path: root/doc/rfc/rfc8271.txt

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                        M. Taillon
Request for Comments: 8271                                  T. Saad, Ed.
Updates: 4090                                             R. Gandhi, Ed.
Category: Standards Track                                         Z. Ali
ISSN: 2070-1721                                      Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                               M. Bhatia
                                                                   Nokia
                                                            October 2017


    Updates to the Resource Reservation Protocol for Fast Reroute of
         Traffic Engineering GMPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs)

Abstract

   This document updates the Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic
   Engineering (RSVP-TE) Fast Reroute (FRR) procedures defined in RFC
   4090 to support Packet Switch Capable (PSC) Generalized Multiprotocol
   Label Switching (GMPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs).  These updates
   allow the coordination of a bidirectional bypass tunnel assignment
   protecting a common facility in both forward and reverse directions
   of a co-routed bidirectional LSP.  In addition, these updates enable
   the redirection of bidirectional traffic onto bypass tunnels that
   ensure the co-routing of data paths in the forward and reverse
   directions after FRR and avoid RSVP soft-state timeout in the control
   plane.

Status of This Memo

   This is an Internet Standards Track document.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8271.











Taillon, et al.              Standards Track                    [Page 1]
^L
RFC 8271                  FRR for TE GMPLS LSPs             October 2017


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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
   (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 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.





































Taillon, et al.              Standards Track                    [Page 2]
^L
RFC 8271                  FRR for TE GMPLS LSPs             October 2017


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.1.  Key Word Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.3.  Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   3.  Fast Reroute for Unidirectional GMPLS LSPs  . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  Bypass Tunnel Assignment for Bidirectional GMPLS LSPs . . . .   7
     4.1.  Bidirectional GMPLS Bypass Tunnel Direction . . . . . . .   7
     4.2.  Merge Point Labels  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.3.  Merge Point Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.4.  RRO IPv4/IPv6 Subobject Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.5.  Bidirectional Bypass Tunnel Assignment Coordination . . .   8
       4.5.1.  Bidirectional Bypass Tunnel Assignment Signaling
               Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       4.5.2.  One-to-One Bidirectional Bypass Tunnel Assignment . .  10
       4.5.3.  Multiple Bidirectional Bypass Tunnel Assignments  . .  10
   5.  Fast Reroute for Bidirectional GMPLS LSPs with In-Band
       Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.1.  Link Protection for Bidirectional GMPLS LSPs  . . . . . .  12
       5.1.1.  Behavior after Link Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       5.1.2.  Revertive Behavior after Fast Reroute . . . . . . . .  13
     5.2.  Node Protection for Bidirectional GMPLS LSPs  . . . . . .  13
       5.2.1.  Behavior after Link Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       5.2.2.  Behavior after Link Failure to Restore Co-routing . .  14
       5.2.3.  Revertive Behavior after Fast Reroute . . . . . . . .  16
       5.2.4.  Behavior after Node Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     5.3.  Unidirectional Link Failures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   6.  Fast Reroute For Bidirectional GMPLS LSPs with Out-of-Band
       Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   7.  Message and Object Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     7.1.  BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     7.2.  FRR Bypass Assignment Error Notify Message  . . . . . . .  19
   8.  Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     10.1.  BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT Subobject  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     10.2.  FRR Bypass Assignment Error Notify Message . . . . . . .  21
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24






Taillon, et al.              Standards Track                    [Page 3]
^L
RFC 8271                  FRR for TE GMPLS LSPs             October 2017


1.  Introduction

   Packet Switch Capable (PSC) Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched
   Paths (LSPs) can be set up using Generalized Multiprotocol Label
   Switching (GMPLS) signaling procedures specified in [RFC3473] for
   both unidirectional and bidirectional tunnels.  The GMPLS signaling
   allows sending and receiving the RSVP messages in-band with the data
   traffic or out-of-band over a separate control channel.  Fast Reroute
   (FRR) [RFC4090] has been widely deployed in the packet TE networks
   today and is desirable for TE GMPLS LSPs.  Using FRR methods also
   allows the leveraging of existing mechanisms for failure detection
   and restoration in deployed networks.

   The FRR procedures defined in [RFC4090] describe the behavior of the
   Point of Local Repair (PLR) to reroute traffic and signaling onto the
   bypass tunnel in the event of a failure for protected LSPs.  Those
   procedures are applicable to the unidirectional protected LSPs
   signaled using either RSVP-TE [RFC3209] or GMPLS procedures
   [RFC3473].  When using the FRR procedures defined in [RFC4090] with
   co-routed bidirectional GMPLS LSPs, it is desired that same PLR and
   Merge Point (MP) pairs are selected in each direction and that both
   PLR and MP assign the same bidirectional bypass tunnel.  This
   document updates the FRR procedures defined in [RFC4090] to
   coordinate the bidirectional bypass tunnel assignment and to exchange
   MP labels between upstream and downstream PLRs of the protected
   co-routed bidirectional LSP.

   When using FRR procedures with co-routed bidirectional GMPLS LSPs, it
   is possible in some cases for the RSVP signaling refreshes to stop
   reaching certain nodes along the protected LSP path after the PLRs
   finish rerouting of the signaling messages.  This can occur after a
   failure event when using node protection bypass tunnels.  As shown in
   Figure 2, this is possible even with selecting the same bidirectional
   bypass tunnels in both directions and the same PLR and MP pairs.
   This is caused by the asymmetry of paths that may be taken by the
   bidirectional LSP's signaling in the forward and reverse directions
   due to upstream and downstream PLRs independently triggering FRR.  In
   such cases, after FRR, the RSVP soft-state timeout causes the
   protected bidirectional LSP to be torn down, with subsequent traffic
   loss.

   Protection State Coordination Protocol [RFC6378] is applicable to FRR
   [RFC4090] for local protection of co-routed bidirectional LSPs in
   order to minimize traffic disruptions in both directions.  However,
   this does not address the above-mentioned problem of RSVP soft-state
   timeout that can occur in the control plane.





Taillon, et al.              Standards Track                    [Page 4]
^L
RFC 8271                  FRR for TE GMPLS LSPs             October 2017


   This document defines a solution to the RSVP soft-state timeout issue
   by providing mechanisms in the control plane to complement the FRR
   procedures of [RFC4090].  This solution allows the RSVP soft state
   for co-routed, protected bidirectional GMPLS LSPs to be maintained in
   the control plane and enables co-routing of the traffic paths in the
   forward and reverse directions after FRR.

   The procedures defined in this document apply to PSC TE co-routed,
   protected bidirectional LSPs and co-routed bidirectional FRR bypass
   tunnels both signaled by GMPLS.  Unless otherwise specified in this
   document, the FRR procedures defined in [RFC4090] are not modified by
   this document.  The FRR mechanism for associated bidirectional GMPLS
   LSPs where two unidirectional GMPLS LSPs are bound together by using
   association signaling [RFC7551] is outside the scope of this
   document.

2.  Conventions Used in This Document

2.1.  Key Word Definitions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

2.2.  Terminology

   The reader is assumed to be familiar with the terminology in
   [RFC2205], [RFC3209], [RFC3471], [RFC3473], and [RFC4090].

   Downstream PLR: Downstream Point of Local Repair
      The PLR that locally detects a failure in the downstream direction
      of the traffic flow and reroutes traffic in the same direction of
      the protected bidirectional LSP RSVP Path signaling.  A downstream
      PLR has a corresponding downstream MP.

   Downstream MP: Downstream Merge Point
      The LSR where one or more backup tunnels rejoin the path of the
      protected LSP in the downstream direction of the traffic flow.
      The same LSR can be both a downstream MP and an upstream PLR
      simultaneously.

   Upstream PLR: Upstream Point of Local Repair
      The PLR that locally detects a failure in the upstream direction
      of the traffic flow and reroutes traffic in the opposite direction
      of the protected bidirectional LSP RSVP Path signaling.  An
      upstream PLR has a corresponding upstream MP.



Taillon, et al.              Standards Track                    [Page 5]
^L
RFC 8271                  FRR for TE GMPLS LSPs             October 2017


   Upstream MP: Upstream Merge Point
      The LSR where one or more backup tunnels rejoin the path of the
      protected LSP in the upstream direction of the traffic flow.  The
      same LSR can be both an upstream MP and a downstream PLR
      simultaneously.

   Point of Remote Repair (PRR)
      A downstream MP that assumes the role of upstream PLR upon
      receiving the protected LSP's rerouted Path message and triggers
      reroute of traffic and signaling in the upstream direction of the
      traffic flow using the procedures described in this document.

2.3.  Abbreviations

   GMPLS: Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching

   LSP: Label Switched Path

   LSR: Label Switching Router

   MP: Merge Point

   MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching

   PLR: Point of Local Repair

   PSC: Packet Switch Capable

   RSVP: Resource Reservation Protocol

   TE: Traffic Engineering

3.  Fast Reroute for Unidirectional GMPLS LSPs

   The FRR procedures defined in [RFC4090] for RSVP-TE signaling
   [RFC3209] are equally applicable to the unidirectional protected LSPs
   signaled using GMPLS [RFC3473] and are not modified by the updates
   defined in this document except for the following:

   When using the GMPLS out-of-band signaling [RFC3473], after a link
   failure event, the RSVP messages are not rerouted over the bypass
   tunnel by the downstream PLR but instead are rerouted over a control
   channel to the downstream MP.








Taillon, et al.              Standards Track                    [Page 6]
^L
RFC 8271                  FRR for TE GMPLS LSPs             October 2017


4.  Bypass Tunnel Assignment for Bidirectional GMPLS LSPs

   This section describes signaling procedures for FRR bidirectional
   bypass tunnel assignment for GMPLS signaled PSC co-routed
   bidirectional TE LSPs for both in-band and out-of-band signaling.

4.1.  Bidirectional GMPLS Bypass Tunnel Direction

   This document defines procedures where bidirectional GMPLS bypass
   tunnels are signaled in the same direction as the protected GMPLS
   LSPs.  In other words, the bidirectional GMPLS bypass tunnels
   originate on the downstream PLRs and terminate on the corresponding
   downstream MPs.  As the originating downstream PLR has the policy
   information about the locally provisioned bypass tunnels, it always
   initiates the bypass tunnel assignment.  The bidirectional GMPLS
   bypass tunnels originating from the upstream PLRs and terminating on
   the corresponding upstream MPs are outside the scope of this
   document.

4.2.  Merge Point Labels

   To correctly reroute data traffic over a node protection bypass
   tunnel, the downstream and upstream PLRs have to know, in advance,
   the downstream and upstream MP labels of the protected LSP so that
   data in the forward and reverse directions can be redirected through
   the bypass tunnel after FRR, respectively.

   [RFC4090] defines procedures for the downstream PLR to obtain the
   protected LSP's downstream MP label from recorded labels in the
   RECORD_ROUTE Object (RRO) of the RSVP Resv message received at the
   downstream PLR.

   To obtain the upstream MP label, the procedures specified in
   [RFC4090] are used to record the upstream MP label in the RRO of the
   RSVP Path message of the protected LSP.  The upstream PLR obtains the
   upstream MP label from the recorded labels in the RRO of the received
   RSVP Path message.

4.3.  Merge Point Addresses

   To correctly assign a bidirectional bypass tunnel, the downstream and
   upstream PLRs have to know, in advance, the downstream and upstream
   MP addresses.

   [RFC4561] defines procedures for the downstream PLR to obtain the
   protected LSP's downstream MP address from the recorded Node-IDs in
   the RRO of the RSVP Resv message received at the downstream PLR.




Taillon, et al.              Standards Track                    [Page 7]
^L
RFC 8271                  FRR for TE GMPLS LSPs             October 2017


   To obtain the upstream MP address, the procedures specified in
   [RFC4561] are used to record upstream MP Node-ID in the RRO of the
   RSVP Path message of the protected LSP.  The upstream PLR obtains the
   upstream MP address from the recorded Node-IDs in the RRO of the
   received RSVP Path message.

4.4.  RRO IPv4/IPv6 Subobject Flags

   RRO IPv4/IPv6 subobject flags are defined in [RFC4090], Section 4.4
   and are equally applicable to the FRR procedure for the protected
   bidirectional GMPLS LSPs.

   The procedures defined in [RFC4090] are used by the downstream PLR to
   signal the IPv4/IPv6 subobject flags upstream in the RRO of the RSVP
   Resv message of the protected LSP.  Similarly, those procedures are
   used by the downstream PLR to signal the IPv4/IPv6 subobject flags
   downstream in the RRO of the RSVP Path message of the protected LSP.

4.5.  Bidirectional Bypass Tunnel Assignment Coordination

   This document defines signaling procedures and a new
   BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject in the RSVP RECORD_ROUTE Object (RRO)
   used to coordinate the bidirectional bypass tunnel assignment between
   the downstream and upstream PLRs.

4.5.1.  Bidirectional Bypass Tunnel Assignment Signaling Procedure

   It is desirable to coordinate the bidirectional bypass tunnel
   selected at the downstream and upstream PLRs so that the rerouted
   traffic flows on co-routed paths after FRR.  To achieve this, a new
   RSVP subobject is defined for RRO that identifies a bidirectional
   bypass tunnel that is assigned at a downstream PLR to protect a
   bidirectional LSP.

   When the procedures defined in this document are in use, the
   BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject MUST be added by each downstream PLR in
   the RSVP Path RRO message of the GMPLS signaled bidirectional
   protected LSP to record the downstream bidirectional bypass tunnel
   assignment.  This subobject is sent in the RSVP Path RRO message
   every time the downstream PLR assigns or updates the bypass tunnel
   assignment.  The downstream PLR can assign a bypass tunnel when
   processing the first Path message of the protected LSP as long as it
   has a topological view of the downstream MP and the traversed path
   information in the Explicit Route Object (ERO).  For the protected
   LSP where the downstream MP cannot be determined from the first Path
   message (e.g., when using loose hops in the ERO), the downstream PLR
   needs to wait for the Resv message with RRO in order to assign a
   bypass tunnel.  However, in both cases, the downstream PLR cannot



Taillon, et al.              Standards Track                    [Page 8]
^L
RFC 8271                  FRR for TE GMPLS LSPs             October 2017


   update the data plane until it receives Resv messages containing the
   MP labels.

   The upstream PLR (downstream MP) simply reflects the bypass tunnel
   assignment in the reverse direction.  The absence of the
   BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject in Path RRO means that the relevant node
   or interface is not protected by a bidirectional bypass tunnel.

   Hence, the upstream PLR need not assign a bypass tunnel in the
   reverse direction.

   When the BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject is added in the Path RRO:

   o  The IPv4 or IPv6 subobject containing the Node-ID address MUST
      also be added [RFC4561].  The Node-ID address MUST match the
      source address of the bypass tunnel selected for this protected
      LSP.

   o  The BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject MUST be added immediately after
      the Node-ID address.

   o  The Label subobject MUST also be added [RFC3209].

   The rules for adding an IPv4 or IPv6 Interface address subobject and
   Unnumbered Interface ID subobject as specified in [RFC3209] and
   [RFC4090] are not modified by the above procedure.  The options
   specified in Section 6.1.3 in [RFC4990] are also applicable as long
   as the above-mentioned rules are followed when using the FRR
   procedures defined in this document.

   An upstream PLR (downstream MP) SHOULD check all BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT
   subobjects in the Path RRO to see if the destination address in the
   BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT matches the address of the upstream PLR.  For each
   BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject that matches, the upstream PLR looks for
   a tunnel that has a source address matching the downstream PLR that
   inserted the BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT, as indicated by the Node-ID address
   and the same Tunnel ID as indicated in the BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT.  The
   RRO can contain multiple addresses to identify a node.  However, the
   upstream PLR relies on the Node-ID address preceding the
   BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject for identifying the bypass tunnel.  If
   the bypass tunnel is not found, the upstream PLR SHOULD send a Notify
   message [RFC3473] with Error Code "FRR Bypass Assignment Error"
   (value 44) and Sub-code "Bypass Tunnel Not Found" (value 1) to the
   downstream PLR.  Upon receiving this error, the downstream PLR SHOULD
   remove the bypass tunnel assignment and select an alternate bypass
   tunnel if one available.  The RRO containing BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT
   subobject(s) is then simply forwarded downstream in the RSVP Path
   message.



Taillon, et al.              Standards Track                    [Page 9]
^L
RFC 8271                  FRR for TE GMPLS LSPs             October 2017


   A downstream PLR may add, remove, or change the bypass tunnel
   assignment for a protected LSP resulting in the addition, removal, or
   modification of the BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject in the Path RRO,
   respectively.  In this case, the downstream PLR SHOULD generate a
   modified Path message and forward it downstream.  The downstream MP
   SHOULD check the RRO in the received Path message and update the
   bypass tunnel assignment in the reverse direction accordingly.

4.5.2.  One-to-One Bidirectional Bypass Tunnel Assignment

   The bidirectional bypass tunnel assignment coordination procedure
   defined in this document can be used for both the facility backup
   described in Section 3.2 of [RFC4090] and the one-to-one backup
   described in Section 3.1 of [RFC4090].  As specified in Section 4.2
   of [RFC4090], the DETOUR object can be used in the one-to-one backup
   method to identify the detour LSPs.  In the one-to-one backup method,
   if the bypass tunnel is already in use at the upstream PLR, it SHOULD
   send a Notify message [RFC3473] with Error Code "FRR Bypass
   Assignment Error" (value 44) and Sub-code "One-to-One Bypass Already
   in Use" (value 2) to the downstream PLR.  Upon receiving this error,
   the downstream PLR SHOULD remove the bypass tunnel assignment and
   select an alternate bypass tunnel if one is available.

4.5.3.  Multiple Bidirectional Bypass Tunnel Assignments

   The upstream PLR may receive multiple bypass tunnel assignments for a
   protected LSP from different downstream PLRs, leading to an
   asymmetric bypass tunnel assignment as shown in the following two
   examples.

   As shown in Examples 1 and 2, for the protected bidirectional GMPLS
   LSP R4-R5-R6, the upstream PLR R6 receives multiple bypass tunnel
   assignments, one from downstream PLR R4 for node protection and one
   from downstream PLR R5 for link protection.  In Example 1, R6 prefers
   the link protection bypass tunnel from downstream PLR R5, whereas, in
   Example 2, R6 prefers the node protection bypass tunnel from
   downstream PLR R4.

                       +------->>-------+
                      /           +->>--+ \
                     /           /       \ \
                    /           /         \ \
                  [R4]--->>---[R5]--->>---[R6]
                   PATH ->      \         /
                                 \       /
                                  +-<<--+

         Example 1: Link Protection Is Preferred on Downstream MP



Taillon, et al.              Standards Track                   [Page 10]
^L
RFC 8271                  FRR for TE GMPLS LSPs             October 2017


                       +------->>--------+
                      /           +->>--+ \
                     /           /       \ \
                    /           /         \ \
                  [R4]--->>---[R5]--->>---[R6]

                    \ PATH ->               /
                     \                     /
                      \                   /
                       +-------<<--------+

         Example 2: Node Protection Is Preferred on Downstream MP

   The asymmetry of bypass tunnel assignments can be avoided by using
   the flags in the SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object defined in Section 4.3 of
   [RFC4090].  In particular, the "node protection desired" flag is
   signaled by the head-end node to request node protection bypass
   tunnels.  When this flag is set, both downstream PLR and upstream PLR
   nodes assign node protection bypass tunnels as shown in Example 2.
   When the "node protection desired" flag is not set, the downstream
   PLR nodes may only signal the link protection bypass tunnels avoiding
   the asymmetry of bypass tunnel assignments shown in Example 1.

   When multiple bypass tunnel assignments are received, the upstream
   PLR SHOULD send a Notify message [RFC3473] with Error Code "FRR
   Bypass Assignment Error" (value 44) and Sub-code "Bypass Assignment
   Cannot Be Used" (value 0) to the downstream PLR to indicate that it
   cannot use the bypass tunnel assignment in the reverse direction.
   Upon receiving this error, the downstream PLR MAY remove the bypass
   tunnel assignment and select an alternate bypass tunnel if one is
   available.

   If multiple bypass tunnel assignments are present on the upstream PLR
   R6 at the time of a failure, any resulted asymmetry gets corrected
   using the procedure for restoring co-routing after FRR as specified
   in Section 5.2.2.

5.  Fast Reroute for Bidirectional GMPLS LSPs with In-Band Signaling

   When a bidirectional bypass tunnel is used after a link failure, the
   following procedure is followed when using the in-band signaling:

   o  The downstream PLR reroutes protected LSP traffic and RSVP Path
      signaling over the bidirectional bypass tunnel using the
      procedures defined in [RFC4090].  The RSVP Path messages are
      modified as described in Section 6.4.3 of [RFC4090].





Taillon, et al.              Standards Track                   [Page 11]
^L
RFC 8271                  FRR for TE GMPLS LSPs             October 2017


   o  The upstream PLR reroutes protected LSP traffic upon detecting the
      link failure or upon receiving an RSVP Path message over the
      bidirectional bypass tunnel.

   o  The upstream PLR also reroutes protected LSP RSVP Resv signaling
      after receiving the modified RSVP Path message over the
      bidirectional bypass tunnel.  The upstream PLR uses the procedure
      defined in Section 7 of [RFC4090] to detect that RSVP Path
      messages have been rerouted over the bypass tunnel by the
      downstream PLR.  The upstream PLR does not modify the RSVP Resv
      message before sending it over the bypass tunnel.

   The above procedure allows both traffic and RSVP signaling to flow on
   symmetric paths in the forward and reverse directions of a protected
   bidirectional GMPLS LSP.  The following sections describe the
   handling for link protection and node protection bypass tunnels.

5.1.  Link Protection for Bidirectional GMPLS LSPs

                                                       <- RESV
            [R1]----[R2]----[R3]-----x-----[R4]----[R5]----[R6]
             PATH ->          \             /
                               \           /
                                +<<----->>+
                                     T3
                                  PATH ->
                                  <- RESV

                 Protected LSP:  {R1-R2-R3-R4-R5-R6}
                 R3's Bypass T3: {R3-R4}

        Figure 1: Flow of RSVP Signaling after Link Failure and FRR

   Consider the TE network shown in Figure 1.  Assume that every link in
   the network is protected with a link protection bypass tunnel (e.g.,
   bypass tunnel T3).  For the protected co-routed bidirectional LSP
   whose head-end is on node R1 and tail-end is on node R6, each
   traversed node (a potential PLR) assigns a link protection co-routed
   bidirectional bypass tunnel.












Taillon, et al.              Standards Track                   [Page 12]
^L
RFC 8271                  FRR for TE GMPLS LSPs             October 2017


5.1.1.  Behavior after Link Failure

   Consider the link R3-R4 on the protected LSP path failing.  The
   downstream PLR R3 and upstream PLR R4 independently trigger fast
   reroute to redirect traffic onto bypass tunnel T3 in the forward and
   reverse directions.  The downstream PLR R3 also reroutes RSVP Path
   messages onto the bypass tunnel T3 using the procedures described in
   [RFC4090].  The upstream PLR R4 reroutes RSVP Resv messages onto the
   reverse bypass tunnel T3 upon receiving an RSVP Path message over
   bypass tunnel T3.

5.1.2.  Revertive Behavior after Fast Reroute

   The revertive behavior defined in [RFC4090], Section 6.5.2, is
   applicable to the link protection of bidirectional GMPLS LSPs.  When
   using the local revertive mode, after the link R3-R4 (in Figure 1) is
   restored, following node behaviors apply:

   o  The downstream PLR R3 starts sending the Path messages and traffic
      flow of the protected LSP over the restored link and stops sending
      them over the bypass tunnel.

   o  The upstream PLR R4 starts sending the traffic flow of the
      protected LSP over the restored link and stops sending it over the
      bypass tunnel.

   o  When upstream PLR R4 receives the protected LSP Path messages over
      the restored link, if not already done, it starts sending Resv
      messages and traffic flow of the protected LSP over the restored
      link and stops sending them over the bypass tunnel.

5.2.  Node Protection for Bidirectional GMPLS LSPs

                              T1
                        +<<------->>+
                       /             \
                      /               \          <- RESV
            [R1]----[R2]----[R3]--x--[R4]----[R5]----[R6]
             PATH ->          \               /
                               \             /
                                +<<------->>+
                                      T2

                 Protected LSP:  {R1-R2-R3-R4-R5-R6}
                 R3's Bypass T2: {R3-R5}
                 R4's Bypass T1: {R4-R2}

        Figure 2: Flow of RSVP Signaling after Link Failure and FRR



Taillon, et al.              Standards Track                   [Page 13]
^L
RFC 8271                  FRR for TE GMPLS LSPs             October 2017


   Consider the TE network shown in Figure 2.  Assume that every link in
   the network is protected with a node protection bypass tunnel.  For
   the protected co-routed bidirectional LSP whose head-end is on node
   R1 and tail-end is on node R6, each traversed node (a potential PLR)
   assigns a node protection co-routed bidirectional bypass tunnel.

   The solution introduces two phases for invoking FRR procedures by the
   PLR after the link failure.  The first phase comprises of FRR
   procedures to fast reroute data traffic onto bypass tunnels in the
   forward and reverse directions.  The second phase restores the
   co-routing of signaling and data traffic in the forward and reverse
   directions after the first phase.

5.2.1.  Behavior after Link Failure

   Consider a link R3-R4 (in Figure 2) on the protected LSP path
   failing.  The downstream PLR R3 and upstream PLR R4 independently
   trigger fast reroute procedures to redirect the protected LSP traffic
   onto respective bypass tunnels T2 and T1 in the forward and reverse
   directions.  The downstream PLR R3 also reroutes RSVP Path messages
   over the bypass tunnel T2 using the procedures described in
   [RFC4090].  Note, at this point, that node R4 stops receiving RSVP
   Path refreshes for the protected bidirectional LSP while protected
   traffic continues to flow over bypass tunnels.  As node R4 does not
   receive Path messages over bypass tunnel T1, it does not reroute RSVP
   Resv messages over the reverse bypass tunnel T1.

5.2.2.  Behavior after Link Failure to Restore Co-routing

   The downstream MP R5 that receives the rerouted protected LSP RSVP
   Path message through the bypass tunnel, in addition to the regular MP
   processing defined in [RFC4090], gets promoted to a Point of Remote
   Repair (PRR) role and performs the following actions to restore
   co-routing signaling and data traffic over the same path in the
   reverse direction:

   o  Finds the bypass tunnel in the reverse direction that terminates
      on the downstream PLR R3.  Note: the downstream PLR R3's address
      can be extracted from the "IPV4 tunnel sender address" in the
      SENDER_TEMPLATE Object of the protected LSP (see [RFC4090],
      Section 6.1.1).

   o  If the reverse bypass tunnel is found and the protected LSP
      traffic is not already rerouted over the found bypass tunnel T2,
      the PRR R5 activates FRR reroute procedures to direct traffic over
      the found bypass tunnel T2 in the reverse direction.  In addition,
      the PRR R5 also reroutes RSVP Resv over the bypass tunnel T2 in
      the reverse direction.  This can happen when the downstream PLR



Taillon, et al.              Standards Track                   [Page 14]
^L
RFC 8271                  FRR for TE GMPLS LSPs             October 2017


      has changed the bypass tunnel assignment but the upstream PLR has
      not yet processed the updated Path RRO and programmed the data
      plane when link failure occurs.

   o  If the reverse bypass tunnel is not found, the PRR R5 immediately
      tears down the protected LSP.

                                                 <- RESV
            [R1]----[R2]----[R3]--X--[R4]----[R5]----[R6]
             PATH ->          \               /
                               \             /
                                +<<------->>+

     Bypass Tunnel T2

        traffic + signaling

                  Protected LSP:  {R1-R2-R3-R4-R5-R6}
                  R3's Bypass T2: {R3-R5}

    Figure 3: Flow of RSVP Signaling after FRR and Restoring Co-routing

   Figure 3 describes the path taken by the traffic and signaling after
   restoring co-routing of data and signaling in the forward and reverse
   paths described above.  Node R4 will stop receiving the Path and Resv
   messages and it will timeout the RSVP soft state.  However, this will
   not cause the LSP to be torn down.  RSVP signaling at node R2 is not
   affected by the FRR and restoring co-routing.

   If downstream MP R5 receives multiple RSVP Path messages through
   multiple bypass tunnels (e.g., as a result of multiple failures), the
   PRR SHOULD identify a bypass tunnel that terminates on the farthest
   downstream PLR along the protected LSP path (closest to the protected
   bidirectional LSP head-end) and activate the reroute procedures
   mentioned above.

5.2.2.1.  Restoring Co-routing in Data Plane after Link Failure

   The downstream MP (upstream PLR) MAY optionally support restoring
   co-routing in the data plane as follows.  If the downstream MP has
   assigned a bidirectional bypass tunnel, as soon as the downstream MP
   receives the protected LSP packets on the bypass tunnel, it MAY
   switch the upstream traffic on to the bypass tunnel.  In order to
   identify the protected LSP packets through the bypass tunnel,
   Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP) of the bypass tunnel MUST be disabled.
   The downstream MP checks whether the protected LSP signaling is
   rerouted over the found bypass tunnel, and if not, it performs the
   signaling procedure described in Section 5.2.2.



Taillon, et al.              Standards Track                   [Page 15]
^L
RFC 8271                  FRR for TE GMPLS LSPs             October 2017


5.2.3.  Revertive Behavior after Fast Reroute

   The revertive behavior defined in [RFC4090], Section 6.5.2, is
   applicable to the node protection of bidirectional GMPLS LSPs.  When
   using the local revertive mode, after the link R3-R4 (in Figures 2
   and 3) is restored, the following node behaviors apply:

   o  The downstream PLR R3 starts sending the Path messages and traffic
      flow of the protected LSP over the restored link and stops sending
      them over the bypass tunnel.

   o  The upstream PLR R4 (when the protected LSP is present) starts
      sending the traffic flow of the protected LSP over the restored
      link towards downstream PLR R3 and forwarding the Path messages
      towards PRR R5 and stops sending the traffic over the bypass
      tunnel.

   o  When upstream PLR R4 receives the protected LSP Path messages over
      the restored link, if not already done, the node R4 (when the
      protected LSP is present) starts sending Resv messages and traffic
      flow over the restored link towards downstream PLR R3 and
      forwarding the Path messages towards PRR R5 and stops sending them
      over the bypass tunnel.

   o  When PRR R5 receives the protected LSP Path messages over the
      restored path, it starts sending Resv messages and traffic flow
      over the restored path and stops sending them over the bypass
      tunnel.

5.2.4.  Behavior after Node Failure

   Consider the node R4 (in Figure 3) on the protected LSP path failing.
   The downstream PLR R3 and upstream PLR R5 independently trigger fast
   reroute procedures to redirect the protected LSP traffic onto bypass
   tunnel T2 in forward and reverse directions.  The downstream PLR R3
   also reroutes RSVP Path messages over the bypass tunnel T2 using the
   procedures described in [RFC4090].  The upstream PLR R5 reroutes RSVP
   Resv signaling after receiving the modified RSVP Path message over
   the bypass tunnel T2.

5.3.  Unidirectional Link Failures

   Unidirectional link failures can result in the traffic flowing on
   asymmetric paths in the forward and reverse directions.  In addition,
   unidirectional link failures can cause RSVP soft-state timeout in the
   control plane in some cases.  As an example, if the unidirectional
   link failure is in the upstream direction (from R4 to R3 in Figures 1
   and 2), the downstream PLR (node R3) can stop receiving the Resv



Taillon, et al.              Standards Track                   [Page 16]
^L
RFC 8271                  FRR for TE GMPLS LSPs             October 2017


   messages of the protected LSP from the upstream PLR (node R4 in
   Figures 1 and 2) and this can cause RSVP soft-state timeout to occur
   on the downstream PLR (node R3).

   A unidirectional link failure in the downstream direction (from R3 to
   R4 in Figures 1 and 2), does not cause RSVP soft-state timeout when
   using the FRR procedures defined in this document, since the upstream
   PLR (node R4 in Figure 1 and node R5 in Figure 2) triggers the
   procedure to restore co-routing (defined in Section 5.2.2) after
   receiving RSVP Path messages of the protected LSP over the bypass
   tunnel from the downstream PLR (node R3 in Figures 1 and 2).

6.  Fast Reroute For Bidirectional GMPLS LSPs with Out-of-Band Signaling

   When using the GMPLS out-of-band signaling [RFC3473], after a link
   failure event, the RSVP messages are not rerouted over the
   bidirectional bypass tunnel by the downstream and upstream PLRs but
   are instead rerouted over the control channels to the downstream and
   upstream MPs, respectively.

   The RSVP soft-state timeout after FRR as described in Section 5.2 is
   equally applicable to the GMPLS out-of-band signaling as the RSVP
   signaling refreshes can stop reaching certain nodes along the
   protected LSP path after the downstream and upstream PLRs finish
   rerouting of the signaling messages.  However, unlike with the
   in-band signaling, unidirectional link failures as described in
   Section 5.3 do not result in soft-state timeout with GMPLS out-of-
   band signaling.  Apart from this, the FRR procedure described in
   Section 5 is equally applicable to the GMPLS out-of-band signaling.

7.  Message and Object Definitions

7.1.  BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT Subobject

   The BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject is used to inform the downstream MP
   of the bypass tunnel being assigned by the PLR.  This can be used to
   coordinate the bypass tunnel assignment for the protected LSP by the
   downstream and upstream PLRs in the forward and reverse directions
   respectively prior or after the failure occurrence.

   This subobject SHOULD be inserted into the Path RRO by the downstream
   PLR.  It SHOULD NOT be inserted into an RRO by a node that is not a
   downstream PLR.  It MUST NOT be changed by downstream LSRs and MUST
   NOT be added to a Resv RRO.







Taillon, et al.              Standards Track                   [Page 17]
^L
RFC 8271                  FRR for TE GMPLS LSPs             October 2017


   The BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT IPv4 subobject in RRO has the following format:

        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: 38   |     Length    |      Bypass Tunnel ID         |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |               IPv4 Bypass Destination Address                 |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

              Figure 4: BYPASS ASSIGNMENT IPv4 RRO Subobject

      Type

          Downstream Bypass Assignment.  Value is 38.

      Length

          The Length contains the total length of the subobject in
          bytes, including the Type and Length fields.  The length is 8
          bytes.

      Bypass Tunnel ID

          The bypass tunnel identifier (16 bits).

      Bypass Destination Address

          The bypass tunnel IPv4 destination address.






















Taillon, et al.              Standards Track                   [Page 18]
^L
RFC 8271                  FRR for TE GMPLS LSPs             October 2017


   The BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT IPv6 subobject in RRO has the following format:

        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: 39   |     Length    |      Bypass Tunnel ID         |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                                               |
     +                                                               +
     |               IPv6 Bypass Destination Address                 |
     +                          (16 bytes)                           +
     |                                                               |
     +                                                               +
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

              Figure 5: BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT IPv6 RRO Subobject

      Type

          Downstream Bypass Assignment.  Value is 39.

      Length

          The Length contains the total length of the subobject in
          bytes, including the Type and Length fields.  The length is 20
          bytes.

      Bypass Tunnel ID

          The bypass tunnel identifier (16 bits).

      Bypass Destination Address

          The bypass tunnel IPv6 destination address.

7.2.  FRR Bypass Assignment Error Notify Message

   New Error Code "FRR Bypass Assignment Error" (value 44) and its sub-
   codes are defined for the ERROR_SPEC Object (C-Type 6) [RFC2205] in
   this document, that is carried by the Notify message (Type 21)
   defined in [RFC3473] Section 4.3.  This Error message is sent by the
   upstream PLR to the downstream PLR to notify a bypass assignment
   error.  In the Notify message, the IP destination address is set to
   the node address of the downstream PLR that had initiated the bypass
   assignment.  In the ERROR_SPEC Object, the IP address is set to the





Taillon, et al.              Standards Track                   [Page 19]
^L
RFC 8271                  FRR for TE GMPLS LSPs             October 2017


   node address of the upstream PLR that detected the bypass assignment
   error.  This Error MUST NOT be sent in a Path Error message.  This
   Error does not cause the protected LSP to be torn down.

8.  Compatibility

   New RSVP subobject BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT is defined for the RECORD_ROUTE
   Object in this document that is carried in the RSVP Path message.
   Per [RFC3209], nodes not supporting this subobject will ignore the
   subobject but forward it without modification.  As described in
   Section 7, this subobject is not carried in the RSVP Resv message and
   is ignored by sending the Notify message for "FRR Bypass Assignment
   Error" (with Sub-code "Bypass Assignment Cannot Be Used") defined in
   this document.  Nodes not supporting the Notify message defined in
   this document will ignore it but forward it without modification.

9.  Security Considerations

   This document introduces a new BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject for the
   RECORD_ROUTE Object that is carried in an RSVP signaling message.
   Thus, in the event of the interception of a signaling message, more
   information about the LSP's fast reroute protection can be deduced
   than was previously the case.  This is judged to be a very minor
   security risk as this information is already available by other
   means.  If an MP does not find a matching bypass tunnel with given
   source and destination addresses locally, it ignores the
   BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject.  Due to this, security risks introduced
   by inserting a random address in this subobject is minimal.  The
   Notify message for the "FRR Bypass Assignment Error" defined in this
   document does not result in tear-down of the protected LSP and does
   not affect service.

   Security considerations for RSVP-TE and GMPLS signaling extensions
   are covered in [RFC3209] and [RFC3473].  Further, general
   considerations for securing RSVP-TE in MPLS-TE and GMPLS networks can
   be found in [RFC5920].  This document updates the mechanisms defined
   in [RFC4090], which also discusses related security measures that are
   also applicable to this document.  As specified in [RFC4090], a PLR
   and its selected merge point trust RSVP messages received from each
   other.  The security considerations pertaining to the original RSVP
   protocol [RFC2205] also remain relevant to the updates in this
   document.









Taillon, et al.              Standards Track                   [Page 20]
^L
RFC 8271                  FRR for TE GMPLS LSPs             October 2017


10.  IANA Considerations

10.1.  BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT Subobject

   IANA manages the "Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters"
   registry (see <http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters>).
   IANA has assigned a value for the new BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject in
   the "Class Type 21 ROUTE_RECORD - Type 1 Route Record" registry.

   This document introduces a new subobject for the RECORD_ROUTE Object:

   +------+----------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
   | Type | Description          | Carried in | Carried in | Reference |
   |      |                      | Path       | Resv       |           |
   +------+----------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
   | 38   | BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT    | Yes        | No         | RFC 8271  |
   |      | IPv4 subobject       |            |            |           |
   |      |                      |            |            |           |
   | 39   | BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT    | Yes        | No         | RFC 8271  |
   |      | IPv6 subobject       |            |            |           |
   +------+----------------------+------------+------------+-----------+

10.2.  FRR Bypass Assignment Error Notify Message

   IANA maintains the "Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters"
   registry (see <http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters>).
   The "Error Codes and Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes"
   subregistry is included in this registry.

   This registry has been extended for the new Error Code and Sub-codes
   defined in this document as follows:

   o  Error Code 44: FRR Bypass Assignment Error

   o  Sub-code 0: Bypass Assignment Cannot Be Used

   o  Sub-code 1: Bypass Tunnel Not Found

   o  Sub-code 2: One-to-One Bypass Already in Use












Taillon, et al.              Standards Track                   [Page 21]
^L
RFC 8271                  FRR for TE GMPLS LSPs             October 2017


11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [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>.

   [RFC2205]  Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
              Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
              Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205,
              September 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205>.

   [RFC3209]  Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
              and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
              Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.

   [RFC3473]  Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
              Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-
              Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3473, January 2003,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3473>.

   [RFC4090]  Pan, P., Ed., Swallow, G., Ed., and A. Atlas, Ed., "Fast
              Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4090, May 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4090>.

   [RFC4561]  Vasseur, J., Ed., Ali, Z., and S. Sivabalan, "Definition
              of a Record Route Object (RRO) Node-Id Sub-Object",
              RFC 4561, DOI 10.17487/RFC4561, June 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4561>.

   [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>.













Taillon, et al.              Standards Track                   [Page 22]
^L
RFC 8271                  FRR for TE GMPLS LSPs             October 2017


11.2.  Informative References

   [RFC3471]  Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
              Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description",
              RFC 3471, DOI 10.17487/RFC3471, January 2003,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3471>.

   [RFC4990]  Shiomoto, K., Papneja, R., and R. Rabbat, "Use of
              Addresses in Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching
              (GMPLS) Networks", RFC 4990, DOI 10.17487/RFC4990,
              September 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4990>.

   [RFC5920]  Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
              Networks", RFC 5920, DOI 10.17487/RFC5920, July 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5920>.

   [RFC6378]  Weingarten, Y., Ed., Bryant, S., Osborne, E., Sprecher,
              N., and A. Fulignoli, Ed., "MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-
              TP) Linear Protection", RFC 6378, DOI 10.17487/RFC6378,
              October 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6378>.

   [RFC7551]  Zhang, F., Ed., Jing, R., and R. Gandhi, Ed., "RSVP-TE
              Extensions for Associated Bidirectional Label Switched
              Paths (LSPs)", RFC 7551, DOI 10.17487/RFC7551, May 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7551>.

Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank George Swallow for many useful
   comments and suggestions.  The authors would like to thank Lou Berger
   for the guidance on this work and for providing review comments.  The
   authors would also like to thank Nobo Akiya, Loa Andersson, Matt
   Hartley, Himanshu Shah, Gregory Mirsky, Mach Chen, Vishnu Pavan
   Beeram, and Alia Atlas for reviewing this document and providing
   valuable comments.  A special thanks to Adrian Farrel for his
   thorough review of this document.















Taillon, et al.              Standards Track                   [Page 23]
^L
RFC 8271                  FRR for TE GMPLS LSPs             October 2017


Contributors

   Frederic Jounay
   Orange
   Switzerland

   Email: frederic.jounay@salt.ch


   Lizhong Jin
   Shanghai
   China

   Email: lizho.jin@gmail.com

Authors' Addresses

   Mike Taillon
   Cisco Systems, Inc.

   Email: mtaillon@cisco.com


   Tarek Saad (editor)
   Cisco Systems, Inc.

   Email: tsaad@cisco.com


   Rakesh Gandhi (editor)
   Cisco Systems, Inc.

   Email: rgandhi@cisco.com


   Zafar Ali
   Cisco Systems, Inc.

   Email: zali@cisco.com


   Manav Bhatia
   Nokia
   Bangalore, India

   Email: manav.bhatia@nokia.com





Taillon, et al.              Standards Track                   [Page 24]
^L