draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity-14.txt		draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity-15.txt
	PCE Working Group S. Litkowski		PCE Working Group S. Litkowski
	Internet-Draft S. Sivabalan		Internet-Draft S. Sivabalan
	Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc.		Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc.
	Expires: July 29, 2020 C. Barth		Expires: December 23, 2020 C. Barth
	Juniper Networks		Juniper Networks
	M. Negi		M. Negi
	Huawei Technologies		RtBrick India
	January 26, 2020		June 21, 2020
	Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extension for LSP		Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extension for LSP
	Diversity Constraint Signaling		Diversity Constraint Signaling
	draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity-14		draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity-15
	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 (disjointed) paths for those LSPs. The proposed		computing diverse (disjointed) paths for those LSPs. The proposed
	extension allows a Path Computation Client (PCC) to advertise to a		extension allows a Path Computation Client (PCC) to advertise to a
	PCE that a particular LSP belongs to a particular disjoint-group,		PCE that a particular LSP belongs to a particular disjoint-group,
	thus the PCE knows that the LSPs in the same group need to be		thus the PCE knows that the LSPs in the same group need to be
	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 July 29, 2020.		This Internet-Draft will expire on December 23, 2020.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2020 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
	skipping to change at page 18, line 30 ¶		skipping to change at page 18, line 30 ¶
	7. IANA Considerations		7. IANA Considerations
	7.1. Association Type		7.1. Association Type
	This document defines a new Association type, originally described in		This document defines a new Association type, originally described in
	[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]. IANA is requested to make the		[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]. IANA is requested to make the
	assignment of a new value for the sub-registry "ASSOCIATION Type		assignment of a new value for the sub-registry "ASSOCIATION Type
	Field" (request to be created in [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]),		Field" (request to be created in [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]),
	as follows:		as follows:
	+------------------+--------------------------------+-------------+		+------------------+---------------------------------+--------------+
	| Association type | Association Name | Reference |		| Association type | Association Name | Reference |
	+------------------+--------------------------------+-------------+		+------------------+---------------------------------+--------------+
	| TBD1 | Disjointness Association Type | [This.I-D] |		| TBD1 | Disjointness Association Type | [This.I-D] |
	+------------------+--------------------------------+-------------+		+------------------+---------------------------------+--------------+
	7.2. PCEP TLVs		7.2. PCEP TLVs
	This document defines the following new PCEP TLVs and the IANA is		This document defines the following new PCEP TLVs and the IANA is
	requested to make the assignment of new values for the existing "PCEP		requested to make the assignment of new values for the existing "PCEP
	TLV Type Indicators" registry as follows:		TLV Type Indicators" registry as follows:
	+----------+---------------------------------+-------------+		+----------+----------------------------------+--------------+
	| TLV Type | TLV Name | Reference |		| TLV Type | TLV Name | Reference |
	+----------+---------------------------------+-------------+		+----------+----------------------------------+--------------+
	| TBD2 | Disjointness Configuration TLV | [This.I-D] |		| TBD2 | Disjointness Configuration TLV | [This.I-D] |
	| TBD3 | Disjointness Status TLV | [This.I-D] |		| TBD3 | Disjointness Status TLV | [This.I-D] |
	+----------+---------------------------------+-------------+		+----------+----------------------------------+--------------+
	This document requests that a new sub-registry, named "Disjointness		This document requests that a new sub-registry, named "Disjointness
	Configuration TLV Flag Field", is created within the "Path		Configuration TLV Flag Field", is created within the "Path
	Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry to manage the		Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry to manage the
	Flag field in the Disjointness Configuration TLV. New values are to		Flag field in the Disjointness Configuration TLV. New values are to
	be assigned by Standards Action [RFC8126]. Each bit should be		be assigned by Standards Action [RFC8126]. Each bit should be
	tracked with the following qualities:		tracked with the following qualities:
	o Bit number (count from 0 as the most significant bit)		o Bit number (count from 0 as the most significant bit)
	o Flag Name		o Flag Name
	o Reference		o Reference
	+------------+-------------------------+-------------+		+------------+-------------------------+--------------+
	| Bit Number | Name | Reference |		| Bit Number | Name | Reference |
	+------------+-------------------------+-------------+		+------------+-------------------------+--------------+
	| 31 | L - Link Diverse | [This.I-D] |		| 31 | L - Link Diverse | [This.I-D] |
	| 30 | N - Node Diverse | [This.I-D] |		| 30 | N - Node Diverse | [This.I-D] |
	| 29 | S - SRLG Diverse | [This.I-D] |		| 29 | S - SRLG Diverse | [This.I-D] |
	| 28 | P - Shortest Path | [This.I-D] |		| 28 | P - Shortest Path | [This.I-D] |
	| 27 | T - Strict Disjointness | [This.I-D] |		| 27 | T - Strict Disjointness | [This.I-D] |
	+------------+-------------------------+-------------+		+------------+-------------------------+--------------+
	Table 1: Disjointness Configuration TLV		Table 1: Disjointness Configuration TLV
	7.3. Objective Functions		7.3. Objective Functions
	Three new Objective Functions have been defined in this document.		Three new Objective Functions have been defined in this document.
	IANA is requested to make the following allocations from the PCEP		IANA is requested to make the following allocations from the PCEP
	"Objective Function" sub-registry:		"Objective Function" sub-registry:
	+------------+----------------------------------------+-------------+		+------------+---------------------------------------+--------------+
	| Code Point | Name | Reference |		| Code Point | Name | Reference |
	+------------+----------------------------------------+-------------+		+------------+---------------------------------------+--------------+
	| TBD4 | Minimize the number of shared Links | [This.I-D] |		| TBD4 | Minimize the number of shared Links | [This.I-D] |
	| | (MSL) | |		| | (MSL) | |
	| TBD5 | Minimize the number of shared SRLGs | [This.I-D] |		| TBD5 | Minimize the number of shared SRLGs | [This.I-D] |
	| | (MSS) | |		| | (MSS) | |
	| TBD6 | Minimize the number of shared Nodes | [This.I-D] |		| TBD6 | Minimize the number of shared Nodes | [This.I-D] |
	| | (MSN) | |		| | (MSN) | |
	+------------+----------------------------------------+-------------+		+------------+---------------------------------------+--------------+
	7.4. NO-PATH-VECTOR Bit Flags		7.4. NO-PATH-VECTOR Bit Flags
	This documents defines new bits for the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV in the		This documents defines new bits for the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV in the
	"NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Flag Field" sub-registry of the "Path Computation		"NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Flag Field" sub-registry of the "Path Computation
	Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry. IANA is requested to make		Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry. IANA is requested to make
	the following allocation:		the following allocation:
	+------------+-----------------------------------------+------------+		+-----------+-----------------------------------------+-------------+
	| Bit Number | Name | Reference |		| Bit | Name | Reference |
	+------------+-----------------------------------------+------------+		| Number | | |
	| TBD7 | Disjoint path not found | [This.I-D] |		+-----------+-----------------------------------------+-------------+
	| TBD8 | Requested disjoint computation not | [This.I-D] |		| TBD7 | Disjoint path not found | [This.I-D] |
	| | supported | |		| TBD8 | Requested disjoint computation not | [This.I-D] |
	+------------+-----------------------------------------+------------+		| | supported | |
			+-----------+-----------------------------------------+-------------+
	Table 2: NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV		Table 2: NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV
	7.5. PCEP-ERROR Codes		7.5. PCEP-ERROR Codes
	This document defines new Error-Value within existing Error-Type		This document defines new Error-Value within existing Error-Type
	related to path protection association. IANA is requested to		related to path protection association. IANA is requested to
	allocate new error values within the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types		allocate new error values within the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types
	and Values" sub-registry of the PCEP Numbers registry, as follows:		and Values" sub-registry of the PCEP Numbers registry, as follows:
	+----------+-------------------------+------------------------------+		+----------+-------------------------+------------------------------+
	| Error- | Meaning | Reference |		| Error- | Meaning | Reference |
	| Type | | |		| Type | | |
	+----------+-------------------------+------------------------------+		+----------+-------------------------+------------------------------+
	| 6 | Mandatory Object | [I-D.ietf-pce-association-gr |		| 6 | Mandatory Object | [I-D.ietf-pce-association-gr |
	| | missing | oup] |		| | missing | oup] |
	| | Error-value=TBD10: | [This.I-D] |		| | Error-value=TBD10: | [This.I-D] |
	| | DISJOINTNESS- | |		| | DISJOINTNESS- | |
	| | CONFIGURATION TLV | |		| | CONFIGURATION TLV | |
	| | missing | |		| | missing | |
	| 10 | Reception of an invalid | [RFC5440] |		| 10 | Reception of an | [RFC5440] |
	| | object | |		| | invalid object | |
	| | Error-value=TBD9: | [This.I-D] |		| | Error-value=TBD9: | [This.I-D] |
	| | Incompatible OF code | |		| | Incompatible OF code | |
	+----------+-------------------------+------------------------------+		+----------+-------------------------+------------------------------+
	8. Manageability Considerations		8. Manageability Considerations
	8.1. Control of Function and Policy		8.1. Control of Function and Policy
	An operator SHOULD be allowed to configure the disjointness		An operator SHOULD be allowed to configure the disjointness
	association groups and disjoint parameters at the PCEP peers and		association groups and disjoint parameters at the PCEP peers and
	associate it with the LSPs. The Operator-configured Association		associate it with the LSPs. The Operator-configured Association
	skipping to change at page 24, line 36 ¶		skipping to change at page 24, line 36 ¶
	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
	Mahendra Singh Negi		Mahendra Singh Negi
	Huawei Technologies		RtBrick India
	Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield		N-17L, Floor-1, 18th Cross Rd, HSR Layout Sector-3
	Bangalore, Karnataka 560066		Bangalore, Karnataka 560102
	India		India
	EMail: mahend.ietf@gmail.com		EMail: mahend.ietf@gmail.com
End of changes. 14 change blocks.
	51 lines changed or deleted		52 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/