. New TLVs The new object referenced above contains TLVs. This document defines three TLV types as follows: Type Name Allowed on 1 P2P_LSP_ID_IPv4 TLV EGRESS_BACKUP_IPv4 2 P2P_LSP_ID_IPv6 TLV EGRESS_BACKUP_IPv6 3 Label TLV EGRESS_BACKUP_IPv4/IPv6 Chen, et al. Expires July 2, 2015 [Page 12] Internet-Draft RSVP LSP Egress Protection December 2014 8.3. Flags in FAST_REROUTE Two flags defined in FAST_REROUTE object should be assigned by IANA. 0x04 S2L Sub LSP Backup Desired 0x08 Other Sending UA Label 9. Contributors Boris Zhang Telus Communications 200 Consilium Pl Floor 15 Toronto, ON M1H 3J3 Canada Email: Boris.Zhang@telus.com Nan Meng Huawei Technologies Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd. Beijing 100095 China Email: mengnan@huawei.com Vic Liu China Mobile No.32 Xuanwumen West Street, Xicheng District Beijing, 100053 China Email: liuzhiheng@chinamobile.com 10. Acknowledgement The authors would like to thank Richard Li, Nobo Akiya, Jeffrey Zhang, Lizhong Jin, Ravi Torvi, Eric Gray, Olufemi Komolafe, Michael Yue, Daniel King, Rob Rennison, Neil Harrison, Kannan Sampath, Yimin Shen, Ronhazli Adam and Quintin Zhao for their valuable comments and suggestions on this draft. 11. References 11.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Chen, et al. Expires July 2, 2015 [Page 13] Internet-Draft RSVP LSP Egress Protection December 2014 [RFC3692] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, January 2004. [RFC2205] Braden, B., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S. Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997. [RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001. [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., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. [RFC4090] Pan, P., Swallow, G., and A. Atlas, "Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090, May 2005. [RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Papadimitriou, D., and S. Yasukawa, "Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875, May 2007. [RFC5331] Aggarwal, R., Rekhter, Y., and E. Rosen, "MPLS Upstream Label Assignment and Context-Specific Label Space", RFC 5331, August 2008. [RFC5786] Aggarwal, R. and K. Kompella, "Advertising a Router's Local Addresses in OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions", RFC 5786, March 2010. [P2MP FRR] Le Roux, J., Aggarwal, R., Vasseur, J., and M. Vigoureux, "P2MP MPLS-TE Fast Reroute with P2MP Bypass Tunnels", draft-leroux-mpls-p2mp-te-bypass , March 1997. 11.2. Informative References [RFC4461] Yasukawa, S., "Signaling Requirements for Point-to- Multipoint Traffic-Engineered MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4461, April 2006. Chen, et al. Expires July 2, 2015 [Page 14] Internet-Draft RSVP LSP Egress Protection December 2014 Authors' Addresses Huaimo Chen Huawei Technologies Boston, MA USA Email: huaimo.chen@huawei.com Zhenbin Li Huawei Technologies Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd. Beijing 100095, China Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com Ning So Tata Communications 2613 Fairbourne Cir. Plano, TX 75082 USA Email: ningso01@gmail.com Autumn Liu Ericsson CA USA Email: autumn.liu@ericsson.com Tarek Saad Cisco Systems Email: tsaad@cisco.com Chen, et al. Expires July 2, 2015 [Page 15] Internet-Draft RSVP LSP Egress Protection December 2014 Fengman Xu Verizon 2400 N. Glenville Dr Richardson, TX 75082 USA Email: fengman.xu@verizon.com Mehmet Toy Comcast 1800 Bishops Gate Blvd. Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 USA Email: mehmet_toy@cable.comcast.com Lu Huang China Mobile No.32 Xuanwumen West Street, Xicheng District Beijing, 100053 China Email: huanglu@chinamobile.com Lei Liu UC Davis USA Email: liulei.kddi@gmail.com Chen, et al. Expires July 2, 2015 [Page 16]