draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity-05.txt		draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity-06.txt
	PCE Working Group S. Litkowski		PCE Working Group S. Litkowski
	Internet-Draft Orange		Internet-Draft Orange
	Intended status: Standards Track S. Sivabalan		Intended status: Standards Track S. Sivabalan
	Expires: June 21, 2019 Cisco Systems, Inc.		Expires: August 7, 2019 Cisco Systems, Inc.
	C. Barth		C. Barth
	Juniper Networks		Juniper Networks
	D. Dhody		M. Negi
	Huawei		Huawei Technologies
	December 18, 2018		February 3, 2019
	Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) extension for		Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) extension for
	signaling LSP diversity constraint		signaling LSP diversity constraint
	draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity-05		draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity-06
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document introduces a simple mechanism to associate a group of		This document introduces a simple mechanism to associate a group of
	Label Switched Paths (LSPs) via an extension to the Path Computation		Label Switched Paths (LSPs) via an extension to the Path Computation
	Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP) with the purpose of		Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP) with the purpose of
	computing diverse paths for those LSPs. The proposed extension		computing diverse paths for those LSPs. The proposed extension
	allows a Path Computation Client (PCC) to advertise to a PCE that a		allows a Path Computation Client (PCC) to advertise to a PCE that a
	particular LSP belongs to a disjoint-group, thus the PCE knows that		particular LSP belongs to a disjoint-group, thus the PCE knows that
	LSPs in the same group needs to be disjoint from each other.		LSPs in the same group needs to be disjoint from each other.
	skipping to change at page 1, line 42 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 42 ¶
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on June 21, 2019.		This Internet-Draft will expire on August 7, 2019.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect		carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
	to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must		to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
	include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of		include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as		the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
	skipping to change at page 2, line 45 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 45 ¶
	7.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		7.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	7.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		7.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	7.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		7.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	7.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18		7.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	7.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18		7.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	7.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18		7.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18		8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18		9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18		9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19		9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20		Appendix A. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
			Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	[RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element communication		[RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element communication
	Protocol (PCEP) which enables the communication between a Path		Protocol (PCEP) which enables the communication between a Path
	Computation Client (PCC) and a Path Control Element (PCE), or between		Computation Client (PCC) and a Path Control Element (PCE), or between
	two PCEs based on the PCE architecture [RFC4655].		two PCEs based on the PCE architecture [RFC4655].
	PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE Model [RFC8231] describes a set of		PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE Model [RFC8231] describes a set of
	extensions to PCEP to enable active control of MPLS-TE and GMPLS		extensions to PCEP to enable active control of MPLS-TE and GMPLS
	skipping to change at page 9, line 26 ¶		skipping to change at page 9, line 26 ¶
	to PCC (PCUpd, PCInitiate or PCRep message).		to PCC (PCUpd, PCInitiate or PCRep message).
	o VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV: Used to communicate arbitrary vendor		o VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV: Used to communicate arbitrary vendor
	specific behavioral information, described in [RFC7470].		specific behavioral information, described in [RFC7470].
	The DISJOINTNESS-CONFIGURATION-TLV is shown in the following figure:		The DISJOINTNESS-CONFIGURATION-TLV is shown in the following figure:
	0 1 2 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		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 = [TBD2] | Length |		| Type = TBD2 | Length |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Flags |T|P|S|N|L|		| Flags |T|P|S|N|L|
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Type: TBD2.		Type: TBD2.
	Length: Fixed value of 4 bytes.		Length: Fixed value of 4 bytes.
	Flags:		Flags:
	skipping to change at page 19, line 15 ¶		skipping to change at page 19, line 15 ¶
	[RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path		[RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path
	Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)		Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
	Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231,		Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017,		DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>.
	[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]		[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]
	Minei, I., Crabbe, E., Sivabalan, S., Ananthakrishnan, H.,		Minei, I., Crabbe, E., Sivabalan, S., Ananthakrishnan, H.,
	Dhody, D., and Y. Tanaka, "PCEP Extensions for		Dhody, D., and Y. Tanaka, "PCEP Extensions for
	Establishing Relationships Between Sets of LSPs", draft-		Establishing Relationships Between Sets of LSPs", draft-
	ietf-pce-association-group-06 (work in progress), June		ietf-pce-association-group-07 (work in progress), December
	2018.		2018.
	9.2. Informative References		9.2. Informative References
	[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation		[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
	Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,		Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,		DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
	[RFC6007] Nishioka, I. and D. King, "Use of the Synchronization		[RFC6007] Nishioka, I. and D. King, "Use of the Synchronization
	skipping to change at page 20, line 11 ¶		skipping to change at page 21, line 5 ¶
	Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)",		Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)",
	RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017,		RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253>.
	[RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path		[RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path
	Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)		Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
	Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE		Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
	Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017,		Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281>.
			Appendix A. Contributor Addresses
			Dhruv Dhody
			Huawei Technologies
			Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
			Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
			India
			EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Stephane Litkowski		Stephane Litkowski
	Orange		Orange
	EMail: stephane.litkowski@orange.com		EMail: stephane.litkowski@orange.com
	Siva Sivabalan		Siva Sivabalan
	Cisco Systems, Inc.		Cisco Systems, Inc.
	2000 Innovation Drive		2000 Innovation Drive
	Kanata, Ontario K2K 3E8		Kanata, Ontario K2K 3E8
	Canada		Canada
	EMail: msiva@cisco.com		EMail: msiva@cisco.com
	Colby Barth		Colby Barth
	Juniper Networks		Juniper Networks
	EMail: cbarth@juniper.net		EMail: cbarth@juniper.net
	Dhruv Dhody		Mahendra Singh Negi
	Huawei		Huawei Technologies
	Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield		Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
	Bangalore, KA 560066		Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
	India		India
	EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com		EMail: mahendrasingh@huawei.com
End of changes. 12 change blocks.
	13 lines changed or deleted		24 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/