draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-05.txt   draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-06.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: September 9, 2012 Telefonica Investigacion y Expires: January 16, 2013 Telefonica Investigacion y
Desarrollo Desarrollo
F. Zhang, Ed. F. Zhang, Ed.
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
March 8, 2012 July 15, 2012
PCEP extensions for GMPLS PCEP extensions for GMPLS
draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-05 draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-06
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 September 9, 2012. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 16, 2013.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2012 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 20 skipping to change at page 2, line 20
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. PCEP objects and extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2. PCEP objects and extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1. RP object extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.1. RP object extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2. Traffic parameters encoding, GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH . . . . 8 2.2. Traffic parameters encoding, GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH . . . . 8
2.3. Traffic parameters encoding, GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING . 10 2.3. Traffic parameters encoding, GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING . 10
2.4. END-POINTS Object extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.4. END-POINTS Object extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
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. IRO TLV extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2.5. IRO extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.6. XRO TLV extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 2.6. XRO extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.7. LSPA extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 2.7. LSPA extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.8. NO-PATH Object Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 2.8. NO-PATH Object Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.8.1. Extensions to NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 23 2.8.1. Extensions to NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3. Additional Error Type and Error Values Defined . . . . . . . . 25 3. Additional Error Type and Error Values Defined . . . . . . . . 25
4. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 4. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 4.1. Control of Function through Configuration and Policy . . . 27
5.1. PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 4.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.2. END-POINTS object, Object Type Generalized Endpoint . . . 29 4.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.3. New PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 4.4. Verifying Correct Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.4. RP Object Flag Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 4.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional
Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.6. Impact on Network Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.1. PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.2. END-POINTS object, Object Type Generalized Endpoint . . . 30
5.3. New PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.4. RP Object Flag Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.5. New PCEP Error Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 5.5. New PCEP Error Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.6. New NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 5.6. New NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.7. New Subobject for the Include Route Object . . . . . . . . 32 5.7. New Subobject for the Include Route Object . . . . . . . . 33
5.8. New Subobject for the Exclude Route Object . . . . . . . . 33 5.8. New Subobject for the Exclude Route Object . . . . . . . . 34
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
7. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 7. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
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, and [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 functional requirements to be considered by the PCEP extensions
are described in [I-D.ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req] and to support those application are described in
[I-D.ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req] and
[I-D.ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength]. [I-D.ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength].
1.1. Contributing Authors 1.1. Contributing Authors
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
The document [I-D.ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req] describe what are the set The document [I-D.ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req] describes what are the set
of PCEP PCEP requirements to support GMPLS TE-LSPs. When requesting of PCEP PCEP requirements to support GMPLS TE-LSPs. When requesting
a path computation (PCReq) to PCE, the PCC should be able to indicate a path computation (PCReq) to a PCE, the PCC should be able to
the following additional information: indicate the following additional information:
Which data flow is switched by the LSP: a combination of Switching Which data flow is switched by the LSP: a combination of Switching
capability (for instance L2SC or TDM), Switching Encoding (e.g., capability (for instance L2SC or TDM), Switching Encoding (e.g.,
Ethernet, SONET/SDH) and sometime Signal Type (in case of TDM/LSC Ethernet, SONET/SDH) and sometimes the Signal Type (in case of
switching capability) TDM/LSC switching capability)
Data flow specific traffic parameter, which can vary a lot, for Data flow specific traffic parameters, which is technology
instance In SDH/SONET and G.709 OTN networks the Concatenation specific. For instance, in SDH/SONET and G.709 OTN networks the
Type, Concatenation Number have influence on the switched data and Concatenation Type and the Concatenation Number have an influence
on which link it can be supported on the switched data and on which link it can be supported
Support for asymmetric bandwidth requests. Support for asymmetric bandwidth requests.
Support for unnumbered interfaces: as defined in [RFC3477] Support for unnumbered interface identifiers: as defined in
[RFC3477]
Label information and technology specific label(s) such as Label information and technology specific label(s) such as
wavelength label as defined in [RFC6205]. PCC should also be able wavelength label as defined in [RFC6205]. A PCC should also be
to specify Label restriction similar to the one supported by RSVP. able to specify Label restriction similar to the one supported by
RSVP.
Ability to indicate the requested granularity for the path ERO: Ability to indicate the requested granularity for the path ERO:
node, link, label. This is to allow the use of the explicit label node, link, label. This is to allow the use of the explicit label
control of RSVP. control of RSVP.
We describe in this document a proposal to fulfill those We describe in this document a set of PCEP protocol extensions,
requirements. including new objects, TLVs, encodings, error codes and procedures,
in order to fulfill the aforementioned 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 objects, included in requests and responses
to the described requirements. related to the described requirements.
From [RFC5440]: From [RFC5440]:
o numbered endpoints o ENDPOINTS: only numbered endpoints are considered. The context
specifies whether they are node identifiers or numbered
interfaces.
o bandwidth (encoded as IEEE float) o BANDWIDTH: the data rate is encoded in the bandwidth object (as
IEEE 32 bit float). [RFC5440] does not include the ability to
convey a (Intserv) TSPEC object.
o ERO o ERO
o LSP attributes (setup and holding priorities) o LSPA: LSP attributes (setup and holding priorities)
o Request attribute (include some LSP attributes)
From [RFC5521],Extensions to PCEP for Route Exclusions, definition of From [RFC5521] definition of the XRO object and a new semantic flag(F
a XRO object and a new semantic (F bit): bit):
o This object also allows to exclude (strict or not) resources; XRO o This object allows to exclude (strict or not) resources; XRO
includes the diversity level (node, link, SRLG). The requested includes the diversity level (node, link, SRLG). The requested
diversity is expressed in the XRO diversity is expressed in the XRO
o This Object with the F bit set indicates that the existing route o When the F bit is set, the request indicates that the existing
is failed and resources present in the RRO can be reused. route has failed and the 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
computation computation
The shortcomings of the existing PCEP information are: The shortcomings of the existing PCEP object definition and encodings
are:
The BANDWIDTH and LOAD-BALANCING objects do not describe the The BANDWIDTH and LOAD-BALANCING objects do not describe the
details of the traffic request (for example NVC, multiplier) in details of the traffic request (for example NVC, multiplier) in
the context of GMPLS networks, for instance TDM or OTN networks. the context of GMPLS networks, for instance TDM or OTN networks.
The END-POINTS object does not allow specifying an unnumbered The END-POINTS object does not allow specifying an unnumbered
interface, nor the labels on the interface. Those parameters are interface, nor potential label restrictions on the interface.
of interest in case of switching constraints. Those parameters are of interest in case of switching constraints.
The IRO/XRO objects do not allow to include/exclude labels The IRO/XRO objects do not allow inclusion/exclusion of labels
Current attributes do not allow to express the requested link level Current attributes do not allow expressing the requested link
protection and end-to-end protection attributes. protection level and/or the 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,
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.
A new TLV type is allowed in IRO A new TLV type is allowed in IRO
In order to indicate the mandatory routing granularity in the In order to indicate the used routing granularity in the response,
response, a new flag in the RP object is added. 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 [RFC2119].
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, GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING, SUGGESTED-LABEL- (GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH, GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING, SUGGESTED-LABEL-
SET and LABEL-SET) is as follows: SET and LABEL-SET) is as follows:
<request>::= <RP> <request>::= <RP>
skipping to change at page 8, line 12 skipping to change at page 8, line 12
A new 2-bit routing granularity (RG) flag is defined in the RP A new 2-bit routing granularity (RG) flag is defined in the RP
object. The values are defined as follows object. The values are defined as follows
0 : node 0 : node
1 : link 1 : link
2 : label 2 : label
3 : reserved 3 : reserved
When the RP object appears in a request within a PCReq message the The flag in the RP object indicates the requested route granularity.
flag indicates the requested route granularity. The PCE MAY try to The PCE MAY try to follow this granularity and MAY return a NO-PATH
follow this granularity and MAY return a NO-PATH if the requested if the requested granularity cannot be provided. The PCE MAY return
granularity cannot be provided. The PCE MAY return more details on more details on the route based on its policy. The PCC can decide if
the route based on its policy. The PCC can decide if the ERO is the ERO is acceptable based on its content.
acceptable based on its content.
If a PCE did use the requested routing granularity in a PCReq it MUST If a PCE honored the the requested routing granularity for a request,
indicate the routing granularity in the PCRep. The RG flag is it MUST indicate the selected routing granularity in the RP object
backward-compatible with previous RFCs: the value sent by an included in the response . The RG flag is backward-compatible with
implementation not supporting it will indicate a node granularity. [RFC5440]: the value sent by an implementation (PCC or PCE) not
This flag is optional for responses. A new capability flag in the supporting it will indicate a node granularity. A new capability
PCE-CAP-FLAGS from [RFC5088] and [RFC5089] may be added. flag in the 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 object does not describe the details of the signal
example NVC, multiplier), hence the bandwidth information should be (for example NVC, multiplier), hence the bandwidth information should
extended to use the RSVP Tspec object encoding. The PCEP BANDWIDTH be extended to use the RSVP Tspec object encoding. The PCEP
object defines two types: 1 and 2. C-Type 2 is representing the BANDWIDTH object defines two types: 1 and 2. C-Type 2 is
existing bandwidth in case of re-optimization. representing the 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 [RFC6387] direction), as described in [RFC6387]
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.
This correspond to requirement 3,4,5 and 10 of This correspond to requirement 3,4,5 and 10 of
[I-D.ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req]. [I-D.ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req].
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 allow 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 with Object Type 1, having the
defined: following format is defined. The definitions below apply for Object
Type 1.
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 | TSpec Type | 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 indicates the length of the Traffic spec field. The length field indicates the length of the Traffic spec field. The
bits R and O have the following meaning: bits R and O have the following meaning:
O bit : when set the value refers to the previous bandwidth in O bit : when set the value refers to the previous bandwidth in
case of re-optimization case of re-optimization
R bit : when set the value refers 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 TSpec Type field determines which type of bandwidth is
the object. The following object types are defined: represented by the object. The following values are defined to match
RSVP space (same C-Type as defined for RSVP Object class 12
(SENDER_TSPEC) )
1. Intserv 1. Reserved
2. SONET/SDH 2. Intserv
3. G.709 3. Reserved
4. Ethernet 4. SONET/SDH
5. G.709
6. 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
0 Reserved
1 Reserved
2 Intserv [RFC2210] 2 Intserv [RFC2210]
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 request
message. If more than one GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH have the same Object message. If more than one GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH objects have the
Type, Reserved, R and O values, only the first one is processed, the same Tspec type, Reserved, R and O values, only the first one is
others are ignored. processed, the other objects are ignored.
A PCE MAY ignore GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH objects, a PCC that requires a A PCE MAY ignore GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH objects, a PCC that requires a
GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH to be used can set the P (Processing) bit in GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH to be used can set the P (Processing) bit in
the object header. the object header.
When a PCC needs to get a bi-directional path with asymmetric When a PCC needs to request a bi-directional path with asymmetric
bandwidth, it SHOULD specify the different bandwidth in forward and bandwidth, it SHOULD specify the different bandwidth in the forward
reverse directions through two separate GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH and reverse directions through two separate GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH
objects. If the PCC set the P bit on both object the PCE MUST objects. If the PCC set the P bit on both objects the PCE MUST
compute a path that satisfies the asymmetric bandwidth constraint and compute a path that satisfies the asymmetric bandwidth constraint .
return the path to PCC if the path computation is successful. If the If the P bit on the reverse or the forward GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH
P bit on the reverse GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH object the PCE MAY ignore object is not set the PCE MAY ignore this constraint.
this constraint.
A PCE MAY include the GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH objects in the response A PCE MAY include the GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH objects in the response
to indicate the GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH of the path to indicate the GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH of the path
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. No TLVs for the GENERALIZED-
outside the scope of this document. BANDWIDTH are defined by this document.
2.3. Traffic parameters encoding, GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING 2.3. Traffic parameters encoding, GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING
The LOAD-BALANCING object is used to request a set of maximum Max-LSP The LOAD-BALANCING object [RFC5440] is used to request a set of
TE-LSP having in total the bandwidth specified in BANDWIDTH, each TE- maximum Max-LSP TE-LSP having in total the bandwidth specified in
LSP having a minimum of min-bandwidth bandwidth. The LOAD-BALANCING BANDWIDTH, each TE-LSP having a minimum of bandwidth. The LOAD-
follows the bandwidth encoding of the BANDWIDTH object, it does not BALANCING follows the bandwidth encoding of the BANDWIDTH object, and
describe enough details for the traffic specification expected by thus it does not describe enough details for the traffic
GMPLS. A PCC should be allowed to request a set of TE-LSP also in specification expected by GMPLS. A PCC should be allowed to request
case of GMPLS traffic specification. 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 optional TLVs
fixed size of 8 bytes. This definition does not allows extending it and has a fixed size of 8 bytes. This definition does not allow
with the required information. To express this information, a new extending it with the required information. To express this
Object named GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING is defined. information, a new Object named GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING is
defined.
The GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING object, as the LOAD-BALANCING object, The GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING object, as the LOAD-BALANCING object,
allows the PCC to request a set of TE-LSP having in total the allows the PCC to request a set of TE-LSP having in total the
GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH traffic specification with potentially Max-Lsp, GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH traffic specification with potentially Max-Lsp,
each TE-LSP having a minimum of Min Traffic spec. The GENERALIZED- each TE-LSP having a minimum of Min Traffic spec. The GENERALIZED-
LOAD-BALANCING is optional. 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 GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING Object Type 1 is defined below. The TSpec
minimum bandwidth is represented by the object. The following object Type field determines which type of minimum bandwidth is represented
types are defined: by the object. The following object types are defined:
1. Intserv 1. Reserved
2. SONET/SDH 2. Intserv
3. G.709 3. Reserved
4. Ethernet 4. SONET/SDH
5. G.709
6. Ethernet
The GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING has a variable length. 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 | TSpec Type | Flags |R|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max-LSP | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Min Traffic Spec | | Min Traffic Spec |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
~ Optional TLVs ~ ~ Optional TLVs ~
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Traffic spec length (16 bits): the total length of the min traffic Traffic spec length (16 bits): the total length of the min traffic
specification. It should be noted that the RSVP traffic specification. It should be noted that the RSVP traffic
specification may also include TLV different than the PCEP TLVs. specification may also include TLV different than the PCEP TLVs.
TSpec Type (8 bits) : the traffic specification type, the same as the
C-Types defined for RSVP Object class 12 (SENDER_TSPEC)
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
skipping to change at page 12, line 33 skipping to change at page 12, line 36
2 Intserv [RFC2210] 2 Intserv [RFC2210]
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-LOAD-BALANCING MAY appear more than once in a PCReq The GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING MAY appear more than once in a PCEP
message. If more than one GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING have the same request. If more than one GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING have the same
Object Type, and R Flag, only the first one is processed, the others TSpec Type, and R Flag, only the first one is processed, the others
are ignored. are ignored.
a PCE MAY ignore GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING objects. A PCC that A PCE MAY ignore GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING objects. A PCC that
requires a GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING to be used can set the P requires a GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING to be used can set the P
(Processing) bit in the object header. (Processing) bit in the object header.
When a PCC needs to get a bi-directional path with asymmetric When a PCC needs to request a bi-directional path with asymmetric
bandwidth, it SHOULD specify the different bandwidth in forward and bandwidth while specifying load balancing constraints, it SHOULD
reverse directions through two separate GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING specify the different bandwidth in forward and reverse directions
objects with different R Flag. If the PCC set the P bit on both through two separate GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING objects with
object the PCE MUST compute a path that satisfies the asymmetric different R Flag. If the PCC set the P bit on both object the PCE
bandwidth constraint and return the path to PCC if the path MUST compute a path that satisfies the asymmetric bandwidth
computation is successful. If the P bit on the reverse GENERALIZED- constraint . If the P bit is not set the reverse or forward
LOAD-BALANCING object the PCE MAY ignore this constraint. GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING object the PCE MAY ignore this constraint.
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. No TLVs for the GENERALIZED-LOAD-
outside the scope of this document. BALANCING are defined by 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.
skipping to change at page 13, line 34 skipping to change at page 13, line 37
content of the Traffic specification is ST=6,RCC=0,NCC=0,NVC=10,MT=1. 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 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 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- response with maximum 5 path, each of then having a GENERALIZED-
BANDWIDTH OT=4,R=0, and traffic spec matching the minimum traffic BANDWIDTH OT=4,R=0, and traffic spec matching the minimum traffic
spec from the GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING object of the corresponding spec from the GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING object of the corresponding
request. 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 PCEP request message to specify
source and destination of the path for which a path computation is the source and the destination of the path for which a path
requested. From [RFC3471] the source IP address and the destination computation is requested. From [RFC3471] the source IP address and
IP address are used to identify those. A new Object Type is defined the destination IP address are used to identify those. A new Object
to address the following possibilities: Type is defined to address the following possibilities:
o Different endpoint types. o Different source and destination 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 In path computation withing a GMPLS context the endpoints can:
In GMPLS context the endpoints can:
o Be unnumbered o Be unnumbered as described in [RFC3477].
o Have label(s) associated to them o Have label(s) associated to them, specifying a set of constraints
in the allocation of labels.
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
is not explicitly stated. It should also be possible to request a numbered Link) is not explicitly stated. It should also be possible
Path between a numbered link and an unnumbered link, or a P2MP path to request a Path between a numbered link and an unnumbered link, or
between different type of endpoints. a P2MP path between different type of endpoints.
Since the PCEP END-POINTS object only support endpoints of the same Since the PCEP END-POINTS object only support endpoints of the same
type a new C-Type is proposed that support different endpoint types, type (IP-address) a new C-Type is proposed that support different
including unnumbered. This new C-Type also supports the endpoint types, including unnumbered. This new C-Type also supports
specification of constraints on the endpoint label to be use. The the specification of constraints on the endpoint label to be use.
PCE might know the interface restrictions but this is not a The 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. This correspond to requirement 6 and 9 of interpret the labels. This correspond to requirement 6 and 9 of
[I-D.ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req]. [I-D.ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req].
The proposed object format consists of a body and a list of TLVs, 2.4.1. Generalized Endpoint Object Type
which give the details of the endpoints and are described in
Section 2.4.2. For each endpoint type, a different grammar is
defined. The TLVs defined to describe an endpoint are:
1. IPv4 address.
2. IPv6 address.
3. Unnumbered endpoint.
4. Label request.
5. Label. The Generalized Endpoint object type format consists of a body and a
list of TLVs scoped to this object type object. The TLVs give the
details of the endpoints and are described in Section 2.4.2. For
each endpoint type, a different grammar is defined. The TLVs defined
to describe an endpoint are:
6. Upstream label. 1. IPv4 address.
7. Old Label. 2. IPv6 address.
8. Old Upstream label. 3. Unnumbered endpoint.
9. Label set. 4. Label set.
10. Suggested label set. 5. Suggested label set.
The labels TLV are used to restrict the label allocation in the PCE. The Label Set and Suggested label set TLVs are used to restrict the
They follow the set of restrictions provided by signaling with label allocation in the PCE. Those TLVs express the the set of
explicit value (label and upstream label), mandatory range restrictions provided by signaling. Label restriction support are
restrictions (Label set) and optional range restriction (suggested explicit value (Label set describing one label), mandatory range
label set). Single suggested value is using the suggested label set. restrictions (Label set), optional range restriction (suggested label
The Old Label and Old Upstream Labels are used to represent existing set) and dingle suggested value is using the suggested label set.
label(s) when requesting a re-optimization. The Old Label and Old The label range restrictions are valid in GMPLS networks, either by
upstream Label MAY be present only when the Reoptimization flag (R) PCC policy or depending on the switching technology used, for
of the RP object is set. The label range restrictions are valid in instance on given Ethernet or ODU equipment having limited hardware
GMPLS networks, either by PCC policy or depending on the switching capabilities restricting the label range. Label set restriction also
technology used, for instance on given Ethernet or ODU equipment applies to WSON networks where the optical sender and receivers are
having limited hardware capabilities restricting the label range. limited in their frequency tunability ranges, restricting then in
Label set restriction also applies to WSON networks where the optical GMPLS the possible label ranges on the interface. The END-POINTS
sender and receivers are limited in their frequency tunability Object with Generalized Endpoint object type is encoded as follow:
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 ~
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 16, line 30 skipping to change at page 16, line 9
245-255 Experimental range 245-255 Experimental range
The endpoint type is used to cover both point-to-point and different The endpoint type is used to cover both point-to-point and different
point-to-multipoint endpoint semantic. Endpoint type 0 MAY be point-to-multipoint endpoint semantic. Endpoint type 0 MAY be
accepted by the PCE, other endpoint type MAY be supported if the PCE accepted by the PCE, other endpoint type MAY be supported if the PCE
implementation supports P2MP path calculation. A PCE not supporting implementation supports P2MP path calculation. A PCE not supporting
a given endpoint type MUST respond with a PCErr with error code "Path a given endpoint type MUST respond with a PCErr with error code "Path
computation failure", error type "Unsupported endpoint type in END- computation failure", error type "Unsupported endpoint type in END-
POINTS Generalized Endpoint object type". The TLVs present in the POINTS Generalized Endpoint object type". The TLVs present in the
object body MUST follow the following grammar: request 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> ::=
<source-endpoint> <source-endpoint>
<destination-endpoint> <destination-endpoint>
<source-endpoint> ::= <source-endpoint> ::=
<endpoint> <endpoint>
skipping to change at page 17, line 18 skipping to change at page 16, line 45
<endpoint>::=<IPV4-ADDRESS>|<IPV6-ADDRESS>|<UNNUMBERED-ENDPOINT> <endpoint>::=<IPV4-ADDRESS>|<IPV6-ADDRESS>|<UNNUMBERED-ENDPOINT>
<endpoint-restriction-list> ::= <endpoint-restriction> <endpoint-restriction-list> ::= <endpoint-restriction>
[<endpoint-restriction-list>] [<endpoint-restriction-list>]
<endpoint-restriction> ::= <endpoint-restriction> ::=
<LABEL-REQUEST><label-restriction-list> <LABEL-REQUEST><label-restriction-list>
<label-restriction-list> ::= <label-restriction> <label-restriction-list> ::= <label-restriction>
[<label-restriction-list>] [<label-restriction-list>]
<label-restriction> ::= <LABEL>|<UPSTREAM-LABEL>| <label-restriction> ::= <LABEL-SET>|
<OLD-LABEL>|<OLD-UPSTREAM-LABEL>|
<LABEL-SET>|
<SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET> <SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET>
The different TLVs are described in the following sections. A PCE The different TLVs are described in the following sections. A PCE
MAY support IPV4-ADDRESS,IPV6-ADDRESS or UNNUMBERED-ENDPOINT TLV. A MAY support IPV4-ADDRESS,IPV6-ADDRESS or UNNUMBERED-ENDPOINT TLV. A
PCE not supporting one of those TLV in a PCReq MUST respond with a PCE not supporting one of those TLV in a PCReq MUST respond with a
PCRep with NO-PATH with the bit "Unknown destination" or "Unknown PCRep with NO-PATH with the bit "Unknown destination" or "Unknown
source" in the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV, the PCRep MUST include the source" in the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV, the response SHOULD include the
ENDPOINT object in the response with only the TLV it did not ENDPOINT object in the response with only the TLV it did not
understood. understood.
A PCE MAY support LABEL-REQUEST, LABEL, UPSTREAM-LABEL, OLD-LABEL, A PCE MAY support LABEL-REQUEST, LABEL-SET or SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET
OLD-UPSTREAM-LABEL, LABEL-SET or SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET TLV. If the TLV TLV. If a PCE finds a non-supported TLV in the END-POINTS the PCE
OLD-LABEL or OLD-UPSTREAM-LABEL are present the R bit of the RP MUST respond with a PCErr message with error type="Path computation
object MUST be set or a PCErr message with error type="Reception of failure" error value="Unsupported TLV present in END-POINTS
an invalid object" error value="OLD-LABEL or OLD-UPSTREAM-LABEL TLV Generalized Endpoint object type" and the message SHOULD include the
present without R bit set in RP" For non supported TLV in the END- ENDPOINT object in the response with only the endpoint and endpoint
POINTS a PCE MUST respond with a PCErr message with error type="Path restriction TLV it did not understand. A PCE not supporting those
computation failure" error value="Unsupported TLV present in END- TLVs but not being able to fulfill the label restriction MUST respond
POINTS Generalized Endpoint object type" and the message MUST include with a response with NO-PATH with the bit "No endpoint label
the ENDPOINT object in the response with only the endpoint and resource" or "No endpoint label resource in range" in the NO-PATH-
endpoint restriction TLV it did not understood. A PCE not supporting VECTOR TLV, the response SHOULD include the ENDPOINT object in the
being able to fulfill the label restriction MUST respond with a PCRep response with only the TLV where it could not met the constraint.
with NO-PATH with the bit "No endpoint label resource" or "No
endpoint label resource in range" in the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV, the
PCRep MUST include the ENDPOINT object in the response with only the
TLV where it could not met the constraint.
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 All endpoint TLVs have the standard PCEP TLV header as defined in
[RFC5440] section 7.1 [RFC5440] section 7.1. In this object type the order of the TLVs
MUST be followed according to the object type definition.
2.4.2.1. IPV4-ADDRESS 2.4.2.1. IPV4-ADDRESS
This TLV represent a numbered endpoint using IPv4 numbering, the This TLV represent a numbered endpoint using IPv4 numbering, the
format of the IPv4-ADDRESS TLV value (TLV-Type=TBA) 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 address | | IPv4 address |
skipping to change at page 19, line 8 skipping to change at page 18, line 37
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interface ID (32 bits) | | Interface ID (32 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
This TLV MAY be ignored, in which case a PCRep with NO-PATH should be This TLV MAY be ignored, in which case a PCRep with NO-PATH should be
responded, as described in Section 2.4.1. responded, as described in Section 2.4.1.
2.4.2.4. LABEL-REQUEST TLV 2.4.2.4. LABEL-REQUEST TLV
The LABEL-REQUEST TLV indicates the switching capability and encoding The LABEL-REQUEST TLV indicates the switching capability and encoding
type of the label restriction list. Its format is the same as type of the following label restriction list. Its format is the same
described in [RFC3471] Section 3.1 Generalized label request. The as described in [RFC3471] Section 3.1 Generalized label request. The
LABEL-REQUEST TLV use TLV-Type=TBA. The fields are encoded as in 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/ 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 SDH/GigE etc., that will be used with the data associated with the
LSP. The Switching type indicates the type of switching that is LSP. The Switching type indicates the type of switching that is
being requested on the link. G-PID identifies the payload of the TE- being requested on the link. G-PID identifies the payload of the TE-
LSP. This TLV and the following one are introduced to satisfy LSP. This TLV and the following one are introduced to satisfy
requirement 13 for the endpoint. requirement 13 for the endpoint.
This TLV MAY be ignored, in which case a PCRep with NO-PATH should be This TLV MAY be ignored, in which case a PCRep with NO-PATH should be
responded, as described in Section 2.4.1. responded, as described in Section 2.4.1.
2.4.2.5. Labels TLV 2.4.2.5. Labels TLV
Label or label range restrictions may be specified for the TE-LSP Label or label range restrictions may be specified for the TE-LSP
endpoints. Those are encoded in the TLVs. The label value need to endpoints. Those are encoded using the LABEL-SET TLV. The label
be interpreted with a description on the Encoding and switching type. value need to be interpreted with a description on the Encoding and
The REQ-ADAP-CAP object from [I-D.ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext] can be switching type. The REQ-ADAP-CAP object from
used in case of mono-layer request, however in case of multilayer it [I-D.ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext] can be used in case of mono-layer
is possible to have in the future more than one object, so it is request, however in case of multilayer it is possible to have in the
better to have a dedicated TLV for the label and label request (the future more than one object, so it is better to have a dedicated TLV
scope is then more clear). Those TLV MAY be ignored, in which case a for the label and label request (the scope is then more clear).
PCRep with NO-PATH should be responded, as described in Those TLV MAY be ignored, in which case a response with NO-PATH
Section 2.4.1. TLVs are encoded as follow (following [RFC5440]) : should be responded, as described in Section 2.4.1. TLVs are encoded
as follow (following [RFC5440]) :
o LABEL TLV, Type=TBA. The TLV Length is variable, the value is the
same as [RFC3471] Section 3.2 Generalized label. This represent
the downstream label
o UPSTREAM-LABEL TLV, Type=TBA, The TLV Length is variable, the
value is the same as [RFC3471] Section 3.2 Generalized label.
This represent the upstream label
o OLD-LABEL TLV, Type=TBA. The TLV Length is variable, the value is
the same as [RFC3471] Section 3.2 Generalized label. This
represent the old downstream label in case of re-optimization.
This Label MAY be reused. The R bit of the RP object MUST be set
o OLD-UPSTREAM-LABEL TLV, Type=TBA, The TLV Length is variable, the
value is the same as [RFC3471] Section 3.2 Generalized label.
This represent the old upstream label in case of re-optimization.
This Label MAY be reused. The R bit of the RP object MUST be set
o LABEL-SET TLV, Type=TBA. The TLV 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 follows [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 and O Bit. The U bit is set for upstream direction in case of
bidirectional LSP. bidirectional LSP and the O bit is used to represent an old label.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Action | Reserved |U| Label Type | | Action | Reserved |O|U| Label Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Subchannel 1 | | Subchannel 1 |
| ... | | ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: : : : : :
: : : : : :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Subchannel N | | Subchannel N |
| ... | | ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
o SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET TLV Set, Type=TBA. The TLV length is o SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET TLV Set, Type=TBA. The TLV length is variable
variable, Encoding is as LABEL-SET TLV. and its encoding is as LABEL-SET TLV. The 0 bit SHOULD be set to
0.
A LABEL TLV represent the label used on the unnumbered interface, bit A LABEL-SET TLV represents a set of possible labels that can be used
U is used to indicate which exact direction is considered. The label on an interface. The label allocated on the first link SHOULD be
type indicates which type of label is carried. A LABEL-SET TLV
represents a set of possible labels that can be used on the
unnumbered interface. the label allocated on the first link SHOULD be
within the label set range. The action parameter in the Label set within the label set range. The action parameter in the Label set
indicates the type of list provided. Those parameters are described indicates the type of list provided. Those parameters are described
by [RFC3471] section 3.5.1 A SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET TLV has the same by [RFC3471] section 3.5.1 A SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET TLV has the same
encoding as the LABEL-SET TLV, it indicates to the PCE a set of encoding as the LABEL-SET TLV, it indicates to the PCE a set of
preferred (ordered) set of labels to be used. the PCE MAY use those preferred (ordered) set of labels to be used. The PCE MAY use those
labels for label allocation. labels for label allocation.
The U bit has the following meaning: The U and 0 bits have 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
2.5. IRO TLV extension O: Old Label: set when the TLV represent the old label in case in
case of re-optimization. This Bit SHOULD be set to 0 in a
SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET TLV Set. This Label MAY be reused. The R bit
of the RP object MUST be set. When this bit is set the Action
field MUST be set to 0 (Inclusive List) and the Label Set MUST
contain one subchannel.
Several LABEL_SET TLVs MAY be present with the 0 bit cleared. At
most 2 LABEL_SET TLV SHOULD be present with the 0 bit set, at most
one with te U bit set and at most one with the U bit cleared. For a
given U bit value if more than one LABEL_SET TLV with the O bit set
is present, the first TLV SHOULD be processed and the following TLV
with the same U and O bit SHOULD be ignored.
A SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET TLV with the O bit set MUST trigger a PCErr
message with error type="Reception of an invalid object" error
value="Wrong LABEL-SET or SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET TLV present with 0 bit
set".
A LABEL-SET TLV with the O bit set and an Action Field not set to 0
(Inclusive list) or containing more than one subchannel MUST trigger
a PCErr message with error type="Reception of an invalid object"
error value="Wrong LABEL-SET or SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET TLV present with
0 bit set".
If a LABEL-SET TLV is present with O bit set, the R bit of the RP
object MUST be set or a PCErr message with error type="Reception of
an invalid object" error value="LABEL-SET TLV present with 0 bit set
but without R bit set in RP".
2.5. IRO extension
The IRO as defined in [RFC5440] is used to include specific objects The IRO as defined in [RFC5440] is used to include specific objects
in the path. RSVP allows to include label definition, in order to in the path. RSVP allows to include label definition, in order to
fulfill requirement 13 the IRO should support the new TLV Type as fulfill requirement 13 the IRO should support the new subobject type
defined in [RFC3473]: as defined in [RFC3473]:
Type Sub-object Type Sub-object
3 LABEL 3 LABEL
The L bit of such sub-object has no meaning within an IRO. The L bit of such sub-object has no meaning within an IRO.
The Label subobject MUST follow a subobject identifying a link , The Label subobject MUST follow a subobject identifying a link ,
currently an IP address subobject (Type 1 or 2) or an interface id currently an IP address subobject (Type 1 or 2) or an interface id
(type 4) subobject. The procedure associated with this subobject is (type 4) subobject. The procedure associated with this subobject is
as follow as follow
If the PCE allocate labels the PCE MUST allocate one label of within If the PCE allocates labels (e.g via explicit label control) the PCE
the set of label values for the given link. If the PCE does not MUST allocate one label of from within the set of label values for
assign labels an error the given link. If the PCE does not assign labels a response with a
NO-PATH and a NO-PATH-VECTOR-TLV with the bit .'No label resource in
range' set.
2.6. XRO TLV extension 2.6. XRO extension
The XRO as defined in [RFC5521] is used to exclude specific objects The XRO as defined in [RFC5521] is used to exclude specific objects
in the path. RSVP allows to exclude labels ([RFC6001], in order to in the path. RSVP allows to exclude labels ([RFC6001], in order to
fulfill requirement 13 the XRO should support a new TLV for the label fulfill requirement 13 of [I-D.ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req] section 4.1,
exclusion. the XRO should support a new subobject to support label exclusion.
The encoding of the XRO Label subobject is identical follow the The encoding of the XRO Label subobject follows the encoding of the
encoding of the Label ERO subobject defined in [RFC3473] and XRO TLVs Label ERO subobject defined in [RFC3473] and XRO subobject defined in
defined in [RFC5521]. The XRO Label subobject is defined as follows: [RFC5521]. The XRO Label subobject is defined as follows:
XRO Subobject Type 3: Label Subobject. XRO Subobject Type 3: Label Subobject.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|X| Type=3 | Length |U| Reserved | C-Type | |X| Type=3 | Length |U| Reserved | C-Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label | | Label |
| ... | | ... |
skipping to change at page 23, line 20 skipping to change at page 23, line 24
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|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
s_ateful PCE. s_ateful PCE.
This TLV is optional and MAY be ignored by the PCE, in which case This TLV is optional and MAY be ignored by the PCE, in which case it
MUST NOT include the TLV in the LSPA, if present, of the PCRep. When MUST NOT include the TLV in the LSPA, if present, of the response.
the TLV is used by the PCE, a LSPA object and the PROTECTION- When the TLV is used by the PCE, a LSPA object and the PROTECTION-
ATTRIBUTE TLV MUST be included in the PCRep. Fields that were not ATTRIBUTE TLV MUST be included in the response. Fields that were not
considered MUST be set to 0. considered MUST be set to 0.
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
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
may carries the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV that specifies more information on may carries the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV that specifies more information on
the 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
skipping to change at page 25, line 5 skipping to change at page 24, line 20
granularity. granularity.
Bit number TBA - No endpoint label resource (1-bit). Specifies Bit number TBA - No endpoint label resource (1-bit). Specifies
that the PCE is not able to provide a route because of the that the PCE is not able to provide a route because of the
endpoint label restriction. endpoint label restriction.
Bit number TBA - No endpoint label resource in range (1-bit). Bit number TBA - No endpoint label resource in range (1-bit).
Specifies that the PCE is not able to provide a route because of Specifies that the PCE is not able to provide a route because of
the endpoint label set restriction. 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 while characterized by an Error-Type that specifies the type of error while
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
skipping to change at page 25, line 39 skipping to change at page 25, line 39
Error-value=TBA: Unsupported Secondary LSP Protection Error-value=TBA: Unsupported Secondary LSP Protection
Flags in PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. Flags in PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
Error-value=TBA: Unsupported Link Protection Type in Error-value=TBA: Unsupported Link Protection Type in
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
Error-value=TBA: Unsupported Link Protection Type in Error-value=TBA: Unsupported Link Protection Type in
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
Error-value=TBA: OLD-LABEL or OLD-UPSTREAM-LABEL TLV Error-value=TBA: LABEL-SET TLV present with 0 bit set but
present without R bit set in RP. without R bit set in RP.
Error-value=TBA: Wrong LABEL-SET or SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET
TLV present with 0 bit set.
TBA Path computation TBA Path computation
failure failure
Error-value=TBA: Unacceptable request message. Error-value=TBA: Unacceptable request message.
Error-value=TBA: Generalized bandwidth object not Error-value=TBA: Generalized bandwidth object not
supported. supported.
Error-value=TBA: Label Set constraint could not be met. Error-value=TBA: Label Set constraint could not be met.
skipping to change at page 27, line 7 skipping to change at page 27, line 7
Generalized Endpoint object type Generalized Endpoint object type
Error-value=TBA: Unsupported TLV present in END-POINTS Error-value=TBA: Unsupported TLV present in END-POINTS
Generalized Endpoint object type Generalized Endpoint object type
Error-value=TBA: 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 This section follows the guidance of [RFC6123].
the basic operation of PCEP and so there are no changes to the
requirements for liveness detection and monitoring set out in 4.1. Control of Function through Configuration and Policy
[RFC4657] and [RFC5440].
This document makes no change to the basic operation of PCEP and so
the requirements described in [RFC5440] Section 8.1. also apply to
this document. In addition to those requirements a PCEP
implementation MAY allow the configuration of the following
parameters:
Accepted RG in the RP object.
Default RG to use (overriding the one present in the PCReq)
Accepted GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH parameters in request, default
mapping to use when not specified in the request
Accepted GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING parameters in request.
Accepted endpoint type in END-POINTS object type Generalized
Endpoint and allowed TLVs
Accepted range for label restrictions in label restriction in END-
POINTS, or IRO or XRO objects
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV acceptance and suppression.
Those parameters configuration are applicable to the different
sessions as described in [RFC5440] Section 8.1 (by default, per PCEP
peer, ..etc).
4.2. Information and Data Models
This document makes no change to the basic operation of PCEP and so
the requirements described in [RFC5440] Section 8.2. also apply to
this document. This document does not introduces new ERO sub object,
ERO information model is already covered in [RFC4802].
4.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
This document makes no change to the basic operation of PCEP and so
there are no changes to the requirements for liveness detection and
monitoring set out in [RFC4657] and [RFC5440] Section 8.3.
4.4. Verifying Correct Operation
This document makes no change to the basic operations of PCEP and
considerations described in [RFC5440] Section 8.4. New errors
introduced by this document should be covered by the requirement to
log error events.
4.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components
No new Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components are
made by this document. This document does not require ERO object
extensions. Any new ERO subobject defined in CCAMP working group can
be adopted without modifying the operations defined in this document.
4.6. Impact on Network Operation
This document makes no change to the basic operations of PCEP and
considerations described in [RFC5440] Section 8.6. In addition to
the limit on the rate of messages sent by a PCEP speaker, a limit MAY
be placed on the size of the PCEP messages.
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 1
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 1
Reference This document (section Section 2.3) Reference This document (section Section 2.3)
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. The values here are suggested for use "PCEP Objects" sub-registry. The values here are suggested for use
by IANA. by IANA.
Object Class 4 Object Class 4
skipping to change at page 30, line 7 skipping to change at page 31, line 7
5.3. New PCEP TLVs 5.3. New PCEP TLVs
IANA manages the PCEP TLV code point registry (see [RFC5440]). This IANA manages the PCEP TLV code point registry (see [RFC5440]). This
is maintained as the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" sub-registry of the is maintained as the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" sub-registry of the
"Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry. This "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry. This
document defines new PCEP TLVs, to be carried in the END-POINTS document defines new PCEP TLVs, to be carried in the END-POINTS
object with Generalized Endpoint object Type. IANA is requested to object with Generalized Endpoint object Type. IANA is requested to
do the following allocation. The values here are suggested for use do the following allocation. The values here are suggested for use
by IANA. by IANA.
Value Meaning Reference Value Meaning Reference
7 IPv4 endpoint This document (section
Section 2.4.2.1)
8 IPv6 endpoint This document (section
Section 2.4.2.2)
9 Unnumbered endpoint This document (section
Section 2.4.2.3)
10 Label request This document (section
Section 2.4.2.4)
11 Requested GMPLS Label This document (section 7 IPv4 endpoint This document (section
Section 2.4.2.5) Section 2.4.2.1)
12 Requested GMPLS Upstream This document (section 8 IPv6 endpoint This document (section
Label Section 2.4.2.5) Section 2.4.2.2)
13 Requested GMPLS Label Set This document (section 9 Unnumbered endpoint This document (section
Section 2.4.2.5) Section 2.4.2.3)
14 Suggested GMPLS Label Set This document (section 10 Label request This document (section
Section 2.4.2.5) Section 2.4.2.4)
15 Old Requested GMPLS Label This document (section 11 Requested GMPLS Label Set This document (section
Section 2.4.2.5) Section 2.4.2.5)
16 Old Requested GMPLS Upstream This document (section 12 Suggested GMPLS Label Set This document (section
Label Section 2.4.2.5) Section 2.4.2.5)
15 LSP Protection Information This document (section 13 LSP Protection This document (section Section 2.7)
Section 2.7) Information
5.4. RP Object Flag Field 5.4. RP Object Flag Field
As described in Section 2.1 new flag are defined in the RP Object 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 Flag IANA is requested to make the following Object-Type allocations
from the "RP Object Flag Field" sub-registry. The values here are from the "RP Object Flag Field" sub-registry. The values here are
suggested for use by IANA. suggested for use by IANA.
Bit Description Reference Bit Description Reference
skipping to change at page 31, line 38 skipping to change at page 32, line 27
Value=5: Unsupported Secondary LSP Protection Flags in This Value=5: Unsupported Secondary LSP Protection Flags in This
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. Document PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. Document
Value=6: Unsupported Link Protection Type in This Value=6: Unsupported Link Protection Type in This
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. Document PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. Document
Value=7: Unsupported Link Protection Type in This Value=7: Unsupported Link Protection Type in This
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. Document PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. Document
Value=8: OLD-LABEL or OLD-UPSTREAM-LABEL TLV present This Value=8: LABEL-SET TLV present with 0 bit set but without This
without R bit set in RP. Document R bit set in RP. Document
Value=9: Wrong LABEL-SET or SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET TLV This
present with 0 bit set. Document
Type=14 Path computation failure This Type=14 Path computation failure This
Document Document
Value=1: Unacceptable request message. This Value=1: Unacceptable request message. This
Document Document
Value=2: Generalized bandwidth object not supported. This Value=2: Generalized bandwidth object not supported. This
Document Document
skipping to change at page 32, line 43 skipping to change at page 33, line 34
granularity. granularity.
Bit number 20 - No endpoint label resource (1-bit). Specifies Bit number 20 - No endpoint label resource (1-bit). Specifies
that the PCE is not able to provide a route because of the that the PCE is not able to provide a route because of the
endpoint label restriction. endpoint label restriction.
Bit number 19 - No endpoint label resource in range (1-bit). Bit number 19 - No endpoint label resource in range (1-bit).
Specifies that the PCE is not able to provide a route because of Specifies that the PCE is not able to provide a route because of
the endpoint label set restriction. 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.
5.7. New Subobject for the Include Route Object 5.7. New Subobject for the Include Route Object
The "PCEP Parameters" registry contains a subregistry "PCEP Objects" The "PCEP Parameters" registry contains a subregistry "PCEP Objects"
with an entry for the Include Route Object (IRO). with an entry for the Include Route Object (IRO).
IANA is requested to add a further subobject that can be carried in IANA is requested to add a further subobject that can be carried in
the IRO as follows: the IRO as follows:
Subobject type Reference Subobject type Reference
skipping to change at page 37, line 12 skipping to change at page 38, line 12
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 Program FP7/2007-2013 under grant agreement no 247674. Framework Program FP7/2007-2013 under grant agreement no 247674.
The authors would like to thank Lyndon Ong for his useful comments to The authors would like to thank Lyndon Ong and Giada Lander for their
the document. useful comments to the document.
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 38, line 27 skipping to change at page 39, line 27
January 2003. January 2003.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching [RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC3477] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered Links [RFC3477] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered Links
in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, January 2003. (RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, January 2003.
[RFC4202] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Routing Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005.
[RFC4203] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "OSPF Extensions in Support
of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)",
RFC 4203, October 2005.
[RFC4328] Papadimitriou, D., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label [RFC4328] Papadimitriou, D., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical
Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328, January 2006. Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328, January 2006.
[RFC4606] Mannie, E. and D. Papadimitriou, "Generalized Multi- [RFC4606] Mannie, E. and D. Papadimitriou, "Generalized Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for
Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous
Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control", RFC 4606, August 2006. Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control", RFC 4606, August 2006.
[RFC4802] Nadeau, T. and A. Farrel, "Generalized Multiprotocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Management
Information Base", RFC 4802, February 2007.
[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, [RFC5088] Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., Ikejiri, Y., and R. Zhang,
"OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element "OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element
skipping to change at page 39, line 45 skipping to change at page 40, line 41
[RFC6205] Otani, T. and D. Li, "Generalized Labels for Lambda- [RFC6205] Otani, T. and D. Li, "Generalized Labels for Lambda-
Switch-Capable (LSC) Label Switching Routers", RFC 6205, Switch-Capable (LSC) Label Switching Routers", RFC 6205,
March 2011. March 2011.
[RFC6387] Takacs, A., Berger, L., Caviglia, D., Fedyk, D., and J. [RFC6387] Takacs, A., Berger, L., Caviglia, D., Fedyk, D., and J.
Meuric, "GMPLS Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional Label Meuric, "GMPLS Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional Label
Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 6387, September 2011. Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 6387, September 2011.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ceccarelli-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709]
Ceccarelli, D., Caviglia, D., Zhang, F., Li, D., Belotti,
S., Grandi, P., Rao, R., Pithewan, K., and J. Drake,
"Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF for Generalized
MPLS (GMPLS) Control of Evolving G.709 OTN Networks",
draft-ceccarelli-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709-07 (work in
progress), September 2011.
[I-D.ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req] [I-D.ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req]
Caviglia, D., Zhang, F., Ogaki, K., and T. Otani, Otani, T., Ogaki, K., Caviglia, D., and F. Zhang,
"Document:", draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-05 (work in "Document:", draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-06 (work in
progress), January 2012. progress), June 2012.
[I-D.ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext] [I-D.ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext]
Oki, E., Takeda, T., Farrel, A., and F. Zhang, "Extensions Oki, E., Takeda, T., Farrel, A., and F. Zhang, "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-06 (work in Engineering", draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext-07 (work in
progress), January 2012. progress), July 2012.
[I-D.ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength] [I-D.ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength]
Bernstein, G., Martensson, J., Dios, O., Tsuritani, T., Lee, Y., Bernstein, G., Martensson, J., Takeda, T.,
Takeda, T., and Y. Lee, "PCEP Requirements for WSON Tsuritani, T., and O. Dios, "PCEP Requirements for WSON
Routing and Wavelength Assignment", Routing and Wavelength Assignment",
draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-06 (work in draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-07 (work in
progress), October 2011. progress), April 2012.
[I-D.zhang-ccamp-gmpls-evolving-g709]
Zhang, F., Zhang, G., Belotti, S., Ceccarelli, D., and K.
Pithewan, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for the evolving G.709
Optical Transport Networks Control",
draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-evolving-g709-09 (work in
progress), August 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.
[RFC6123] Farrel, A., "Inclusion of Manageability Sections in Path
Computation Element (PCE) Working Group Drafts", RFC 6123,
February 2011.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Cyril Margaria (editor) Cyril Margaria (editor)
Nokia Siemens Networks Nokia Siemens Networks
St Martin Strasse 76 St Martin Strasse 76
Munich, 81541 Munich, 81541
Germany Germany
Phone: +49 89 5159 16934 Phone: +49 89 5159 16934
Email: cyril.margaria@nsn.com Email: cyril.margaria@nsn.com
 End of changes. 117 change blocks. 
345 lines changed or deleted 412 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/