draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-00.txt   draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-01.txt 
Network Working Group C. Margaria. C, Ed. Network Working Group C. Margaria, Ed.
Internet-Draft Nokia Siemens Networks Internet-Draft Nokia Siemens Networks
Intended status: Standards Track O. Gonzalez de Dios. O, Ed. Intended status: Standards Track O. Gonzalez de Dios, Ed.
Expires: March 10, 2011 Telefonica Investigacion y Expires: April 27, 2011 Telefonica Investigacion y
Desarrollo Desarrollo
F. Zhang. F, Ed. F. Zhang, Ed.
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
September 6, 2010 October 24, 2010
PCEP extensions for GMPLS PCEP extensions for GMPLS
draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-00 draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-01
Abstract Abstract
This memo provides extensions for the Path Computation Element This memo provides extensions for the Path Computation Element
communication Protocol (PCEP) for the support of GMPLS control plane. communication Protocol (PCEP) for the support of GMPLS control plane.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
skipping to change at page 1, line 35 skipping to change at page 1, line 35
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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://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 March 10, 2011. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 27, 2011.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2010 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://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 2, line 12 skipping to change at page 2, line 12
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
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. PCEP requirements for GMPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. PCEP requirements for GMPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3. PCEP existing objects related to GMPLS . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.3. PCEP existing objects related to GMPLS . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.4. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.4. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2. PCEP objects and extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2. PCEP objects and extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1. Traffic parameters encoding, GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH . . . . 7 2.1. RP object extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2. END-POINTS Object extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.2. Traffic parameters encoding, GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH . . . . 9
2.2.1. Generalized endpoint Object Type . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.3. Traffic parameters encoding, GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING . 11
2.2.2. END-POINTS TLVs extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.4. END-POINTS Object extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.3. LABEL SET object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.4.1. Generalized endpoint Object Type . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.4. SUGGESTED LABEL SET object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2.4.2. END-POINTS TLVs extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.5. LSPA extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2.5. LABEL-SET object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.6. NO-PATH Object Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2.6. SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.6.1. Extensions to NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2.7. LSPA extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3. Additional Error Type and Error Values Defined . . . . . . . . 16 2.8. NO-PATH Object Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 2.8.1. Extensions to NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3. Additional Error Type and Error Values Defined . . . . . . . . 23
5.1. PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.2. New PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.3. New PCEP Error Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 5.1. PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 5.2. New PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 5.3. New PCEP Error Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 7. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
PCEP RFCs [RFC5440], [RFC5521], [RFC5541], [RFC5520] are focused on PCEP RFCs [RFC5440], [RFC5521], [RFC5541], [RFC5520] are focused on
path computation requests in MPLS networks. [RFC4655] defines the path computation requests in MPLS networks. [RFC4655] defines the
PCE framework also for GMPLS networks. This document complements PCE framework also for GMPLS networks. This document complements
these RFCs by providing some consideration of GMPLS applications and these RFCs by providing some consideration of GMPLS applications and
routing requests, for example for OTN and WSON networks. routing requests, for example for OTN and WSON networks.
The requirements on PCE extensions to support those characteristics The requirements on PCE extensions to support those characteristics
skipping to change at page 3, line 29 skipping to change at page 3, line 29
Elie Sfeir, Franz Rambach (Nokia Siemens Networks) Francisco Javier Elie Sfeir, Franz Rambach (Nokia Siemens Networks) Francisco Javier
Jimenez Chico (Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo) Suresh BR, Jimenez Chico (Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo) Suresh BR,
Young Lee, SenthilKumar S, Jun Sun (Huawei Technologies), Ramon Young Lee, SenthilKumar S, Jun Sun (Huawei Technologies), Ramon
Casellas (CTTC) Casellas (CTTC)
1.2. PCEP requirements for GMPLS 1.2. PCEP requirements for GMPLS
This section provides a set of PCEP requirements to support GMPLS This section provides a set of PCEP requirements to support GMPLS
LSPs and assure signal compatibility in the path. When requesting a LSPs and assure signal compatibility in the path. When requesting a
path computation (PCReq) to PCE, the PCC should be able to indicate, path computation (PCReq) to PCE, the PCC should be able to indicate,
according to [I-D.ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req], the following additional according to [I-D.ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req] and to RSVP procedures like
attributes: explicit label control (ELC), the following additional attributes:
(1) Switching capability: PSC1-4, L2SC, TDM, LSC, FSC (1) Switching capability: for instance PSC1-4, L2SC, TDM, LSC, FSC
(2) Encoding type: as defined in [RFC4202], [RFC4203], e.g., (2) Encoding type: as defined in [RFC4202], [RFC4203], e.g.,
Ethernet, SONET/SDH, Lambda, etc. Ethernet, SONET/SDH, Lambda, etc.
(3) Signal Type: Indicates the type of elementary signal that (3) Signal Type: Indicates the type of elementary signal that
constitutes the requested LSP. A lot of signal types with constitutes the requested LSP. A lot of signal types with
different granularity have been defined in SONET/SDH and G.709 different granularity have been defined in SONET/SDH and G.709
ODUk, such as VC11, VC12, VC2, VC3 and VC4 in SDH, and ODU1, ODU2 ODUk, such as VC11, VC12, VC2, VC3 and VC4 in SDH, and ODU1, ODU2
and ODU3 in G.709 ODUk [RFC4606] and [RFC4328]. and ODU3 in G.709 ODUk [RFC4606], [RFC4328] and other signal types
like the one defined in [I-D.ceccarelli-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709] or
[I-D.zhang-ccamp-gmpls-evolving-g709] .
(4) Concatenation Type: In SDH/SONET and G.709 ODUk networks, two (4) Concatenation Type: In SDH/SONET and G.709 OTN networks, two
kinds of concatenation modes are defined: contiguous concatenation kinds of concatenation modes are defined: contiguous concatenation
which requires co-route for each member signal and requires all which requires co-route for each member signal and requires all
the interfaces along the path to support this capability, and the interfaces along the path to support this capability, and
virtual concatenation which allows diverse routes for the member virtual concatenation which allows diverse routes for the member
signals and only requires the ingress and egress interfaces to signals and only requires the ingress and egress interfaces to
support this capability. Note that for the virtual concatenation, support this capability. Note that for the virtual concatenation,
it also may specify co-routed or separated-routed. See [RFC4606] it also may specify co-routed or separated-routed. See [RFC4606]
and [RFC4328] about concatenation information. and [RFC4328] about concatenation information.
(5) Concatenation Number: Indicates the number of signals that are (5) Concatenation Number: Indicates the number of signals that are
requested to be contiguously or virtually concatenated. Also see requested to be contiguously or virtually concatenated. See also
[RFC4606] and [RFC4328]. [RFC4606] and [RFC4328].
(6) Wavelength Label: as defined in (6) Technology specific label(s) such as wavelength label as
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels] defined in [I-D.ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels]
(7) e2e Path protection type: as defined in [RFC4872], e.g., 1+1 (7) e2e Path protection type: as defined in [RFC4872], e.g., 1+1
protection, 1:1 protection, (pre-planned) rerouting, etc. protection, 1:1 protection, (pre-planned) rerouting, etc.
(8) Link Protection type: as defined in [RFC4203] (8) Link Protection type: as defined in [RFC4203]
(9) Support for unnumbered interfaces: as defined in [RFC3477] (9) Support for unnumbered interfaces: as defined in [RFC3477]
(10) Support for asymmetric bandwidth request (10) Support for asymmetric bandwidth requests.
(11) Indicate the requested granularity for the path ERO: node,
link, label to allow the use of the explicit/suggested label
control of RSVP.
We describe in this document a proposal to fulfill those We describe in this document a proposal to fulfill those
requirements. requirements.
1.3. PCEP existing objects related to GMPLS 1.3. PCEP existing objects related to GMPLS
PCEP as of [RFC5440], [RFC5521] and [I-D.ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext], PCEP as of [RFC5440], [RFC5521] and [I-D.ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext],
supports the following information (in the PCReq and PCRep) related supports the following information (in the PCReq and PCRep) related
to the described RSVP-TE information. to the described requirements.
From [RFC5440]: From [RFC5440]:
o numbered endpoints o numbered endpoints
o bandwidth (float) o bandwidth (encoded as IEEE float)
o ERO o ERO
o LSP attribute (setup and holding priorities) o LSP attributes (setup and holding priorities)
o Request attribute (include some LSP attributes) o Request attribute (include some LSP attributes)
From [RFC5521]: From [RFC5521]:
o Extensions to PCEP for Route Exclusions define a XRO object and a o Extensions to PCEP for Route Exclusions, definition of a XRO
new semantic (F bit): Fail bit indicating that the existing route object and a new semantic (F bit or Fail bit) indicating that the
is failed and resources present in the RRO can be reused. This existing route is failed and resources present in the RRO can be
object also allows to exclude (strict or not) resources; XRO reused. This object also allows to exclude (strict or not)
include the diversity level (node, link, SRLG). The requested resources; XRO include the diversity level (node, link, SRLG).
diversity is expressed in the XRO. The requested diversity is expressed in the XRO.
From [I-D.ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext]: From [I-D.ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext]:
o INTER-LAYER : indicates if inter-layer computation is allowed o INTER-LAYER : indicates if inter-layer computation is allowed
o SWITCH-LAYER : indicates which layer(s) should be considered, can o SWITCH-LAYER : indicates which layer(s) should be considered, can
be used to represent the RSVP-TE generalized label request be used to represent the RSVP-TE generalized label request
o REQ-ADAP-CAP : indicates the adaptation capabilities requested, o REQ-ADAP-CAP : indicates the adaptation capabilities requested,
can also be used for the endpoints in case of mono-layer can also be used for the endpoints in case of mono-layer
computation computation
The shortcomings of the existing PCEP information are: The shortcomings of the existing PCEP information are:
BANDWIDTH does not describe the details of the signal (for example The BANDWIDTH and LOAD-BALANCING objects do not describe the
NVC, multiplier) in the context of TDM or OTN networks. details of the traffic request (for example NVC, multiplier) in
the context of GMPLS networks, for instance TDM or OTN networks.
END-POINTS does not allow specifying an unnumbered interface, nor The END-POINTS object does not allow specifying an unnumbered
the labels on the interface. Those parameters are of interest in interface, nor the labels on the interface. Those parameters are
case of switching constraints. of interest in case of switching constraints.
Current attributes do not allow to express the requested link level Current attributes do not allow to express the requested link level
protection and end-to-end protection attributes. protection and end-to-end protection attributes.
In order to improve the PCEP, a new object is introduced The covered PCEP extensions are:
(GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH) , a new object type is introduced for the
END-POINTS object (generalized-endpoint), and a TLV is added to the New objects are introduced (GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH and GENERALIZED-
LSPA object. In order to allow to restrict the range of labels LOAD-BALANCING) for flexible bandwidth encoding,
returned, an additional object is added : LABEL SET
A new object type is introduced for the END-POINTS object
(generalized-endpoint),
A new TLV is added to the LSPA object.
In order to allow to restrict the range of labels returned, an
additional object is added: LABEL-SET
In order to indicate the mandatory routing granularity in the
response, a new flag in the RP object is added.
1.4. Requirements Language 1.4. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.
2. PCEP objects and extensions 2. PCEP objects and extensions
This section describes the required PCEP objects and extensions. The This section describes the required PCEP objects and extensions. The
PCReq and PCRep messages are defined in [RFC5440]. The format of the PCReq and PCRep messages are defined in [RFC5440]. The format of the
request and response messages with the proposed extensions request and response messages with the proposed extensions
(GENERALIZED BANDWIDTH, SUGGESTED LABEL SET and LABEL Set) is as (GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH, SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET and LABEL-SET) is as
follows: follows:
<request>::= <RP> <request>::= <RP>
<end-point-rro-pair-list> <segment-computation>|<path-key-expansion>
[<LSPA>] <segment-computation> ::=
[<BANDWIDTH>] <ENDPOINTS>
[<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>][<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>] [<LSPA>]
[<metric-list>] [<BANDWIDTH>]
[<IRO>] [<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>]
[<SUGGESTED LABEL SET>] [<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>]
[<LABEL SET>] [<metric-list>]
[<LOAD-BALANCING>] [<OF>]
<RRO>[<BANDWIDTH>]
[<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>]
[<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>]
[<IRO>]
[<SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET>]
[<LABEL-SET>]
[<LOAD-BALANCING>]
[<GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING>]
[<GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING>]
[<XRO>]
<path-key-expansion> ::= <PATH-KEY>
<response>::=<RP> <response>::=<RP>
[<NO-PATH>] [<NO-PATH>]
[<attribute-list>] [<attribute-list>]
[<path-list>] [<path-list>]
<path-list>::=<path>[<path-list>] <path-list>::=<path>[<path-list>]
<path>::= <ERO><attribute-list> <path>::= <ERO><attribute-list>
<metric-list>::=<METRIC>[<metric-list>]
For point-to-multipoint(P2MP) computations, the proposed grammar is:
<segment-computation> ::=
<end-point-rro-pair-list>
[<LSPA>]
[<BANDWIDTH>]
[<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>][<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>]
[<metric-list>]
[<IRO>]
[<SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET>]
[<LABEL-SET>]
[<LOAD-BALANCING>]
[<GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING>]
[<GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING>]
[<XRO>]
<end-point-rro-pair-list>::= <end-point-rro-pair-list>::=
<END-POINTS>[<RRO-List>][<BANDWIDTH>] <END-POINTS>[<RRO-List>][<BANDWIDTH>]
[<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>] [<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>]
[<end-point-rro-pair-list>] [<end-point-rro-pair-list>]
<RRO-List>::=<RRO>[<BANDWIDTH>] <RRO-List>::=<RRO>[<BANDWIDTH>]
[< GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>][<RRO-List>] [< GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>][<RRO-List>]
<metric-list>::=<METRIC>[<metric-list>]
Where: Where:
<attribute-list>::=[<LSPA>] <attribute-list>::=[<LSPA>]
[<BANDWIDTH>] [<BANDWIDTH>]
[<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>] [<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>]
[<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>] [<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>]
[<metric-list>] [<metric-list>]
[<IRO>]
[<IRO>] 2.1. RP object extension
2.1. Traffic parameters encoding, GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH Explicit label control (ELC) is a procedure supported by RSVP-TE,
where the outgoing label(s) is(are) encoded in the ERO. In
consequence, the PCE may be able to provide such label(s) directly in
the path ERO. The PCC, depending on policies or switching layer, may
be required to use explicit label control or expect explicit link,
thus it need to indicate in the PCEReq which granularity it is
expecting in the ERO. The possible granularities can be node, link,
label. Those granularities are dependent, i.e link granularity imply
that the nodes are provided, label granularity that the links and
nodes are provided in the ERO
A new 2-bit routing granularity (RG) flag is defined in the RP object
(IANA suggestion : bit 17 and 16). The values are defined as follows
00 : node
01 : link
02 : label
03 : reserved
When the RP object appears in a request within a PCReq message the
flag indicates the requested route granularity. The PCE SHOULD try
to follow this granularity and MAY return a NO-PATH if the requested
granularity cannot be provided. The PCE MAY return more details on
the route based on its policy. The PCC can decide if the ERO is
acceptable based on its content.
When the RP object appears in a response within a PCRep message the
flag indicates the granularity provided in the response. The PCE MAY
indicates the granularity of the returned ERO. The RG flag is
backward-compatible with previous RFCs: the value sent by
implementation not supporting it will indicate a node granularity.
this flag is optional for responses. A new capability flag in the
PCE-CAP-FLAGS from RFC [RFC5088] and [RFC5089] may be added.
2.2. Traffic parameters encoding, GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH
The PCEP BANDWIDTH does not describe the details of the signal (for The PCEP BANDWIDTH does not describe the details of the signal (for
example NVC, multiplier), hence the bandwidth information should be example NVC, multiplier), hence the bandwidth information should be
extended to use the RSVP Tspec. The PCEP BANDWIDTH object defines extended to use the RSVP Tspec object encoding. The PCEP BANDWIDTH
two types: 1 and 2. C-Type 2 is representing the existing bandwidth object defines two types: 1 and 2. C-Type 2 is representing the
in case of re-optimization. existing bandwidth in case of re-optimization.
The following possibilities cannot be represented in the BANDWIDTH The following possibilities cannot be represented in the BANDWIDTH
object: object:
o Asymmetric bandwidth (different bandwidth in forward and reverse o Asymmetric bandwidth (different bandwidth in forward and reverse
direction), as described in [RFC5467] direction), as described in [RFC5467]
o Optical (SDH/SONET, G.709, ATM, MEF etc) parameters are not o GMPLS (SDH/SONET, G.709, ATM, MEF etc) parameters are not
supported. supported.
We propose to add a new Object named GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH having the According to [RFC5440] the BANDWIDTH object has no TLV and has a
following format: fixed size of 4 bytes. This definition does not allows extending it
with the required information. To express this information, a new
Object named GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH having the following format is
defined:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved |R|O| | Traffic Spec Length | Reserved |R|O|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Traffic Spec | | Traffic Spec |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Optional TLVs ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The bits R and O have the following meaning: The GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH has a variable length. The Traffic spec
length field indicate the length of the Traffic spec field. The bits
R and O have the following meaning:
O bit : set when the value refer to the previous bandwidth in case O bit : set when the value refer to the previous bandwidth in case
of re-optimization of re-optimization
R bit : set when the value refer to the bandwidth of the reverse R bit : set when the value refer to the bandwidth of the reverse
direction direction
The Object type determine which type of bandwidth is represented by The Object type determines which type of bandwidth is represented by
the object. The Following object type are defined: the object. The following object types are defined:
1. Intserv 1. Intserv
2. SONET/SDH 2. SONET/SDH
3. G.709 3. G.709
4. Ethernet MEF (see [I-D.ietf-ccamp-ethernet-traffic-parameters])
4. Ethernet
The encoding of the field Traffic Spec is the same as in RSVP-TE, it The encoding of the field Traffic Spec is the same as in RSVP-TE, it
can be found in the following references. can be found in the following references.
Object Type Name Reference Object Type Name Reference
2 Intserv [RFC2210] 0 Reserved
4 SONET/SDH [RFC4606] 1 Reserved
5 G.709 [RFC4328] 2 Intserv [RFC2210]
6 (TBA by Ethernet [I-D.ietf-ccamp-ethernet-traffic-parameters] 3 Reserved
IANA) MEF
4 SONET/SDH [RFC4606]
5 G.709 [RFC4328]
6 Ethernet [RFC6003]
Traffic Spec field encoding Traffic Spec field encoding
The GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH MAY appear more than once in a PCReq The GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH MAY appear more than once in a PCReq
message. If more than one GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH have the same Object message. If more than one GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH have the same Object
Type, Reserved, R and O values, only the first one is processed, the Type, Reserved, R and O values, only the first one is processed, the
others are ignored. On the response the TLVs that were considered in others are ignored. On the response the object that were considered
the processing SHOULD. in the processing SHOULD be included.
When a PCC needs to get a bi-directional path with asymmetric When a PCC needs to get a bi-directional path with asymmetric
bandwidth, it should specify the different bandwidth in forward and bandwidth, it SHOULD specify the different bandwidth in forward and
reverse directions through two separate GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH reverse directions through two separate GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH
objects. The PCE needs to compute a path that satisfies the objects. The PCE MUST compute a path that satisfies the asymmetric
asymmetric bandwidth constraint and return the path to PCC if the bandwidth constraint and return the path to PCC if the path
path computation is successful. computation is successful.
2.2. END-POINTS Object extensions Optional TLVs may be included within the object body to specify more
specific BW requirements. The specification of such TLVs is outside
the scope of this document.
2.3. Traffic parameters encoding, GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING
The PCEP LOAD-BALANCING follows the bandwidth encoding of the
BANDWIDTH object, it does not describe enough details for the traffic
specification expected by GMPLS, hence this bandwidth information
should be extended to use the RSVP Tspec object encoding.
According to [RFC5440] the LOAD-BALANCING object has no TLV and has a
fixed size of 8 bytes. This definition does not allows extending it
with the required information. To express this information, a new
Object named GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING is defined
The GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING object is optional.
GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING Object-Class is To be assigned by IANA.
The format of the GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING object body is as
follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Traffic spec length | Flags |R| Max-LSP |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Min Traffic Spec |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Optional TLVs ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Traffic spec length (16 bits): the length of the min traffic spec
length, also including the eventual TLV present in RSVP-TE traffic
specification.
Flags (8 bits): The undefined Flags field MUST be set to zero on
transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt. The following flag is
defined:
R Flag : (1 bit) set when the value refer to the bandwidth of the
reverse direction
Max-LSP (8 bits): maximum number of TE LSPs in the set.
Min-Traffic spec (variable): Specifies the minimum traffic spec of
each element of the set of TE LSPs.
The GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING has a variable length. The Object
type determines which type of minimum bandwidth is represented by the
object. The following object types are defined:
1. Intserv
2. SONET/SDH
3. G.709
4. Ethernet
The encoding of the field Traffic Spec is the same as in RSVP-TE, it
can be found in the following references.
Object Type Name Reference
2 Intserv [RFC2210]
4 SONET/SDH [RFC4606]
5 G.709 [RFC4328]
6 Ethernet [RFC6003]
Traffic Spec field encoding
The GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING MAY appear more than once in a PCReq
message. If more than one GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING have the same
Object Type, and R Flag, only the first one is processed, the others
are ignored. On the response the object that were considered in the
processing SHOULD be included.
When a PCC needs to get a bi-directional path with asymmetric
bandwidth, it SHOULD specify the different bandwidth in forward and
reverse directions through two separate GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING
objects with different R Flag. The PCE MUST compute a path that
satisfies the asymmetric bandwidth constraint and return the path to
PCC if the path computation is successful.
Optional TLVs may be included within the object body to specify more
specific bandwidth requirements. The specification of such TLVs is
outside the scope of this document.
The GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING object has the same semantic as the
LOAD-BALANCING object, If a PCC requests the computation of a set of
TE LSPs so that the total of their generalized bandwidth is X, the
maximum number of TE LSPs is N, and each TE LSP must at least have a
bandwidth of B, it inserts a GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH object specifying
X as the required bandwidth and a GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING object
with the Max-LSP and Min-traffic spec fields set to N and B,
respectively.
For example a request for one co-signaled VCAT members will not use
the GENERALIZEd-LOAD-BALANCING. In case the VCAT member can be
diversely routed, the GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH will contain a traffic
specification indicating the complete VCAT group and the GENERALIZED-
LOAD-BALANCING the minimum co-signaled members. For a SDH network, a
request to have a VC4 VCAT group with 10 VC4 container, diversely
routed with 2VC4 container on each path minimum, can be represented
with a GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH object with OT=4, the content of the
Traffic specification is ST=6,RCC=0,NCC=0,NVC=10,MT=1. The
GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING, OT=4,R=0,Max-LSP=5, min Traffic spec is
(ST=6,RCC=0,NCC=0,NVC=2,MT=1). The PCE can respond with a response
with maximum 5 path, each of then having a GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH
OT=4,R=0, and traffic spec matching the minimum traffic spec from the
GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING object of the corresponding request
2.4. END-POINTS Object extensions
The END-POINTS object is used in a PCReq message to specify the The END-POINTS object is used in a PCReq message to specify the
source and destination of the path for which a path computation is source and destination of the path for which a path computation is
requested. From [RFC3471] source IP address and the destination IP requested. From [RFC3471] the source IP address and the destination
address are used to identify those. A new Object Type is defined to IP address are used to identify those. A new Object Type is defined
address the following possibilities: to address the following possibilities:
o Possibility to have different endpoint types. o Different endpoint types.
o Label restrictions on the endpoint. o Label restrictions on the endpoint.
o Specification of unnumbered endpoints type as seen in GMPLS o Specification of unnumbered endpoints type as seen in GMPLS
networks. networks.
The Object encoding is described in the following sections. The Object encoding is described in the following sections.
2.2.1. Generalized endpoint Object Type 2.4.1. Generalized endpoint Object Type
In GMPLS context the endpoints can: In GMPLS context the endpoints can:
o Be unnumbered o Be unnumbered
o Have label(s) associated to them o Have label(s) associated to them
o May have different switching capabilities o May have different switching capabilities
The IPV4 and IPV6 endpoint are used to represent the source and The IPV4 and IPV6 endpoints are used to represent the source and
destination IP addresses. The scope of the IP address (Node or Link) destination IP addresses. The scope of the IP address (Node or Link)
is not explicitly stated. It should also be possible to request a is not explicitly stated. It should also be possible to request a
Path between an numbered link and a unnumbered link, or a P2MP path Path between a numbered link and an unnumbered link, or a P2MP path
between different type of endpoints. between different type of endpoints.
Since the PCEP ENDPOINTS object only support endpoint of the same Since the PCEP ENDPOINTS object only support endpoints of the same
type a new C-Type are proposed that support different endpoint types, type new C-Types are proposed that support different endpoint types,
including unnumbered endpoint. This New C-Type also support the including unnumbered. This new C-Type also supports the
specification of constraints on the endpoint label to be use. The specification of constraints on the endpoint label to be use. The
PCE might know the interface restrictions but this is not a PCE might know the interface restrictions but this is not a
requirement. On the path calculation request only the TSPEC and requirement. On the path calculation request only the TSPEC and
SWITCH layer need to be coherent, the endpoint labels could be SWITCH layer need to be coherent, the endpoint labels could be
different (supporting a different TSPEC). Hence the label different (supporting a different TSPEC). Hence the label
restrictions include a Generalized label request in order to restrictions include a Generalized label request in order to
interpret the labels. interpret the labels.
The proposed object format consists of a body and a list of TLVs with The proposed object format consists of a body and a list of TLVs with
the following defined TLVs (described in Section 2.2.2). the following defined TLVs (described in Section 2.4.2).
1. IPV4 address. 1. IPV4 address.
2. IPV6 address. 2. IPV6 address.
3. Unnumbered endpoint. 3. Unnumbered endpoint.
4. Label request. 4. Label request.
5. Label. 5. Label.
6. Label set. 6. Label set.
7. Suggested label set. 7. Suggested label set.
The Object is encoded as follow: The Object is encoded as follow:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| endpoint type | | Reserved | endpoint type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
~ TLVs ~ ~ TLVs ~
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Reserved bits should be set to 0 when a message is sent and ignored
when the message is received
the endpoint type is defined as follow: the endpoint type is defined as follow:
Value Type Meaning Value Type Meaning
0 Point-to-Point 0 Point-to-Point
1 Point-to-Multipoint New leaves to add 1 Point-to-Multipoint New leaves to add
2 Old leaves to remove 2 Old leaves to remove
3 Old leaves whose path can be 3 Old leaves whose path can be
modified/reoptimized modified/reoptimized
4 Old leaves whose path must be left 4 Old leaves whose path must be left
unchanged unchanged
The TLVs present in the object body should follow the following : 5-32767 Reserved
<generalized-endpoint-tlvs>::= 32768-65535 Experimental range
<endpoint> ; -- Source endpoint
[<endpoint-restrictions>] Endpoint type 0 MUST be accepted by the PCE, other endpoint type MAY
<endpoint> [<endpoint-restrictions>] be supported if the PCE implementation supports P2MP path
[<endpoint> [<endpoint-restrictions>] ...] calculation. The TLVs present in the object body should follow the
following grammar:
<generalized-endpoint-tlvs>::=
<p2p-endpoints> | <p2mp-endpoints>
<p2p-endpoints> ::=
<endpoint>
[<endpoint-restrictions>]
<endpoint>
[<endpoint-restrictions>]
<p2mp-endpoints> ::=
<endpoint> [<endpoint-restrictions>]
[<endpoint> [<endpoint-restrictions>] ...]
Private TLV MAY be inserted at any place and SHOULD be ignored if not
supported by the PCE
For endpoint type Point-to-Point the first endpoint and optional For endpoint type Point-to-Point the first endpoint and optional
endpoint-restriction is the ingress endpoint. The second endpoint endpoint-restriction is the ingress endpoint. The second endpoint
and optional endpoint-restriction is the egress endpoint The further and optional endpoint-restriction is the egress endpoint The further
endpoint and endpoint-restriction are ignored endpoint and endpoint-restriction are ignored
For endpoint type Point-to-Multipoint the first endpoint and optional For endpoint type Point-to-Multipoint several endpoint objects may be
endpoint-restriction is the source endpoint. The further endpoint present in the message and represent a leave, exact meaning depend on
and endpoint-restriction are the leaves. the endpoint type defined of the object.
An endpoint is defined as follow: An endpoint is defined as follow:
<endpoint>::=<IPV4_ADDRESS>|<IPV6_ADDRESS>|<UNNUMBERED_ENDPOINT> <endpoint>::=<IPV4-ADDRESS>|<IPV6-ADDRESS>|<UNNUMBERED-ENDPOINT>
<endpoint-restrictions> ::= <LABEL_REQUEST><label-restriction> <endpoint-restrictions> ::= <LABEL-REQUEST><label-restriction>
[<endpoint-restrictions>] [<endpoint-restrictions>]
<label-restriction> ::= ((<LABEL><UPSTREAM_LABEL>)| <label-restriction> ::= ((<LABEL><UPSTREAM-LABEL>)|
<LABEL_SET>| <LABEL-SET>|
<SUGGESTED_LABEL_SET>) <SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET>)
[<label-restriction>] [<label-restriction>]
2.2.2. END-POINTS TLVs extensions 2.4.2. END-POINTS TLVs extensions
2.2.2.1. IPV4_ADDRESS 2.4.2.1. IPV4-ADDRESS
The format of the END-POINTS TLV object for IPv4 (TLV-Type=To be The format of the END-POINTS TLV object for IPv4 (TLV-Type=To be
assigned) is as follows: assigned) is as follows:
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 | Length | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 address | | IPv4 address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
2.2.2.2. IPV6_ADDRESS TLV 2.4.2.2. IPV6-ADDRESS TLV
The format of the END-POINTS TLV object for IPv6 (TLV-Type=To be The format of the END-POINTS TLV object for IPv6 (TLV-Type=To be
assigned) is as follows: assigned) is as follows:
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 | Length | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 address (16 bytes) | | IPv6 address (16 bytes) |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
2.2.2.3. UNNUMBERED_ENDPOINT TLV 2.4.2.3. UNNUMBERED-ENDPOINT TLV
This TLV represent an unnumbered interface. This TLV has the same This TLV represent an unnumbered interface. This TLV has the same
semantic as in [RFC3477] semantic as in [RFC3477]
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 | Length | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LSR's Router ID | | LSR's Router ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interface ID (32 bits) | | Interface ID (32 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
2.2.2.4. LABEL_REQUEST sub-tlv 2.4.2.4. LABEL-REQUEST TLV
The LABEL-REQUEST indicate the and encoding of the LABEL restriction The LABEL-REQUEST indicate the and encoding of the LABEL restriction
present in the ENDPOINTS its format is the same as described in present in the ENDPOINTS its format is the same as described in
[RFC3471] Section 3.1 Generalized label request [RFC3471] Section 3.1 Generalized label request
2.2.2.5. Labels sub-tlv 2.4.2.5. LABELS TLV
Label or label range may be specified for the TE-LSP endpoints. Label or label range may be specified for the TE-LSP endpoints.
Those are encoded in the sub-TLVs. The label value cannot be Those are encoded in the TLVs. The label value cannot be interpreted
interpreted without a description on the Encoding and switching type. without a description on the Encoding and switching type. The REQ-
The REQ-ADAP-CAP object from [I-D.ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext] can be ADAP-CAP object from [I-D.ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext] can be used in
used in case of mono-layer request, however in case of multilayer it case of mono-layer request, however in case of multilayer it is
is possible to have in the future more than one object, so it is possible to have in the future more than one object, so it is better
better to have a dedicated TLV for the label (the scope is then more to have a dedicated TLV for the label (the scope is then more clear).
clear). TLVs are encoded as follow (following [RFC5440]) : TLVs are encoded as follow (following [RFC5440]) :
o LABEL Sub-TLV, Type = TBA by IANA, Length is variable, Encoding is o LABEL TLV, Type = TBA by IANA, Length is variable, Encoding is as
as [RFC3471] Section 3.2 Generalized label. This represent the [RFC3471] Section 3.2 Generalized label. This represent the
downstream label downstream label
o UPSTEAM-LABEL Sub-TLV , Type = TBA by IANA, Length is variable, o UPSTEAM-LABEL TLV , Type = TBA by IANA, Length is variable,
Encoding is as [RFC3471] Section 3.2 Generalized label. This Encoding is as [RFC3471] Section 3.2 Generalized label. This
represent the upstream label represent the upstream label
o LABEL_SET Sub-TLV, Type = TBA by IANA , Length is variable, o LABEL-SET TLV, Type = TBA by IANA , Length is variable, Encoding
Encoding follow :[RFC3471] Section 3.5 Label set with the addition follow :[RFC3471] Section 3.5 Label set with the addition of a U
of a U bit, the U bit is set for upstream direction in case of bit, the U bit is set for upstream direction in case of
bidirectional LSP. bidirectional LSP.
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 | Length | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Action | Reserved |U| Label Type | | Action | Reserved |U| Label Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Subchannel 1 | | Subchannel 1 |
| ... | | ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: : : : : :
: : : : : :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Subchannel N | | Subchannel N |
| ... | | ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
o SUGGESTED-LABEL_SET Sub-TLV Set, Type = TBA by IANA, Length is o SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET TLV Set, Type = TBA by IANA, Length is
variable, Encoding is as Label Set. variable, Encoding is as Label Set.
A label Sub-TLV represent the label used on the unnumbered interface, A LABEL TLV represent the label used on the unnumbered interface,
bits I and U are used to indicate which exact unnumbered interface/ bits I and U are used to indicate which exact unnumbered interface/
direction is considered. the fields are encoded as in the RSVP-TE. direction is considered. the fields are encoded as in the RSVP-TE.
The Encoding Type indicates the encoding type, e.g., SONET/SDH/GigE The Encoding Type indicates the encoding type, e.g., SONET/SDH/GigE
etc., that will be used with the data associated with the LSP. The etc., that will be used with the data associated with the LSP. The
Switching type indicates the type of switching that is being Switching type indicates the type of switching that is being
requested on the link. G-PID identifies the payload of the TE-LSP. requested on the link. G-PID identifies the payload of the TE-LSP.
The label type indicates which type of label (2) for generalized The label type indicates which type of label (2) for generalized
label is carried. A Label Set Sub-TLV represents a set of possible label is carried. A LABEL-SET TLV represents a set of possible
labels that can be used on the unnumbered interface. The action labels that can be used on the unnumbered interface. The action
parameter in the Label set indicates the type of list provided. parameter in the Label set indicates the type of list provided.
Those parameters are described by [RFC3471] A Suggested Label Set Those parameters are described by [RFC3471] A SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET TLV
Sub-TLV has the same encoding as the Label Set Sub-TLV, it represent has the same encoding as the LABEL-SET TLV, it includes the preferred
the order preferred set of label to be used (ordered) set of label to be used.
The U bit has the following meaning: The U bit has the following meaning:
U: Upstream direction: set when the label or label set is in the U: Upstream direction: set when the label or label set is in the
reverse direction reverse direction
2.3. LABEL SET object 2.4.2.6. Private TLVs
The LABEL SET object is carried within a PCReq message to restrict The format of the private TLV object is described as follow:
the set of labels to be assigned during the routing. Any label
included in the ERO object on the response must comply with the 0 1 2 3
restrictions stated in the LABEL SET, whose encoding is defined as 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
following +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SMI entreprise code |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ data ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The length is at minimum 4 bytes.
2.5. LABEL-SET object
The LABEL-SET object is carried in a request within a PCReq message
to restrict the set of labels to be assigned during the path
computation. Any label included in the ERO object on the response
must comply with the restrictions stated in the LABEL-SET, whose
encoding is defined as following
<LABEL-SET-OBJECT> ::= <LABEL-REQUEST><LABEL-SET>[<LABEL-SET>] <LABEL-SET-OBJECT> ::= <LABEL-REQUEST><LABEL-SET>[<LABEL-SET>]
The LABEL-REQUEST and LABEL-SET TLV are as defined in The LABEL-REQUEST and LABEL-SET TLVs are as defined in
Section 2.2.2.5, See also [RFC3471] and [RFC3473] for the definitions Section 2.4.2.5, See also [RFC3471] and [RFC3473] for the definitions
of the fields. of the fields.
It is allowed to have more than one LABEL SET object per PCReq (for It is allowed to have more than one LABEL-SET object per request
example in case of multiple SWITCH-LAYER present). within a PCReq message (for example in case of multiple SWITCH-LAYER
present).
In the case of unsuccessful path computation, the PCRep message also In the case of unsuccessful path computation the LABEL-SET object MAY
contains a NO-PATH object, and the LABEL SET object MAY be used to be used to indicate the set of constraint that could not be
indicate the set of constraint that could not be satisfied. satisfied.
2.4. SUGGESTED LABEL SET object 2.6. SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET object
The SUGGESTED LABEL SET object is carried within a PCReq message to The SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET object is carried within a PCReq or PCRep
indicate the preferred set of labels to be assigned during the message to indicate the preferred set of labels to be assigned during
routing. The encoding is the same as the LABEL SET object. It is the path computation. The encoding is the same as the LABEL-SET
allowed to have more than one SUGGESTED LABEL SET object per PCReq object. It is allowed to have more than one SUGGESTED LABEL-SET
(for example in case of multiple SWITCH-LAYER present). object per PCReq (for example in case of multiple SWITCH-LAYER
present).
2.5. LSPA extensions 2.7. LSPA extensions
The LSPA carries the LSP attributes. In the end-to-end protection The LSPA carries the LSP attributes. In the end-to-end protection
context this also includes the protection state information. The context this also includes the protection state information. The
LSPA object can be extended by a protection TLV type: Type TBA by LSPA object can be extended by a protection TLV type: Type TBA by
IANA: protection attribute IANA: protection attribute
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 | Length | | Type | Length |
skipping to change at page 15, line 5 skipping to change at page 21, line 28
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|I|R| Reserved | Seg.Flags | Reserved | |I|R| Reserved | Seg.Flags | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The content is as defined in [RFC4872], [RFC4873]. The content is as defined in [RFC4872], [RFC4873].
LSP Flags can be considered for routing policy based on the LSP Flags can be considered for routing policy based on the
protection type. The other attributes are only meaningful for a protection type. The other attributes are only meaningful for a
stateful PCE. stateful PCE.
2.6. NO-PATH Object Extension 2.8. NO-PATH Object Extension
The NO-PATH object is used in PCRep messages in response to an The NO-PATH object is used in PCRep messages in response to an
unsuccessful path computation request (the PCE could not find a path unsuccessful path computation request (the PCE could not find a path
by satisfying the set of constraints). In this scenario, PCE MUST by satisfying the set of constraints). In this scenario, PCE MUST
include a NO-PATH object in the PCRep message. The NO-PATH object include a NO-PATH object in the PCRep message. The NO-PATH object
carries the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV that specifies more information on the carries the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV that specifies more information on the
reasons that led to a negative reply. In case of GMPLS networks reasons that led to a negative reply. In case of GMPLS networks
there could be some more additional constraints that led to the there could be some more additional constraints that led to the
failure like protection mismatch, lack of resources, and so on. Few failure like protection mismatch, lack of resources, and so on. Few
new flags have been introduced in 32-bit flag field of the NO-PATH- new flags have been introduced in the 32-bit flag field of the NO-
VECTOR TLV and no modifications have been made in the NO-PATH object. PATH-VECTOR TLV and no modifications have been made in the NO-PATH
object.
2.6.1. Extensions to NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV 2.8.1. Extensions to NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV
The current NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV carry the following information: The current NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV carry the following information:
Bit number 31 - PCE currently unavailable [RFC5440] Bit number 31 - PCE currently unavailable [RFC5440]
Bit number 30 - Unknown destination [RFC5440] Bit number 30 - Unknown destination [RFC5440]
Bit number 29 - Unknown source [RFC5440] Bit number 29 - Unknown source [RFC5440]
Bit number 28 - BRPC Path computation chain unavailable [RFC5440] Bit number 28 - BRPC Path computation chain unavailable [RFC5440]
Bit number 27 - PKS expansion failure [RFC5520] Bit number 27 - PKS expansion failure [RFC5520]
Bit number 26 - No GCO migration path found [RFC5557] Bit number 26 - No GCO migration path found [RFC5557]
Bit number 25 - No GCO solution found [RFC5557] Bit number 25 - No GCO solution found [RFC5557]
Bit number 24 - P2MP Reachability Problem [RFC5440] Bit number 24 - P2MP Reachability Problem [RFC5440]
skipping to change at page 16, line 5 skipping to change at page 22, line 24
The modified NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV carrying the additional information The modified NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV carrying the additional information
is as follows: New fields PM and NR are defined in the 23th and 22th is as follows: New fields PM and NR are defined in the 23th and 22th
bit of the Flags field respectively. bit of the Flags field respectively.
Bit number 23 (TBA by IANA) - Protection Mismatch (1-bit). Bit number 23 (TBA by IANA) - Protection Mismatch (1-bit).
Specifies the mismatch of the protection type in the request. Specifies the mismatch of the protection type in the request.
Bit number 22 (TBA by IANA) - No Resource (1-bit). Specifies that Bit number 22 (TBA by IANA) - No Resource (1-bit). Specifies that
the resources are not currently sufficient to provide the path. the resources are not currently sufficient to provide the path.
Bit number 21 (TBA by IANA) - Granularity not supported (1-bit).
Specifies that the PCE is not able to provide a route with the
requested granularity.
3. Additional Error Type and Error Values Defined 3. Additional Error Type and Error Values Defined
A PCEP-ERROR object is used to report a PCEP error and is A PCEP-ERROR object is used to report a PCEP error and is
characterized by an Error-Type that specifies the type of error and characterized by an Error-Type that specifies the type of error and
an Error-value that provides additional information about the error an Error-value that provides additional information about the error
type. An additional error type and few error values are defined to type. An additional error type and few error values are defined to
represent some of the errors related to the newly identified objects represent some of the errors related to the newly identified objects
related to SDH networks. For each PCEP error, an Error-Type and an related to SDH networks. For each PCEP error, an Error-Type and an
Error-value are defined. Error-Type 1 to 10 are already defined in Error-value are defined. Error-Type 1 to 10 are already defined in
[RFC5440]. Additional Error- values are defined for Error-Type 10 [RFC5440]. Additional Error- values are defined for Error-Type 10
and A new Error-Type 14 is introduced. and A new Error-Type 14 is introduced.
Error-Type Error-value Error-Type Error-value
10 Reception of an 10 Reception of an
invalid object invalid object
Error-value=:1 Bad Generalized Bandwidth Object value. Error-value=1: Bad Generalized Bandwidth Object value.
Error-value=:2 Unsupported LSP Protection Type in Error-value=2: Unsupported LSP Protection Type in
protection attribute TLV. protection attribute TLV.
Error-value=:3 Unsupported LSP Protection Flags in Error-value=3: Unsupported LSP Protection Flags in
protection attribute TLV. protection attribute TLV.
Error-value=:4 Unsupported Secondary LSP Protection Error-value=4: Unsupported Secondary LSP Protection
Flags in protection attribute TLV. Flags in protection attribute TLV.
Error-value=:5 Unsupported Link Protection Type in Error-value=5: Unsupported Link Protection Type in
protection attribute TLV. protection attribute TLV.
Error-value=:6 Unsupported Link Protection Type in Error-value=6: Unsupported Link Protection Type in
protection attribute TLV. protection attribute TLV.
14 Path computation 14 Path computation
failure failure
Error-value=1: Unacceptable response message. Error-value=1: Unacceptable request message.
Error-value=2: Generalized bandwidth object not Error-value=2: Generalized bandwidth object not
supported. supported.
Error-value=3: Label Set constraint could not be met. Error-value=3: Label Set constraint could not be met.
Error-value=4: Label constraint could not be met. Error-value=4: Label constraint could not be met.
Error-value=5: Unsupported endpoint type in END-POINTS Error-value=5: Unsupported endpoint type in END-POINTS
GENERALIZED-ENDPOINTS object type GENERALIZED-ENDPOINTS object type
Error-value=6: Unsupported TLV present in END-POINTS Error-value=6: Unsupported TLV present in END-POINTS
GENERALIZED-ENDPOINTS object type GENERALIZED-ENDPOINTS object type
Error-value=7: Unsupported granularity in the RP object
flags
4. Manageability Considerations 4. Manageability Considerations
Liveness Detection and Monitoring This document makes no change to Liveness Detection and Monitoring This document makes no change to
the basic operation of PCEP and so there are no changes to the the basic operation of PCEP and so there are no changes to the
requirements for liveness detection and monitoring set out in requirements for liveness detection and monitoring set out in
[RFC4657] and [RFC5440]. [RFC4657] and [RFC5440].
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
IANA assigns values to the PCEP protocol objects and TLVs. IANA is IANA assigns values to the PCEP protocol objects and TLVs. IANA is
requested to make some allocations for the newly defined objects and requested to make some allocations for the newly defined objects and
TLVs introduced in this document. Also, IANA is requested to manage TLVs introduced in this document. Also, IANA is requested to manage
the space of flags that are newly added in the TLVs. the space of flags that are newly added in the TLVs.
5.1. PCEP Objects 5.1. PCEP Objects
As described in Section 2.1 a new Object is defined IANA is requested As described in Section 2.2 and Section 2.3new Objects are defined
to make the following Object-Type allocations from the "PCEP Objects" IANA is requested to make the following Object-Type allocations from
sub-registry: the "PCEP Objects" sub-registry:
Object Class to be assigned Object Class to be assigned
Name GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH Name GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH
Object-Type 1 Object-Type 0 to 6
Reference This document (section Section 2.1) Reference This document (section Section 2.2)
As described in Section 2.2.1 a new Object type is defined IANA is Object Class to be assigned
Name GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING
Object-Type 0 to 6
Reference This document (section Section 2.3)
As described in Section 2.4.1 a new Object type is defined IANA is
requested to make the following Object-Type allocations from the requested to make the following Object-Type allocations from the
"PCEP Objects" sub-registry: "PCEP Objects" sub-registry:
Object Class 4 Object Class 4
Name END-POINTS Name END-POINTS
Object-Type 5 : Generalized Endpoint Object-Type 5 : Generalized Endpoint
6-15 : unassigned 6-15 : unassigned
Reference This document (section Section 2.1) Reference This document (section Section 2.2)
5.2. New PCEP TLVs 5.2. New PCEP TLVs
IANA is requested to create a registry for the following TLVs: IANA is requested to create a registry for the following TLVs:
Value Meaning Reference Value Meaning Reference
x IPV4 endpoint This document (section x IPV4 endpoint This document (section
Section 2.2.2.1) Section 2.4.2.1)
x IPV6 endpoint This document (section x IPV6 endpoint This document (section
Section 2.2.2.2) Section 2.4.2.2)
x Unnumbered endpoint This document (section x Unnumbered endpoint This document (section
Section 2.2.2.3) Section 2.4.2.3)
x Label request This document (section x Label request This document (section
Section 2.2.2.4) Section 2.4.2.4)
x Requested GMPLS Label This document (section x Requested GMPLS Label This document (section
Section 2.2.2.5) Section 2.4.2.5)
x Requested GMPLS Upstream This document (section x Requested GMPLS Upstream This document (section
Label Section 2.2.2.5) Label Section 2.4.2.5)
x Requested GMPLS Label Set This document (section x Requested GMPLS Label Set This document (section
Section 2.2.2.5) Section 2.4.2.5)
x Suggested GMPLS Label Set This document (section x Suggested GMPLS Label Set This document (section
Section 2.2.2.5) Section 2.4.2.5)
x LSP Protection Information This document (section Section 2.5) x LSP Protection Information This document (section Section 2.7)
5.3. New PCEP Error Codes 5.3. New PCEP Error Codes
As described in Section Section 3, new PCEP Error-Type and Error As described in Section Section 3, new PCEP Error-Type and Error
Values are defined. IANA is requested to manage the code space of Values are defined. IANA is requested to manage the code space of
the Error object. the Error object.
Error-Type Error-value Error-Type Error-value
10 Reception of an 10 Reception of an
invalid object invalid object
Error-value=:1 Bad Generalized Bandwidth Object value. Error-value=1: Bad Generalized Bandwidth Object value.
Error-value=:2 Unsupported LSP Protection Type in Error-value=2: Unsupported LSP Protection Type in
protection attribute TLV. protection attribute TLV.
Error-value=:3 Unsupported LSP Protection Flags in Error-value=3: Unsupported LSP Protection Flags in
protection attribute TLV. protection attribute TLV.
Error-value=:4 Unsupported Secondary LSP Protection Error-value=4: Unsupported Secondary LSP Protection
Flags in protection attribute TLV. Flags in protection attribute TLV.
Error-value=:5 Unsupported Link Protection Type in Error-value=5: Unsupported Link Protection Type in
protection attribute TLV. protection attribute TLV.
Error-value=:6 Unsupported Link Protection Type in Error-value=6: Unsupported Link Protection Type in
protection attribute TLV. protection attribute TLV.
14 Path computation 14 Path computation
failure failure
Error-value=1: Unacceptable response message. Error-value=1: Unacceptable request message.
Error-value=2: Generalized bandwidth object not Error-value=2: Generalized bandwidth object not
supported. supported.
Error-value=3: Label Set constraint could not be met. Error-value=3: Label Set constraint could not be met.
Error-value=4: Label constraint could not be met. Error-value=4: Label constraint could not be met.
Error-value=5: Unsupported endpoint type in END-POINTS Error-value=5: Unsupported endpoint type in END-POINTS
GENERALIZED-ENDPOINTS object type GENERALIZED-ENDPOINTS object type
Error-value=6: Unsupported TLV present in END-POINTS Error-value=6: Unsupported TLV present in END-POINTS
GENERALIZED-ENDPOINTS object type GENERALIZED-ENDPOINTS object type
Error-value=7: Unsupported granularity in the RP object
flags
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
None. None.
7. Contributing Authors 7. Contributing Authors
Nokia Siemens Networks: Nokia Siemens Networks:
Elie Sfeir Elie Sfeir
St Martin Strasse 76 St Martin Strasse 76
skipping to change at page 26, line 52 skipping to change at page 33, line 52
Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control", RFC 4606, August 2006. Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control", RFC 4606, August 2006.
[RFC4872] Lang, J., Rekhter, Y., and D. Papadimitriou, "RSVP-TE [RFC4872] Lang, J., Rekhter, Y., and D. Papadimitriou, "RSVP-TE
Extensions in Support of End-to-End Generalized Multi- Extensions in Support of End-to-End Generalized Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery", RFC 4872, Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery", RFC 4872,
May 2007. May 2007.
[RFC4873] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., and A. Farrel, [RFC4873] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., and A. Farrel,
"GMPLS Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, May 2007. "GMPLS Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, May 2007.
[RFC5088] Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., Ikejiri, Y., and R. Zhang,
"OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element
(PCE) Discovery", RFC 5088, January 2008.
[RFC5089] Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., Ikejiri, Y., and R. Zhang,
"IS-IS Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element
(PCE) Discovery", RFC 5089, January 2008.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP. and JL. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP. and JL. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element
(PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
March 2009. March 2009.
[RFC5520] Bradford, R., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel, "Preserving [RFC5520] Bradford, R., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel, "Preserving
Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path Computation Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path Computation
Using a Path-Key-Based Mechanism", RFC 5520, April 2009. Using a Path-Key-Based Mechanism", RFC 5520, April 2009.
[RFC5521] Oki, E., Takeda, T., and A. Farrel, "Extensions to the [RFC5521] Oki, E., Takeda, T., and A. Farrel, "Extensions to the
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for
skipping to change at page 27, line 24 skipping to change at page 34, line 32
[RFC5541] Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., and Y. Lee, "Encoding of [RFC5541] Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., and Y. Lee, "Encoding of
Objective Functions in the Path Computation Element Objective Functions in the Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5541, June 2009. Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5541, June 2009.
[RFC5557] Lee, Y., Le Roux, JL., King, D., and E. Oki, "Path [RFC5557] Lee, Y., Le Roux, JL., King, D., and E. Oki, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Requirements and Protocol Extensions in Support of Global Requirements and Protocol Extensions in Support of Global
Concurrent Optimization", RFC 5557, July 2009. Concurrent Optimization", RFC 5557, July 2009.
[RFC6003] Papadimitriou, D., "Ethernet Traffic Parameters",
RFC 6003, October 2010.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-ethernet-traffic-parameters] [I-D.ceccarelli-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709]
Papadimitriou, D., "Ethernet Traffic Parameters", Ceccarelli, D., Caviglia, D., Zhang, F., Li, D., Xu, Y.,
draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-traffic-parameters-10 (work in Belotti, S., Grandi, P., and J. Drake, "Traffic
progress), January 2010. Engineering Extensions to OSPF for Generalized MPLS
(GMPLS) Control of Evolving G.709 OTN Networks",
draft-ceccarelli-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709-04 (work in
progress), October 2010.
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels] [I-D.ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels]
Otani, T., Rabbat, R., Shiba, S., Guo, H., Miyazaki, K., Otani, T., Rabbat, R., Shiba, S., Guo, H., Miyazaki, K.,
Caviglia, D., Li, D., and T. Tsuritani, "Generalized Caviglia, D., Li, D., and T. Tsuritani, "Generalized
Labels for Lambda-Switching Capable Label Switching Labels for Lambda-Switching Capable Label Switching
Routers", draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels-07 Routers", draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels-07
(work in progress), April 2010. (work in progress), April 2010.
[I-D.ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req] [I-D.ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req]
Otani, T., Ogaki, K., Caviglia, D., and F. Zhang, Otani, T., Ogaki, K., Caviglia, D., and F. Zhang,
"Document: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-01.txt", "Document: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-03.txt",
draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-01 (work in progress), draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-03 (work in progress),
July 2009. October 2010.
[I-D.ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext] [I-D.ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext]
Oki, E., Takeda, T., Roux, J., and A. Farrel, "Extensions Oki, E., Takeda, T., Roux, J., and A. Farrel, "Extensions
to the Path Computation Element communication Protocol to the Path Computation Element communication Protocol
(PCEP) for Inter-Layer MPLS and GMPLS Traffic (PCEP) for Inter-Layer MPLS and GMPLS Traffic
Engineering", draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext-03 (work in Engineering", draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext-04 (work in
progress), September 2009. progress), July 2010.
[I-D.ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength] [I-D.ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength]
Lee, Y., Bernstein, G., Martensson, J., Takeda, T., and T. Lee, Y., Bernstein, G., Martensson, J., Takeda, T., and T.
Tsuritani, "PCEP Requirements for WSON Routing and Tsuritani, "PCEP Requirements for WSON Routing and
Wavelength Assignment", Wavelength Assignment",
draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-01 (work in draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-02 (work in
progress), March 2010. progress), August 2010.
[I-D.zhang-ccamp-gmpls-evolving-g709]
Zhang, F., Zhang, G., Belotti, S., Ceccarelli, D., Lin,
Y., Xu, Y., Grandi, P., and D. Caviglia, "Generalized
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling
Extensions for the evolving G.709 Optical Transport
Networks Control",
draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-evolving-g709-06 (work in
progress), October 2010.
[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, August 2006. Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006.
[RFC4657] Ash, J. and J. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element (PCE) [RFC4657] Ash, J. and J. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element (PCE)
Communication Protocol Generic Requirements", RFC 4657, Communication Protocol Generic Requirements", RFC 4657,
September 2006. September 2006.
[RFC5467] Berger, L., Takacs, A., Caviglia, D., Fedyk, D., and J. [RFC5467] Berger, L., Takacs, A., Caviglia, D., Fedyk, D., and J.
Meuric, "GMPLS Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional Label Meuric, "GMPLS Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional Label
 End of changes. 129 change blocks. 
246 lines changed or deleted 543 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.40. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/