draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-01.txt   draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-02.txt 
Network Working Group C. Margaria, 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, Ed. Intended status: Standards Track O. Gonzalez de Dios, Ed.
Expires: April 27, 2011 Telefonica Investigacion y Expires: September 12, 2011 Telefonica Investigacion y
Desarrollo Desarrollo
F. Zhang, Ed. F. Zhang, Ed.
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
October 24, 2010 March 11, 2011
PCEP extensions for GMPLS PCEP extensions for GMPLS
draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-01 draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-02
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 April 27, 2011. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 12, 2011.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2011 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
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 18 skipping to change at page 2, line 18
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.4. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2. PCEP objects and extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2. PCEP objects and extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1. RP object extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.1. RP object extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2. Traffic parameters encoding, GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH . . . . 9 2.2. Traffic parameters encoding, GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH . . . . 9
2.3. Traffic parameters encoding, GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING . 11 2.3. Traffic parameters encoding, GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING . 11
2.4. END-POINTS Object extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2.4. END-POINTS Object extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.4.1. Generalized endpoint Object Type . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2.4.1. Generalized Endpoint Object Type . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.4.2. END-POINTS TLVs extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2.4.2. END-POINTS TLVs extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.5. LABEL-SET object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2.5. LABEL-SET object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.6. SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2.6. SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.7. LSPA extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 2.7. LSPA extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.8. NO-PATH Object Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 2.8. NO-PATH Object Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.8.1. Extensions to NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 21 2.8.1. Extensions to NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3. Additional Error Type and Error Values Defined . . . . . . . . 23 3. Additional Error Type and Error Values Defined . . . . . . . . 23
4. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 4. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.1. PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 5.1. PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.2. New PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 5.2. END-POINTS object, Object Type Generalized Endpoint . . . 27
5.3. New PCEP Error Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 5.3. New PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 5.4. RP Object Flag Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 5.5. New PCEP Error Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 5.6. New NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 7. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
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 4, line 22 skipping to change at page 4, line 22
(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 requests. (10) Support for asymmetric bandwidth requests.
(11) Indicate the requested granularity for the path ERO: node, (11) Ability to indicate the requested granularity for the path
link, label to allow the use of the explicit/suggested label ERO: node, link, label. This is to allow the use of the explicit
control of RSVP. label control of RSVP.
(12) In order to support the label control the Path computation
response should provide label information matching signaling
capabilities
(13) The PCC should be able to provide label restrictions similar
to RSVP on the requests.
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 requirements. to the described requirements.
skipping to change at page 4, line 44 skipping to change at page 5, line 4
From [RFC5440]: From [RFC5440]:
o numbered endpoints o numbered endpoints
o bandwidth (encoded as IEEE float) o bandwidth (encoded as IEEE float)
o ERO o ERO
o LSP attributes (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],Extensions to PCEP for Route Exclusions, definition of
a XRO object and a new semantic (F bit):
o Extensions to PCEP for Route Exclusions, definition of a XRO o This object also allows to exclude (strict or not) resources; XRO
object and a new semantic (F bit or Fail bit) indicating that the include the diversity level (node, link, SRLG). The requested
existing route is failed and resources present in the RRO can be diversity is expressed in the XRO
reused. This object also allows to exclude (strict or not)
resources; XRO include the diversity level (node, link, SRLG). o This Object with the F bit set indicates that the existing route
The requested diversity is expressed in the XRO. is failed and resources present in the RRO can be reused.
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
skipping to change at page 5, line 37 skipping to change at page 5, line 45
of interest in 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.
The covered PCEP extensions are: The covered PCEP extensions are:
New objects are introduced (GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH and GENERALIZED- New objects are introduced (GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH and GENERALIZED-
LOAD-BALANCING) for flexible bandwidth encoding, LOAD-BALANCING) for flexible bandwidth encoding,
New Objects are introduced (LABEL-SET and SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET) on
order to allow the PCC to restrict/influence the range of labels
returned
A new object type is introduced for the END-POINTS object A new object type is introduced for the END-POINTS object
(generalized-endpoint), (generalized-endpoint),
A new TLV is added to the LSPA object. 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 In order to indicate the mandatory routing granularity in the
response, a new flag in the RP object is added. 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, GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING, SUGGESTED-LABEL-
follows: SET and LABEL-SET) is as follows:
<request>::= <RP> <request>::= <RP>
<segment-computation>|<path-key-expansion> <segment-computation>|<path-key-expansion>
<segment-computation> ::= <segment-computation> ::=
<ENDPOINTS> <END-POINTS>
[<LSPA>] [<LSPA>]
[<BANDWIDTH>] [<BANDWIDTH>]
[<BANDWIDTH>]
[<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>] [<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>]
[<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>] [<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>]
[<metric-list>] [<metric-list>]
[<OF>] [<OF>]
<RRO>[<BANDWIDTH>] [<RRO>[<BANDWIDTH>]
[<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>]
[<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>] [<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>]
[<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>]]
[<IRO>] [<IRO>]
[<SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET>] [<SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET>]
[<LABEL-SET>] [<LABEL-SET>...]
[<LOAD-BALANCING>] [<LOAD-BALANCING>]
[<GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING>] [<GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING>]
[<GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING>] [<GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING>]
[<XRO>] [<XRO>]
<path-key-expansion> ::= <PATH-KEY> <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>] <metric-list>::=<METRIC>[<metric-list>]
Where:
<attribute-list>::=[<LSPA>]
[<BANDWIDTH>]
[<LABEL-SET>...]
[<SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET>...]
[<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>]
[<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>]
[<GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING>]
[<GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING>]
[<metric-list>]
[<IRO>]
For point-to-multipoint(P2MP) computations, the proposed grammar is: For point-to-multipoint(P2MP) computations, the proposed grammar is:
<segment-computation> ::= <segment-computation> ::=
<end-point-rro-pair-list> <end-point-rro-pair-list>
[<LSPA>] [<LSPA>]
[<BANDWIDTH>] [<BANDWIDTH>]
[<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>][<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>] [<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>]
[<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>]
[<metric-list>] [<metric-list>]
[<IRO>] [<IRO>]
[<SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET>] [<SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET>]
[<LABEL-SET>] [<LABEL-SET>]
[<LOAD-BALANCING>] [<LOAD-BALANCING>]
[<GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING>] [<GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING>]
[<GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING>] [<GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING>]
[<XRO>] [<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>]
Where:
<attribute-list>::=[<LSPA>]
[<BANDWIDTH>]
[<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>]
[<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>]
[<metric-list>]
[<IRO>]
2.1. RP object extension 2.1. RP object extension
Explicit label control (ELC) is a procedure supported by RSVP-TE, Explicit label control (ELC) is a procedure supported by RSVP-TE,
where the outgoing label(s) is(are) encoded in the ERO. In 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 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 the path ERO. The PCC, depending on policies or switching layer, may
be required to use explicit label control or expect explicit link, be required to use explicit label control or expect explicit link,
thus it need to indicate in the PCEReq which granularity it is thus it need to indicate in the PCReq which granularity it is
expecting in the ERO. The possible granularities can be node, link, expecting in the ERO. The possible granularities can be node, link,
label. Those granularities are dependent, i.e link granularity imply label. The granularities are inter-dependent, in the sense that link
that the nodes are provided, label granularity that the links and granularity imply the presence of node information in the
nodes are provided in the ERO ERO,similarly a label granularity imply that the ERO contain node,
link and label information.
A new 2-bit routing granularity (RG) flag is defined in the RP object A new 2-bit routing granularity (RG) flag is defined in the RP
(IANA suggestion : bit 17 and 16). The values are defined as follows object. The values are defined as follows
00 : node
01 : link 0 : node
02 : label 1 : link
03 : reserved 2 : label
3 : reserved
When the RP object appears in a request within a PCReq message the When the RP object appears in a request within a PCReq message the
flag indicates the requested route granularity. The PCE SHOULD try flag indicates the requested route granularity. The PCE SHOULD try
to follow this granularity and MAY return a NO-PATH if the requested to follow this granularity and MAY return a NO-PATH if the requested
granularity cannot be provided. The PCE MAY return more details on 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 the route based on its policy. The PCC can decide if the ERO is
acceptable based on its content. acceptable based on its content.
When the RP object appears in a response within a PCRep message the When the RP object appears in a response within a PCRep message the
flag indicates the granularity provided in the response. The PCE MAY flag indicates the granularity provided in the response. The PCE MAY
indicates the granularity of the returned ERO. The RG flag is indicate the granularity of the returned ERO. The RG flag is
backward-compatible with previous RFCs: the value sent by backward-compatible with previous RFCs: the value sent by an
implementation not supporting it will indicate a node granularity. implementation not supporting it will indicate a node granularity.
this flag is optional for responses. A new capability flag in the This flag is optional for responses. A new capability flag in the
PCE-CAP-FLAGS from RFC [RFC5088] and [RFC5089] may be added. PCE-CAP-FLAGS from [RFC5088] and [RFC5089] may be added.
2.2. Traffic parameters encoding, GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH 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 object encoding. The PCEP BANDWIDTH extended to use the RSVP Tspec object encoding. The PCEP BANDWIDTH
object defines two types: 1 and 2. C-Type 2 is representing the object defines two types: 1 and 2. C-Type 2 is representing the
existing bandwidth 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 GMPLS (SDH/SONET, G.709, ATM, MEF etc) parameters are not o GMPLS (SDH/SONET, G.709, ATM, MEF etc) parameters are not
supported. supported.
According to [RFC5440] the BANDWIDTH object has no TLV and has a According to [RFC5440] the BANDWIDTH object has no TLV and has a
fixed size of 4 bytes. This definition does not allows extending it fixed size of 4 bytes. This definition does not allow extending it
with the required information. To express this information, a new with the required information. To express this information, a new
Object named GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH having the following format is object named GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH having the following format is
defined: 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Traffic Spec Length | Reserved |R|O| | Traffic Spec Length | Reserved |R|O|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Traffic Spec | | |
~ Traffic Spec ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
~ Optional TLVs ~ ~ Optional TLVs ~
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH has a variable length. The Traffic spec The GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH has a variable length. The Traffic spec
length field indicate the length of the Traffic spec field. The bits length field indicates the length of the Traffic spec field. The
R and O have the following meaning: bits R and O have the following meaning:
O bit : set when the value refer to the previous bandwidth in case O bit : when set the value refers to the previous bandwidth in
of re-optimization case of re-optimization
R bit : set when the value refer to the bandwidth of the reverse R bit : when set the value refers to the bandwidth of the reverse
direction direction
The Object type determines which type of bandwidth is represented by The Object type determines which type of bandwidth is represented by
the object. The following object types 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
skipping to change at page 11, line 13 skipping to change at page 11, line 13
can be found in the following references. can be found in the following references.
Object Type Name Reference Object Type Name Reference
0 Reserved 0 Reserved
1 Reserved 1 Reserved
2 Intserv [RFC2210] 2 Intserv [RFC2210]
3 Reserved 3 Re served
4 SONET/SDH [RFC4606] 4 SONET/SDH [RFC4606]
5 G.709 [RFC4328] 5 G.709 [RFC4328]
6 Ethernet [RFC6003] 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 object that were considered others are ignored. On the response the GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH object
in the processing SHOULD be included. that was considered 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 MUST compute a path that satisfies the asymmetric objects. The PCE MUST compute a path that satisfies the asymmetric
bandwidth constraint and return the path to PCC if the path bandwidth constraint and return the path to PCC if the path
computation is successful. computation is successful.
PCE MAY return several path based on the request with NVC in the
GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH if the request cannot be fulfilled on one path.
The PCC should check the path applicability to its policy.
Optional TLVs may be included within the object body to specify more Optional TLVs may be included within the object body to specify more
specific BW requirements. The specification of such TLVs is outside specific bandwidth requirements. The specification of such TLVs is
the scope of this document. outside the scope of this document.
2.3. Traffic parameters encoding, GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING 2.3. Traffic parameters encoding, GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING
The PCEP LOAD-BALANCING follows the bandwidth encoding of the The LOAD-BALANCING object is used to request a set of maximum Max-LSP
BANDWIDTH object, it does not describe enough details for the traffic TE-LSP having in total the bandwidth specified in BANDWIDTH, each TE-
specification expected by GMPLS, hence this bandwidth information LSP having a minimum of min-bandwidth bandwidth. The LOAD-BALANCING
should be extended to use the RSVP Tspec object encoding. follows the bandwidth encoding of the BANDWIDTH object, it does not
describe enough details for the traffic specification expected by
GMPLS. A PCC should be allowed to request a set of TE-LSP also in
case of GMPLS traffic specification.
According to [RFC5440] the LOAD-BALANCING object has no TLV and has a 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 fixed size of 8 bytes. This definition does not allows extending it
with the required information. To express this information, a new with the required information. To express this information, a new
Object named GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING is defined Object named GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING is defined.
The GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING object is optional. The GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING object, as the LOAD-BALANCING object,
allows the PCC to request a set of TE-LSP having in total the
GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH traffic specification with potentially Max-Lsp,
each TE-LSP having a minimum of Min Traffic spec. The GENERALIZED-
LOAD-BALANCING is optional.
GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING Object-Class is To be assigned by IANA. GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING Object-Class is to be assigned by IANA.
The GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING 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 GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING has a variable length.
The format of the GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING object body is as The format of the GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING object body is as
follows: 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Traffic spec length | Flags |R| Max-LSP | | Traffic spec length | Flags |R| Max-LSP |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Min Traffic Spec | | Min Traffic Spec |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
~ Optional TLVs ~ ~ Optional TLVs ~
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Traffic spec length (16 bits): the length of the min traffic spec Traffic spec length (16 bits): the total length of the min traffic
length, also including the eventual TLV present in RSVP-TE traffic specification. It should be noted that the RSVP traffic
specification. specification may also include TLV different than the PCEP TLVs.
Flags (8 bits): The undefined Flags field MUST be set to zero on Flags (8 bits): The undefined Flags field MUST be set to zero on
transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt. The following flag is transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt. The following flag is
defined: defined:
R Flag : (1 bit) set when the value refer to the bandwidth of the R Flag : (1 bit) set when the value refer to the bandwidth of the
reverse direction reverse direction
Max-LSP (8 bits): maximum number of TE LSPs in the set. Max-LSP (8 bits): maximum number of TE LSPs in the set.
Min-Traffic spec (variable): Specifies the minimum traffic spec of Min-Traffic spec (variable): Specifies the minimum traffic spec of
each element of the set of TE LSPs. 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 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] 2 Intserv [RFC2210]
4 SONET/SDH [RFC4606] 4 SONET/SDH [RFC4606]
5 G.709 [RFC4328] 5 G.709 [RFC4328]
skipping to change at page 13, line 35 skipping to change at page 13, line 46
reverse directions through two separate GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING reverse directions through two separate GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING
objects with different R Flag. The PCE MUST compute a path that objects with different R Flag. The PCE MUST compute a path that
satisfies the asymmetric bandwidth constraint and return the path to satisfies the asymmetric bandwidth constraint and return the path to
PCC if the path computation is successful. PCC if the path computation is successful.
Optional TLVs may be included within the object body to specify more Optional TLVs may be included within the object body to specify more
specific bandwidth requirements. The specification of such TLVs is specific bandwidth requirements. The specification of such TLVs is
outside the scope of this document. outside the scope of this document.
The GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING object has the same semantic as the The GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING object has the same semantic as the
LOAD-BALANCING object, If a PCC requests the computation of a set of 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 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 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 bandwidth of B, it inserts a GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH object specifying
X as the required bandwidth and a GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING object 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, with the Max-LSP and Min-traffic spec fields set to N and B,
respectively. respectively.
For example a request for one co-signaled VCAT members will not use For example a request for one co-signaled n x VC-4 TE-LSP will not
the GENERALIZEd-LOAD-BALANCING. In case the VCAT member can be use the GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING. In case the V4 components can
diversely routed, the GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH will contain a traffic use different paths, the GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH will contain a traffic
specification indicating the complete VCAT group and the GENERALIZED- specification indicating the complete n x VC4 traffic specification
LOAD-BALANCING the minimum co-signaled members. For a SDH network, a and the GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING the minimum co-signaled VC4. For
request to have a VC4 VCAT group with 10 VC4 container, diversely a SDH network, a request to have a TE-LSP group with 10 VC4
routed with 2VC4 container on each path minimum, can be represented container, each path using at minimum 2VC4 container, can be
with a GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH object with OT=4, the content of the represented with a GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH object with OT=4, the
Traffic specification is ST=6,RCC=0,NCC=0,NVC=10,MT=1. The content of the Traffic specification is ST=6,RCC=0,NCC=0,NVC=10,MT=1.
GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING, OT=4,R=0,Max-LSP=5, min Traffic spec is The GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING, OT=4,R=0,Max-LSP=5, min Traffic spec
(ST=6,RCC=0,NCC=0,NVC=2,MT=1). The PCE can respond with a response is (ST=6,RCC=0,NCC=0,NVC=2,MT=1). The PCE can respond with a
with maximum 5 path, each of then having a GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH response with maximum 5 path, each of then having a GENERALIZED-
OT=4,R=0, and traffic spec matching the minimum traffic spec from the BANDWIDTH OT=4,R=0, and traffic spec matching the minimum traffic
GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING object of the corresponding request spec from the GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING object of the corresponding
request.
2.4. END-POINTS Object extensions 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] the source IP address and the destination requested. From [RFC3471] the source IP address and the destination
IP address are used to identify those. A new Object Type is defined IP address are used to identify those. A new Object Type is defined
to address the following possibilities: to address the following possibilities:
o 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.
2.4.1. 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 endpoints 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 a numbered link and an 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 endpoints of the same Since the PCEP END-POINTS object only support endpoints of the same
type new C-Types are proposed that support different endpoint types, type a new C-Type is proposed that support different endpoint types,
including unnumbered. This new C-Type also supports 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 2.4.2). the following defined TLVs (described in Section 2.4.2). TLVs are
used instead of subobject because the restriction information do not
only apply to the endpoints but can also be applied to the complete
path. The object in which the TLV appear indicate if its a path or
endpoint restriction. TLV makes the encoding more convenient.
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. Upstream label.
7. Suggested label set. 7. Label set.
The Object is encoded as follow: 8. Suggested label set.
The labels TLV are used to restrict the label allocation in the PCE.
They follow the set of restrictions provided by signaling with
explicit value (label and upstream label), mandatory range
restrictions (Label set) and optional range restriction (suggested
label set). Single suggested value is using the suggested label set.
The label range restriction are valid in GMPLS networks, either by
PCC policy or depending on the switching technology used, for
instance on given Ethernet or ODU equipment having limited hardware
capabilities restricting the label range. Label set restriction also
applies to WSON networks where the optical sender and receivers are
limited in their frequency tunability ranges, restricting then in
GMPLS the possible label ranges on the interface. The END-POINTS
Object with Generalized Endpoint object type 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | endpoint type | | Reserved | endpoint type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
~ TLVs ~ ~ TLVs ~
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Reserved bits should be set to 0 when a message is sent and ignored Reserved bits should be set to 0 when a message is sent and ignored
when the message is received 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
5-32767 Reserved 5-244 Reserved
32768-65535 Experimental range 245-255 Experimental range
Endpoint type 0 MUST be accepted by the PCE, other endpoint type MAY The endpoint type is used to cover both point-to-point and different
be supported if the PCE implementation supports P2MP path point-to-multipoint endpoint semantic. Endpoint type 0 MUST be
calculation. The TLVs present in the object body should follow the accepted by the PCE, other endpoint type MAY be supported if the PCE
following grammar: implementation supports P2MP path calculation. The TLVs present in
the object body MUST follow the following grammar:
<generalized-endpoint-tlvs>::= <generalized-endpoint-tlvs>::=
<p2p-endpoints> | <p2mp-endpoints> <p2p-endpoints> | <p2mp-endpoints>
<p2p-endpoints> ::= <p2p-endpoints> ::=
<endpoint> <source-endpoint>
[<endpoint-restrictions>] <destination-endpoint>
<endpoint>
[<endpoint-restrictions>]
<p2mp-endpoints> ::= <source-endpoint> ::=
<endpoint> [<endpoint-restrictions>] <endpoint>
[<endpoint> [<endpoint-restrictions>] ...] [<endpoint-restriction-list>]
Private TLV MAY be inserted at any place and SHOULD be ignored if not <destination-endpoint> ::=
supported by the PCE <endpoint>
[<endpoint-restriction-list>]
For endpoint type Point-to-Point the first endpoint and optional <p2mp-endpoints> ::=
endpoint-restriction is the ingress endpoint. The second endpoint <endpoint> [<endpoint-restriction-list>]
and optional endpoint-restriction is the egress endpoint The further [<endpoint> [<endpoint-restriction-list>] ...]
endpoint and endpoint-restriction are ignored
For endpoint type Point-to-Multipoint several endpoint objects may be For endpoint type Point-to-Multipoint several endpoint objects may be
present in the message and represent a leave, exact meaning depend on present in the message and represent a leave, exact meaning depend on
the endpoint type defined of the object. the endpoint type defined of the object.
An endpoint is defined as follow: An endpoint is defined as follows:
<endpoint>::=<IPV4-ADDRESS>|<IPV6-ADDRESS>|<UNNUMBERED-ENDPOINT> <endpoint>::=<IPV4-ADDRESS>|<IPV6-ADDRESS>|<UNNUMBERED-ENDPOINT>
<endpoint-restrictions> ::= <LABEL-REQUEST><label-restriction> <endpoint-restriction-list> ::=
[<endpoint-restrictions>] <endpoint-restriction>
<label-restriction> ::= ((<LABEL><UPSTREAM-LABEL>)| [<endpoint-restriction-list>]
<endpoint-restriction> ::=
<LABEL-REQUEST><label-restriction-list>
<label-restriction-list> ::= <label-restriction>
[<label-restriction-list>]
<label-restriction> ::= <LABEL>|<UPSTREAM-LABEL>|
<LABEL-SET>| <LABEL-SET>|
<SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET>) <SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET>
[<label-restriction>]
The different TLVs are described in the following sections
2.4.2. END-POINTS TLVs extensions 2.4.2. END-POINTS TLVs extensions
All endpoint TLVs have the standard PCEP TLV header as defined in
[RFC5440] section 7.1
2.4.2.1. IPV4-ADDRESS 2.4.2.1. IPV4-ADDRESS
The format of the END-POINTS TLV object for IPv4 (TLV-Type=To be This TLV represent a numbered endpoint using IPv4 numbering, the
assigned) is as follows: format of the IPv4-ADDRESS TLV value (TLV-Type=TBA) 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 address | | IPv4 address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
2.4.2.2. IPV6-ADDRESS TLV 2.4.2.2. IPV6-ADDRESS TLV
The format of the END-POINTS TLV object for IPv6 (TLV-Type=To be This TLV represent a numbered endpoint using IPV6 numbering, the
assigned) is as follows: format of the IPv6-ADDRESS TLV value (TLV-Type=TBA) 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 address (16 bytes) | | IPv6 address (16 bytes) |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
2.4.2.3. 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] The TLV value is encoded as follow (TLV-
Type=TBA)
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LSR's Router ID | | LSR's Router ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interface ID (32 bits) | | Interface ID (32 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
2.4.2.4. LABEL-REQUEST TLV 2.4.2.4. LABEL-REQUEST TLV
The LABEL-REQUEST indicate the and encoding of the LABEL restriction The LABEL-REQUEST TLV indicates the switching capability and encoding
present in the ENDPOINTS its format is the same as described in type of the label restriction list. Its format is the same as
[RFC3471] Section 3.1 Generalized label request described in [RFC3471] Section 3.1 Generalized label request. The
LABEL-REQUEST TLV use TLV-Type=TBA. The fields are encoded as in the
RSVP-TE. 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 Switching type indicates the type of switching that is
being requested on the link. G-PID identifies the payload of the TE-
LSP.
2.4.2.5. LABELS TLV 2.4.2.5. Labels TLV
Label or label range may be specified for the TE-LSP endpoints. Label or label range restrictions may be specified for the TE-LSP
Those are encoded in the TLVs. The label value cannot be interpreted endpoints. Those are encoded in the TLVs. The label value need to
without a description on the Encoding and switching type. The REQ- be interpreted with a description on the Encoding and switching type.
ADAP-CAP object from [I-D.ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext] can be used in The REQ-ADAP-CAP object from [I-D.ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext] can be
case of mono-layer request, however in case of multilayer it is used in case of mono-layer request, however in case of multilayer it
possible to have in the future more than one object, so it is better is possible to have in the future more than one object, so it is
to have a dedicated TLV for the label (the scope is then more clear). better to have a dedicated TLV for the label and label request (the
TLVs are encoded as follow (following [RFC5440]) : scope is then more clear). TLVs are encoded as follow (following
[RFC5440]) :
o LABEL TLV, Type = TBA by IANA, Length is variable, Encoding is as o LABEL TLV, Type=TBA. The TLV Length is variable, the value is the
[RFC3471] Section 3.2 Generalized label. This represent the same as [RFC3471] Section 3.2 Generalized label. This represent
downstream label the downstream label
o UPSTEAM-LABEL TLV , Type = TBA by IANA, Length is variable, o UPSTREAM-LABEL TLV, Type=TBA, The TLV Length is variable, the
Encoding is as [RFC3471] Section 3.2 Generalized label. This value is the same as [RFC3471] Section 3.2 Generalized label.
represent the upstream label This represent the upstream label
o LABEL-SET TLV, Type = TBA by IANA , Length is variable, Encoding o LABEL-SET TLV, Type=TBA. The TLV Length is variable, Encoding
follow :[RFC3471] Section 3.5 Label set with the addition of a U follow [RFC3471] Section 3.5 "Label set" with the addition 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Action | Reserved |U| Label Type | | Action | Reserved |U| Label Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Subchannel 1 | | Subchannel 1 |
| ... | | ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: : : : : :
: : : : : :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Subchannel N | | Subchannel N |
| ... | | ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
o SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET TLV Set, Type = TBA by IANA, Length is o SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET TLV Set, Type=TBA. The TLV length is
variable, Encoding is as Label Set. variable, Encoding is as LABEL-SET TLV.
A LABEL TLV represent the label used on the unnumbered interface, A LABEL TLV represent the label used on the unnumbered interface, bit
bits I and U are used to indicate which exact unnumbered interface/ U is used to indicate which exact direction is considered. The label
direction is considered. the fields are encoded as in the RSVP-TE. type indicates which type of label is carried. A LABEL-SET TLV
The Encoding Type indicates the encoding type, e.g., SONET/SDH/GigE represents a set of possible labels that can be used on the
etc., that will be used with the data associated with the LSP. The unnumbered interface. the label allocated on the first link SHOULD be
Switching type indicates the type of switching that is being within the label set range. The action parameter in the Label set
requested on the link. G-PID identifies the payload of the TE-LSP. indicates the type of list provided. Those parameters are described
The label type indicates which type of label (2) for generalized by [RFC3471] section 3.5.1 A SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET TLV has the same
label is carried. A LABEL-SET TLV represents a set of possible encoding as the LABEL-SET TLV, it indicates to the PCE a set of
labels that can be used on the unnumbered interface. The action preferred (ordered) set of labels to be used. the PCE MAY use those
parameter in the Label set indicates the type of list provided. labels for label allocation.
Those parameters are described by [RFC3471] A SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET TLV
has the same encoding as the LABEL-SET TLV, it includes the preferred
(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
2.4.2.6. Private TLVs
The format of the private TLV object is described as follow:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SMI entreprise code |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ data ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The length is at minimum 4 bytes.
2.5. LABEL-SET object 2.5. LABEL-SET object
The LABEL-SET object is carried in a request within a PCReq message 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 to restrict the set of labels to be assigned during the path
computation. Any label included in the ERO object on the response computation. Any label allocated by the PCE (and included in the ERO
must comply with the restrictions stated in the LABEL-SET, whose object on the response) must be in the range stated in the LABEL-SET.
encoding is defined as following The LABEL-SET Object encoding is defined as following
<LABEL-SET-OBJECT> ::= <LABEL-REQUEST><LABEL-SET>[<LABEL-SET>] 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// TLVs //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where TLVs follow the following grammar
<label-set-tlvs> ::= <LABEL-REQUEST><LABEL-SET>[<LABEL-SET>]
The LABEL-REQUEST and LABEL-SET TLVs are as defined in The LABEL-REQUEST and LABEL-SET TLVs are as defined in
Section 2.4.2.5, 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 request It is allowed to have more than one LABEL-SET object per request
within a PCReq message (for example in case of multiple SWITCH-LAYER within a PCReq message (for example in case of multiple SWITCH-LAYER
present). present).
In the case of unsuccessful path computation the LABEL-SET object MAY In the case of unsuccessful path computation the LABEL-SET object MAY
be used to indicate the set of constraint that could not be be used to indicate the set of constraint that could not be
satisfied. satisfied.
2.6. SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET object 2.6. SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET object
The SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET object is carried within a PCReq or PCRep Similar to the endpoint restriction SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET TLV, but with
message to indicate the preferred set of labels to be assigned during end-to-end scope the SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET object indicate an optional
the path computation. The encoding is the same as the LABEL-SET set of label that the PCE MAY use when selecting the labels. The
object. It is allowed to have more than one SUGGESTED LABEL-SET SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET object is carried within a PCReq or PCRep message
object per PCReq (for example in case of multiple SWITCH-LAYER to indicate the preferred set of label to be assigned during the path
present). computation. The encoding is the same as the LABEL-SET object. It
is allowed to have more than one SUGGESTED LABEL-SET object per PCReq
(for example in case of multiple SWITCH-LAYER present).
2.7. 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:
IANA: protection attribute 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|S|P|N|O| Reserved | LSP Flags | Reserved | Link Flags| |S|P|N|O| Reserved | LSP Flags | Reserved | Link Flags|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|I|R| Reserved | Seg.Flags | Reserved | |I|R| Reserved | Seg.Flags | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 21, line 32 skipping to change at page 21, line 43
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.
2.8. 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 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 may carries the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV that specifies more information on
reasons that led to a negative reply. In case of GMPLS networks the 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 the 32-bit flag field of the NO- new flags have been introduced in the 32-bit flag field of the NO-
PATH-VECTOR TLV and no modifications have been made in the NO-PATH PATH-VECTOR TLV and no modifications have been made in the NO-PATH
object. object.
2.8.1. 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:
Bit number 31 - PCE currently unavailable [RFC5440]
Bit number 30 - Unknown destination [RFC5440]
Bit number 29 - Unknown source [RFC5440]
Bit number 28 - BRPC Path computation chain unavailable [RFC5440]
Bit number 27 - PKS expansion failure [RFC5520]
Bit number 26 - No GCO migration path found [RFC5557]
Bit number 25 - No GCO solution found [RFC5557]
Bit number 24 - P2MP Reachability Problem [RFC5440]
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 TBA - Protection Mismatch (1-bit). Specifies the
Specifies the mismatch of the protection type in the request. mismatch of the protection type in the request.
Bit number 22 (TBA by IANA) - No Resource (1-bit). Specifies that Bit number TBA - No Resource (1-bit). Specifies that the
the resources are not currently sufficient to provide the path. resources are not currently sufficient to provide the path.
Bit number 21 (TBA by IANA) - Granularity not supported (1-bit). Bit number TBA - Granularity not supported (1-bit). Specifies
Specifies that the PCE is not able to provide a route with the that the PCE is not able to provide a route with the requested
requested granularity. granularity.
Bit number TBA - No endpoint label resource (1-bit). Specifies
that the PCE is not able to provide a route because of the
endpoint label restriction.
Bit number TBA - No endpoint label resource in range (1-bit).
Specifies that the PCE is not able to provide a route because of
the endpoint label set restriction.
Bit number TBA - No label resource in range (1-bit). Specifies
that the PCE is not able to provide a route because of the label
set restriction.
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 while
an Error-value that provides additional information about the error 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 is introduced (value TBA).
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=TBA: Bad Generalized Bandwidth Object value.
Error-value=2: Unsupported LSP Protection Type in Error-value=TBA: Unsupported LSP Protection Type in
protection attribute TLV. protection attribute TLV.
Error-value=3: Unsupported LSP Protection Flags in Error-value=TBA: Unsupported LSP Protection Flags in
protection attribute TLV. protection attribute TLV.
Error-value=4: Unsupported Secondary LSP Protection Error-value=TBA: Unsupported Secondary LSP Protection
Flags in protection attribute TLV. Flags in protection attribute TLV.
Error-value=5: Unsupported Link Protection Type in Error-value=TBA: Unsupported Link Protection Type in
protection attribute TLV. protection attribute TLV.
Error-value=6: Unsupported Link Protection Type in Error-value=TBA: Unsupported Link Protection Type in
protection attribute TLV. protection attribute TLV.
14 Path computation TBA Path computation
failure failure
Error-value=1: Unacceptable request message. Error-value=TBA: Unacceptable request message.
Error-value=2: Generalized bandwidth object not Error-value=TBA: Generalized bandwidth object not
supported. supported.
Error-value=3: Label Set constraint could not be met. Error-value=TBA: Label Set constraint could not be met.
Error-value=4: Label constraint could not be met. Error-value=TBA: Label constraint could not be met.
Error-value=5: Unsupported endpoint type in END-POINTS Error-value=TBA: Unsupported endpoint type in END-POINTS
GENERALIZED-ENDPOINTS object type Generalized Endpoint object type
Error-value=6: Unsupported TLV present in END-POINTS Error-value=TBA: Unsupported TLV present in END-POINTS
GENERALIZED-ENDPOINTS object type Generalized Endpoint object type
Error-value=7: Unsupported granularity in the RP object Error-value=TBA: Unsupported granularity in the RP object
flags 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 2.2 and Section 2.3new Objects are defined As described in Section 2.2 and Section 2.3new Objects are defined
IANA is requested to make the following Object-Type allocations from IANA is requested to make the following Object-Type allocations from
the "PCEP Objects" 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 0 to 6 Object-Type 0 to 6
Reference This document (section Section 2.2) Reference This document (section Section 2.2)
Object Class to be assigned Object Class to be assigned
Name GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING Name GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING
Object-Type 0 to 6 Object-Type 0 to 6
Reference This document (section Section 2.3) Reference This document (section Section 2.3)
Object Class to be assigned
Name LABEL-SET
Object-Type 0
Reference This document (section Section 2.5)
Object Class to be assigned
Name SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET
Object-Type 0
Reference This document (section Section 2.6)
As described in Section 2.4.1 a new Object type is defined IANA is 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. The values here are suggested for use
by IANA.
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 2.2) Reference This document (section Section 2.2)
5.2. New PCEP TLVs 5.2. END-POINTS object, Object Type Generalized Endpoint
IANA is requested to create a registry for the following TLVs: IANA is requested to create a registry to manage the endpoint type
field of the END-POINTS object, Object Type Generalized Endpoint and
manage the code space.
New endpoint type in the Reserved range may be allocated by an IETF
consensus action. Each endpoint type should be tracked with the
following qualities:
o endpoint type
o Description
o Defining RFC
New endpoint type in the Experimental range are for experimental use;
these will not be registered with IANA and MUST NOT be mentioned by
RFCs.
The following values have been defined by this document.
(Section 2.4.1, Table 4):
Value Type Meaning
0 Point-to-Point
1 Point-to-Multipoint New leaves to add
2 Old leaves to remove
3 Old leaves whose path can be
modified/reoptimized
4 Old leaves whose path must be left
unchanged
5-244 Reserved
245-255 Experimental range
5.3. New PCEP TLVs
IANA manages the PCEP TLV code point registry (see [RFC5440]). This
is maintained as the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" sub-registry of the
"Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry. This
document defines new PCEP TLVs, to be carried in the END-POINTS
object with Generalized Endpoint object Type. IANA is requested to
do the following allocation. The values here are suggested for use
by IANA.
Value Meaning Reference Value Meaning Reference
x IPV4 endpoint This document (section 7 IPv4 endpoint This document (section
Section 2.4.2.1) Section 2.4.2.1)
x IPV6 endpoint This document (section 8 IPv6 endpoint This document (section
Section 2.4.2.2) Section 2.4.2.2)
x Unnumbered endpoint This document (section 9 Unnumbered endpoint This document (section
Section 2.4.2.3) Section 2.4.2.3)
x Label request This document (section 10 Label request This document (section
Section 2.4.2.4) Section 2.4.2.4)
x Requested GMPLS Label This document (section 11 Requested GMPLS Label This document (section
Section 2.4.2.5) Section 2.4.2.5)
x Requested GMPLS Upstream This document (section 12 Requested GMPLS Upstream This document (section
Label Section 2.4.2.5) Label Section 2.4.2.5)
x Requested GMPLS Label Set This document (section 13 Requested GMPLS Label Set This document (section
Section 2.4.2.5) Section 2.4.2.5)
x Suggested GMPLS Label Set This document (section 14 Suggested GMPLS Label Set This document (section
Section 2.4.2.5) Section 2.4.2.5)
x LSP Protection Information This document (section Section 2.7) 15 LSP Protection Information This document (section Section 2.7)
5.3. New PCEP Error Codes 5.4. RP Object Flag Field
As described in Section 2.1 new flag are defined in the RP Object
Flag IANA is requested to make the following Object-Type allocations
from the "RP Object Flag Field" sub-registry. The values here are
suggested for use by IANA.
Bit Description Reference
bit 17-16 routing granularity (RG) This document, Section 2.1
5.5. 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 make the following
the Error object. allocation in the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values"
registry. The values here are suggested for use by IANA.
Error-Type Error-value Error name Reference
10 Reception of an Type=10 Reception of an invalid object [RFC5440]
invalid object
Error-value=1: Bad Generalized Bandwidth Object value. Value=2: Bad Generalized Bandwidth Object value. This
Document
Error-value=2: Unsupported LSP Protection Type in Value=3: Unsupported LSP Protection Type in protection This
protection attribute TLV. attribute TLV. Document
Error-value=3: Unsupported LSP Protection Flags in Value=4: Unsupported LSP Protection Flags in protection This
protection attribute TLV. attribute TLV. Document
Error-value=4: Unsupported Secondary LSP Protection Value=5: Unsupported Secondary LSP Protection Flags in This
Flags in protection attribute TLV. protection attribute TLV. Document
Error-value=5: Unsupported Link Protection Type in Value=6: Unsupported Link Protection Type in protection This
protection attribute TLV. attribute TLV. Document
Error-value=6: Unsupported Link Protection Type in Value=7: Unsupported Link Protection Type in protection This
protection attribute TLV. attribute TLV. Document
14 Path computation Type=14 Path computation failure This
failure Document
Error-value=1: Unacceptable request message. Value=1: Unacceptable request message. This
Document
Error-value=2: Generalized bandwidth object not Value=2: Generalized bandwidth object not supported. This
supported. Document
Error-value=3: Label Set constraint could not be met. Value=3: Label Set constraint could not be met. This
Document
Error-value=4: Label constraint could not be met. Value=4: Label constraint could not be met. This
Document
Error-value=5: Unsupported endpoint type in END-POINTS Value=5: Unsupported endpoint type in END-POINTS This
GENERALIZED-ENDPOINTS object type Generalized Endpoint object type Document
Error-value=6: Unsupported TLV present in END-POINTS Value=6: Unsupported TLV present in END-POINTS Generalized This
GENERALIZED-ENDPOINTS object type Endpoint object type Document
Error-value=7: Unsupported granularity in the RP object Value=7: Unsupported granularity in the RP object flags This
flags Document
5.6. New NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Fields
As described in Section Section 2.8.1, new NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Flag
Fields have been defined. IANA is requested to do the following
allocations in the "NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Flag Field" sub-registry. The
values here are suggested for use by IANA.
Bit number 23 - Protection Mismatch (1-bit). Specifies the
mismatch of the protection type in the request.
Bit number 22 - No Resource (1-bit). Specifies that the resources
are not currently sufficient to provide the path.
Bit number 21 - Granularity not supported (1-bit). Specifies that
the PCE is not able to provide a route with the requested
granularity.
Bit number 20 - No endpoint label resource (1-bit). Specifies
that the PCE is not able to provide a route because of the
endpoint label restriction.
Bit number 19 - No endpoint label resource in range (1-bit).
Specifies that the PCE is not able to provide a route because of
the endpoint label set restriction.
Bit number 18 - No label resource in range (1-bit). Specifies
that the PCE is not able to provide a route because of the label
set restriction.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
None. None.
7. Contributing Authors 7. Contributing Authors
Nokia Siemens Networks: Nokia Siemens Networks:
Elie Sfeir Elie Sfeir
skipping to change at page 32, line 10 skipping to change at page 35, line 10
08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona) 08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona)
Spain Spain
Phone: (34) 936452916 Phone: (34) 936452916
Email: ramon.casellas@cttc.es Email: ramon.casellas@cttc.es
8. Acknowledgments 8. Acknowledgments
The research of Ramon Casellas, Francisco Javier Jimenez Chico, Oscar The research of Ramon Casellas, Francisco Javier Jimenez Chico, Oscar
Gonzalez de Dios, Cyril Margaria, and Franz Rambach leading to these Gonzalez de Dios, Cyril Margaria, and Franz Rambach leading to these
results has received funding from the European Community's Seventh results has received funding from the European Community's Seventh
Framework Programme FP7/2007-2013 under grant agreement n. 247674. Framework Programme FP7/2007-2013 under grant agreement no 247674.
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2210] Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated [RFC2210] Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated
Services", RFC 2210, September 1997. Services", RFC 2210, September 1997.
skipping to change at page 34, line 27 skipping to change at page 37, line 27
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
Route Exclusions", RFC 5521, April 2009. Route Exclusions", RFC 5521, April 2009.
[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
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Requirements and Protocol Extensions in Support of Global
Concurrent Optimization", RFC 5557, July 2009.
[RFC6003] Papadimitriou, D., "Ethernet Traffic Parameters", [RFC6003] Papadimitriou, D., "Ethernet Traffic Parameters",
RFC 6003, October 2010. RFC 6003, October 2010.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ceccarelli-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709] [I-D.ceccarelli-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709]
Ceccarelli, D., Caviglia, D., Zhang, F., Li, D., Xu, Y., Ceccarelli, D., Caviglia, D., Zhang, F., Li, D., Xu, Y.,
Belotti, S., Grandi, P., and J. Drake, "Traffic Belotti, S., Grandi, P., and J. Drake, "Traffic
Engineering Extensions to OSPF for Generalized MPLS Engineering Extensions to OSPF for Generalized MPLS
(GMPLS) Control of Evolving G.709 OTN Networks", (GMPLS) Control of Evolving G.709 OTN Networks",
draft-ceccarelli-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709-04 (work in draft-ceccarelli-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709-04 (work in
progress), October 2010. 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-11
(work in progress), April 2010. (work in progress), January 2011.
[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-03.txt", "Document: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-03.txt",
draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-03 (work in progress), draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-03 (work in progress),
October 2010. 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-04 (work in Engineering", draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext-04 (work in
progress), July 2010. 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-02 (work in draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-04 (work in
progress), August 2010. progress), March 2011.
[I-D.zhang-ccamp-gmpls-evolving-g709] [I-D.zhang-ccamp-gmpls-evolving-g709]
Zhang, F., Zhang, G., Belotti, S., Ceccarelli, D., Lin, Zhang, F., Zhang, G., Belotti, S., Ceccarelli, D., Lin,
Y., Xu, Y., Grandi, P., and D. Caviglia, "Generalized Y., Xu, Y., Grandi, P., and D. Caviglia, "Generalized
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling
Extensions for the evolving G.709 Optical Transport Extensions for the evolving G.709 Optical Transport
Networks Control", Networks Control",
draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-evolving-g709-06 (work in draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-evolving-g709-07 (work in
progress), October 2010. progress), March 2011.
[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. 162 change blocks. 
346 lines changed or deleted 497 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/