draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-07.txt   draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-08.txt 
Network Working Group C. Margaria, Ed. Network Working Group C. Margaria, Ed.
Internet-Draft Nokia Siemens Networks Internet-Draft Coriant GmbH
Intended status: Standards Track O. Gonzalez de Dios, Ed. Intended status: Standards Track O. Gonzalez de Dios, Ed.
Expires: April 24, 2013 Telefonica Investigacion y Expires: January 16, 2014 Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo
Desarrollo
F. Zhang, Ed. F. Zhang, Ed.
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
October 21, 2012 July 15, 2013
PCEP extensions for GMPLS PCEP extensions for GMPLS
draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-07 draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-08
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.
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 24, 2013. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 16, 2014.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2013 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
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
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. Current GMPLS support and limitation of existing PCEP 1.3. Current GMPLS support and limitation of existing PCEP
objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.4. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.4. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. PCEP objects and extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2. PCEP objects and extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.4.1. Generalized Endpoint Object Type . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2.4.1. Generalized Endpoint Object Type . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.4.2. END-POINTS TLVs extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2.4.2. END-POINTS TLVs extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.5. IRO extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2.5. IRO extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.6. XRO extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 2.6. XRO extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.7. LSPA extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 2.7. LSPA extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.8. NO-PATH Object Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 2.8. NO-PATH Object Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.8.1. Extensions to NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 23 2.8.1. Extensions to NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV . . . . . . . . . . 22
3. Additional Error Type and Error Values Defined . . . . . . . . 25 3. Additional Error Type and Error Values Defined . . . . . . . 23
4. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 4. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.1. Control of Function through Configuration and Policy . . . 27 4.1. Control of Function through Configuration and Policy . . 24
4.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 4.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 4.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.4. Verifying Correct Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 4.4. Verifying Correct Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional 4.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components 25
Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 4.6. Impact on Network Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.6. Impact on Network Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 5.1. PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.1. PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 5.2. END-POINTS object, Object Type Generalized Endpoint . . . 26
5.2. END-POINTS object, Object Type Generalized Endpoint . . . 30 5.3. New PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.3. New PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 5.4. RP Object Flag Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.4. RP Object Flag Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 5.5. New PCEP Error Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.5. New PCEP Error Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 5.6. New NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.6. New NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 5.7. New Subobject for the Include Route Object . . . . . . . 30
5.7. New Subobject for the Include Route Object . . . . . . . . 33 5.8. New Subobject for the Exclude Route Object . . . . . . . 30
5.8. New Subobject for the Exclude Route Object . . . . . . . . 34 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 7. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
7. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Although [RFC4655] defines the PCE architecture and framework for Although [RFC4655] defines the PCE architecture and framework for
both MPLS and GMPLS networks, current PCEP RFCs [RFC5440], [RFC5521], both MPLS and GMPLS networks, current PCEP RFCs [RFC5440], [RFC5521],
[RFC5541], [RFC5520] are focused on MPLS networks, and do not cover [RFC5541], [RFC5520] are focused on MPLS networks, and do not cover
the wide range of GMPLS networks. This document complements these the wide range of GMPLS networks. This document complements these
RFCs by addressing the extensions required for GMPLS applications and RFCs by addressing the extensions required for GMPLS applications and
routing requests, for example for OTN and WSON networks. routing requests, for example for OTN and WSON networks.
The functional requirements to be considered by the PCEP extensions The functional requirements to be considered by the PCEP extensions
to support those application are described in to support those application are described in
[I-D.ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req] and [I-D.ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req] and
skipping to change at page 6, line 41 skipping to change at page 6, line 33
[<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: Where:
<attribute-list>::=[<LSPA>] <attribute-list>::=[<LSPA>]
[<BANDWIDTH>] [<BANDWIDTH>]
[<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>...] [<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>...]
[<GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING>...] [<GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING>...]
[<metric-list>] [<metric-list>]
[<IRO>] [<IRO>]
For point-to-multipoint(P2MP) computations, the grammar is: For point-to-multipoint(P2MP) computations, the grammar is:
<segment-computation> ::= <segment-computation> ::=
<end-point-rro-pair-list> <end-point-rro-pair-list>
[<OF>] [<OF>]
[<LSPA>] [<LSPA>]
[<BANDWIDTH>] [<BANDWIDTH>]
[<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>...] [<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>...]
[<metric-list>] [<metric-list>]
skipping to change at page 8, line 4 skipping to change at page 7, line 34
thus it need to indicate in the PCReq which granularity it is thus it need to indicate in the PCReq which granularity it is
expecting in the ERO. This correspond to requirement 12 of expecting in the ERO. This correspond to requirement 12 of
[I-D.ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req] The possible granularities can be node, [I-D.ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req] The possible granularities can be node,
link or label. The granularities are inter-dependent, in the sense link or label. The granularities are inter-dependent, in the sense
that link granularity implies the presence of node information in the that link granularity implies the presence of node information in the
ERO; similarly, a label granularity implies that the ERO contains ERO; similarly, a label granularity implies that the ERO contains
node, link and label information. node, link and label information.
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
Table 1
The flag in the RP object indicates the requested route granularity. The flag in the RP object indicates the requested route granularity.
The PCE MAY try to follow this granularity and MAY return a NO-PATH The PCE MAY try to follow this granularity and MAY return a NO-PATH
if the requested granularity cannot be provided. The PCE MAY return if the requested granularity cannot be provided. The PCE MAY return
finer granularity on the route based on its policy. The PCC can finer granularity on the route based on its policy. The PCC can
decide if the ERO is acceptable based on its content. decide if the ERO is acceptable based on its content.
If a PCE honored the the requested routing granularity for a request, If a PCE honored the the requested routing granularity for a request,
it SHOULD indicate the selected routing granularity in the RP object it SHOULD indicate the selected routing granularity in the RP object
included in the response . The RG flag is backward-compatible with included in the response . The RG flag is backward-compatible with
[RFC5440]: the value sent by an implementation (PCC or PCE) not [RFC5440]: the value sent by an implementation (PCC or PCE) not
supporting it will indicate a node granularity. supporting it will indicate a node granularity.
2.2. Traffic parameters encoding, GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH 2.2. Traffic parameters encoding, GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH
The PCEP BANDWIDTH object does not describe the details of the signal The PCEP BANDWIDTH object does not describe the details of the signal
(for example NVC, multiplier), hence the bandwidth information should (for example NVC, multiplier), hence the bandwidth information should
be extended to use the RSVP Tspec object encoding. The PCEP be extended to use the RSVP Tspec object encoding. The PCEP
BANDWIDTH object defines two types: 1 and 2. C-Type 2 is BANDWIDTH object defines two types: 1 and 2. C-Type 2 is
representing the existing bandwidth in case of re-optimization. representing the existing bandwidth in case of re-optimization.
skipping to change at page 8, line 44 skipping to change at page 8, line 28
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 11 of This correspond to requirement 3,4,5 and 11 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 with Object Type 1, having the object named GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH with Object Type 1, having the
following format is defined. The definitions below apply for Object following format is defined. The definitions below apply for Object
Type 1. The payload of the GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH is as follows: Type 1. The payload of the GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Traffic Spec Length | TSpec Type | 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
skipping to change at page 9, line 41 skipping to change at page 9, line 23
The TSpec Type types correspond to the RSVPT-TE SENDER_TSPEC (Object The TSpec Type types correspond to the RSVPT-TE SENDER_TSPEC (Object
Class 12) C-Types Class 12) C-Types
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]
6 Ethernet [RFC6003] 6 Ethernet [RFC6003]
Traffic Spec field encoding Traffic Spec field encoding
Table 2
The GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH MAY appear more than once in a request The GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH MAY appear more than once in a request
message. If more than one GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH objects have the message. If more than one GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH objects have the
same Tspec type, Reserved, R and O values, only the first one is same Tspec type, Reserved, R and O values, only the first one is
processed, the other objects 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 request a bi-directional path with asymmetric When a PCC needs to request a bi-directional path with asymmetric
skipping to change at page 10, line 35 skipping to change at page 10, line 18
2.3. Traffic parameters encoding, GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING 2.3. Traffic parameters encoding, GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING
The LOAD-BALANCING object [RFC5440] is used to request a set of The LOAD-BALANCING object [RFC5440] is used to request a set of
maximum Max-LSP TE-LSP having in total the bandwidth specified in maximum Max-LSP TE-LSP having in total the bandwidth specified in
BANDWIDTH, each TE-LSP having a minimum of bandwidth. The LOAD- BANDWIDTH, each TE-LSP having a minimum of bandwidth. The LOAD-
BALANCING follows the bandwidth encoding of the BANDWIDTH object, and BALANCING follows the bandwidth encoding of the BANDWIDTH object, and
thus it does not describe enough details for the traffic thus it does not describe enough details for the traffic
specification expected by GMPLS. A PCC should be allowed to request specification expected by GMPLS. A PCC should be allowed to request
a set of TE-LSP also in 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 optional TLVs According to [RFC5440] the LOAD-BALANCING object has no optional
and has a fixed size of 8 bytes. This definition does not allow TLVs and has a fixed size of 8 bytes. This definition does not allow
extending it with the required information. To express this extending it with the required information. To express this
information, a new Object named GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING is information, a new Object named GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING is
defined. 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.
GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING Object Type 1 is defined below. The TSpec GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING Object Type 1 is defined below. The TSpec
Type field determines which type of minimum bandwidth is represented Type field determines which type of minimum bandwidth is represented
by the object. by the object.
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 | TSpec Type | Flags |R| | Traffic spec length | TSpec Type | Flags |R|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max-LSP | Reserved | | 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, it correspond TSpec Type (8 bits) : the traffic specification type, it correspond
to the RSVPT-TE SENDER_TSPEC (Object Class 12) C-Types to the RSVPT-TE SENDER_TSPEC (Object Class 12) C-Types
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
skipping to change at page 12, line 8 skipping to change at page 11, line 31
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 encoding of the field Min Traffic Spec is the same as in RSVP-TE, The encoding of the field Min Traffic Spec is the same as in RSVP-TE,
it can be found in the following references. it 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]
6 Ethernet [RFC6003] 6 Ethernet [RFC6003]
Traffic Spec field encoding Traffic Spec field encoding
Table 3
The GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING MAY appear more than once in a PCEP The GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING MAY appear more than once in a PCEP
request. If more than one GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING have the same request. If more than one GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING have the same
TSpec 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 request a bi-directional path with asymmetric When a PCC needs to request a bi-directional path with asymmetric
bandwidth while specifying load balancing constraints, it SHOULD bandwidth while specifying load balancing constraints, it SHOULD
specify the different bandwidth in forward and reverse directions specify the different bandwidth in forward and reverse directions
through two separate GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING objects with through two separate GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING objects with
different R Flag. If the PCC set the P bit on both object the PCE different R Flag. If the PCC set the P bit on both object the PCE
MUST compute a path that satisfies the asymmetric bandwidth MUST compute a path that satisfies the asymmetric bandwidth
constraint . If the P bit is not set the reverse or forward constraint . If the P bit is not set the reverse or forward
GENERALIZED-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. No TLVs for the GENERALIZED-LOAD- specific bandwidth requirements. No TLVs for the GENERALIZED-LOAD-
BALANCING are defined by 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
skipping to change at page 15, line 10 skipping to change at page 14, line 34
| | | |
~ 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
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 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
245-255 Experimental range Table 4
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 endpoints. Endpoint type 0 MAY be accepted by point-to-multipoint endpoints. Endpoint type 0 MAY be accepted by
the PCE, other endpoint type MAY be supported if the PCE 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
request object body MUST follow the following grammar: request object body MUST follow the following grammar:
skipping to change at page 17, line 26 skipping to change at page 16, line 37
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. In this object type the order of the TLVs [RFC5440] section 7.1. In this object type the order of the TLVs
MUST be followed according to the object type definition. 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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.
2.4.2.2. IPV6-ADDRESS TLV 2.4.2.2. IPV6-ADDRESS TLV
This TLV represent a numbered endpoint using IPV6 numbering, the This TLV represent a numbered endpoint using IPV6 numbering, the
format of the IPv6-ADDRESS TLV value (TLV-Type=TBA) 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 address (16 bytes) | | IPv6 address (16 bytes) |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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.
2.4.2.3. 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] The TLV value is encoded as follow (TLV- semantic as in [RFC3477] The TLV value is encoded as follow (TLV-
Type=TBA) 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LSR's Router ID | | LSR's Router ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 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 following label restriction list for the endpoint. Its type of the following label restriction list for the endpoint. Its
format is the same as described in [RFC3471] Section 3.1 Generalized format is the same as described in [RFC3471] Section 3.1 Generalized
label request. The LABEL-REQUEST TLV use TLV-Type=TBA. The fields label request. The LABEL-REQUEST TLV use TLV-Type=TBA. The fields
skipping to change at page 20, line 7 skipping to change at page 19, line 13
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 and 0 bits have 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
O: Old Label: set when the TLV represent the old label 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.
O: Old Label: set when the TLV represent the old label in case in Table 5
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 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 most 2 LABEL_SET TLV SHOULD be present with the 0 bit set, at most
one with the U bit set and at most one with the U bit cleared. For a one with the 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 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 is present, the first TLV SHOULD be processed and the following TLV
with the same U and O bit SHOULD be ignored. with the same U and O bit SHOULD be ignored.
A SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET TLV with the O bit set MUST trigger a PCErr A SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET TLV with the O bit set MUST trigger a PCErr
message with error type="Reception of an invalid object" error message with error type="Reception of an invalid object" error
skipping to change at page 23, line 4 skipping to change at page 22, line 6
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. This context this also includes the protection state information. This
object is introduced to fulfill requirement 7 of object is introduced to fulfill requirement 7 of
[I-D.ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req] section 4.1 and requirement 3 of [I-D.ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req] section 4.1 and requirement 3 of
[I-D.ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req] section 4.2 and may be used as a policy [I-D.ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req] section 4.2 and may be used as a policy
input for route and label selection on request. The LSPA object MAY input for route and label selection on request. The LSPA object MAY
carry a PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV defined as : Type TBA: PROTECTION- carry a PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV defined as : Type TBA: PROTECTION-
ATTRIBUTE ATTRIBUTE
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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.
This TLV is optional and MAY be ignored by the PCE, in which case it 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 response. MUST NOT include the TLV in the LSPA, if present, of the response.
When 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-
skipping to change at page 25, line 9 skipping to change at page 23, line 28
the endpoint label set restriction. the endpoint label set restriction.
Bit number TBA - No label resource in range (1-bit). Specifies 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 that the PCE is not able to provide a route because of the label
set restriction. 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. An
type. An additional error type and few error values are defined to additional error type and few error values are defined to represent
represent some of the errors related to the newly identified objects some of the errors related to the newly identified objects related to
related to SDH networks. For each PCEP error, an Error-Type and an GMPLS networks. For each PCEP error, an Error-Type and an Error-
Error-value are defined. Error-Type 1 to 10 are already defined in 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 is introduced (value TBA). and A new Error-Type is introduced (value TBA).
Error-Type Error-value Error-Type Error-value
10 Reception of an
invalid object
Error-value=TBA: Bad Generalized Bandwidth Object value.
Error-value=TBA: Unsupported LSP Protection Type in
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
Error-value=TBA: Unsupported LSP Protection Flags in
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
Error-value=TBA: Unsupported Secondary LSP Protection
Flags in PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
Error-value=TBA: Unsupported Link Protection Type in
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
Error-value=TBA: Unsupported Link Protection Type in
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
Error-value=TBA: LABEL-SET TLV present with 0 bit set but
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
failure
Error-value=TBA: Unacceptable request message.
Error-value=TBA: Generalized bandwidth object not
supported.
Error-value=TBA: Label Set constraint could not be met.
Error-value=TBA: Label constraint could not be met.
Error-value=TBA: Unsupported endpoint type in END-POINTS
Generalized Endpoint object type
Error-value=TBA: Unsupported TLV present in END-POINTS
Generalized Endpoint object type
Error-value=TBA: Unsupported granularity in the RP object 10 Reception of an
flags invalid object
value=TBA: Bad Generalized Bandwidth Object
value.
value=TBA: Unsupported LSP Protection Type in
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
value=TBA: Unsupported LSP Protection Flags in
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
value=TBA: Unsupported Secondary LSP Protection
Flags in PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
value=TBA: Unsupported Link Protection Type in
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
value=TBA: Unsupported Link Protection Type in
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
value=TBA: LABEL-SET TLV present with 0 bit set
but without R bit set in RP.
value=TBA: Wrong LABEL-SET or
SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET TLV present with
0 bit set.
TBA Path computation
failure
value=TBA: Unacceptable request message.
value=TBA: Generalized bandwidth object not
supported.
value=TBA: Label Set constraint could not be
met.
value=TBA: Label constraint could not be
met.
value=TBA: Unsupported endpoint type in
END-POINTS Generalized Endpoint
object type.
value=TBA: Unsupported TLV present in END-
POINTS Generalized Endpoint object
type.
value=TBA: Unsupported granularity in the RP
object flags.
4. Manageability Considerations 4. Manageability Considerations
This section follows the guidance of [RFC6123]. This section follows the guidance of [RFC6123].
4.1. Control of Function through Configuration and Policy 4.1. Control of Function through Configuration and Policy
This document makes no change to the basic operation of PCEP and so This document makes no change to the basic operation of PCEP and so
the requirements described in [RFC5440] Section 8.1. also apply to the requirements described in [RFC5440] Section 8.1. also apply to
this document. In addition to those requirements a PCEP this document. In addition to those requirements a PCEP
implementation MAY allow the configuration of the following implementation MAY allow the configuration of the following
parameters: parameters:
Accepted RG in the RP object. Accepted RG in the RP object.
Default RG to use (overriding the one present in the PCReq) Default RG to use (overriding the one present in the PCReq)
Accepted GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH parameters in request, default Accepted GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH parameters in request, default
mapping to use when not specified in the request mapping to use when not specified in the request
skipping to change at page 27, line 28 skipping to change at page 25, line 4
Default RG to use (overriding the one present in the PCReq) Default RG to use (overriding the one present in the PCReq)
Accepted GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH parameters in request, default Accepted GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH parameters in request, default
mapping to use when not specified in the request mapping to use when not specified in the request
Accepted GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING parameters in request. Accepted GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING parameters in request.
Accepted endpoint type in END-POINTS object type Generalized Accepted endpoint type in END-POINTS object type Generalized
Endpoint and allowed TLVs Endpoint and allowed TLVs
Accepted range for label restrictions in label restriction in END- Accepted range for label restrictions in label restriction in END-
POINTS, or IRO or XRO objects POINTS, or IRO or XRO objects
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV acceptance and suppression. PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV acceptance and suppression.
Those parameters configuration are applicable to the different Those parameters configuration are applicable to the different
sessions as described in [RFC5440] Section 8.1 (by default, per PCEP sessions as described in [RFC5440] Section 8.1 (by default, per PCEP
peer, ..etc). peer, ..etc).
4.2. Information and Data Models 4.2. Information and Data Models
This document makes no change to the basic operation of PCEP and so This document makes no change to the basic operation of PCEP and so
the requirements described in [RFC5440] Section 8.2. also apply to the requirements described in [RFC5440] Section 8.2. also apply to
this document. This document does not introduces new ERO sub object, this document. This document does not introduces new ERO sub object,
ERO information model is already covered in [RFC4802]. ERO information model is already covered in [RFC4802].
4.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring 4.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
This document makes no change to the basic operation of PCEP and so This document makes no change to the basic operation of PCEP and so
there are no changes to the requirements for liveness detection and there are no changes to the requirements for liveness detection and
monitoring set out in [RFC4657] and [RFC5440] Section 8.3. monitoring set out in [RFC4657] and [RFC5440] Section 8.3.
4.4. Verifying Correct Operation 4.4. Verifying Correct Operation
This document makes no change to the basic operations of PCEP and This document makes no change to the basic operations of PCEP and
considerations described in [RFC5440] Section 8.4. New errors considerations described in [RFC5440] Section 8.4. New errors
introduced by this document should be covered by the requirement to introduced by this document should be covered by the requirement to
log error events. log error events.
4.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components 4.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components
No new Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components are No new Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components are
made by this document. This document does not require ERO object made by this document. This document does not require ERO object
extensions. Any new ERO subobject defined in CCAMP working group can extensions. Any new ERO subobject defined in CCAMP working group can
be adopted without modifying the operations defined in this document. be adopted without modifying the operations defined in this document.
4.6. Impact on Network Operation 4.6. Impact on Network Operation
This document makes no change to the basic operations of PCEP and This document makes no change to the basic operations of PCEP and
considerations described in [RFC5440] Section 8.6. In addition to 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 the limit on the rate of messages sent by a PCEP speaker, a limit MAY
be placed on the size of the PCEP messages. 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.
skipping to change at page 30, line 28 skipping to change at page 27, line 22
o Defining RFC o Defining RFC
New endpoint type in the Experimental range are for experimental use; New endpoint type in the Experimental range are for experimental use;
these will not be registered with IANA and MUST NOT be mentioned by these will not be registered with IANA and MUST NOT be mentioned by
RFCs. RFCs.
The following values have been defined by this document. The following values have been defined by this document.
(Section 2.4.1, Table 4): (Section 2.4.1, Table 4):
Value Type Meaning 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 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 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 Set This document (section
Section 2.4.2.5)
12 Suggested GMPLS Label Set This document (section 7 IPv4 endpoint This document (section Section
Section 2.4.2.5) 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)
13 LSP Protection This document (section Section 2.7) 10 Label request This document (section Section
Information 2.4.2.4)
11 Requested GMPLS Label Set This document (section Section
2.4.2.5)
12 Suggested GMPLS Label Set This document (section Section
2.4.2.5)
13 LSP Protection Information This document (section Section
2.7)
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
bit 17-16 routing granularity (RG) This document, Section 2.1 bit 17-16 routing granularity (RG) This document, Section 2.1
5.5. New PCEP Error Codes 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 make the following Values are defined. IANA is requested to make the following
allocation in the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" allocation in the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values"
registry. The values here are suggested for use by IANA. registry. The values here are suggested for use by IANA.
Error name Reference Error name Reference
Type=10 Reception of an invalid object [RFC5440]
Value=2: Bad Generalized Bandwidth Object value. This
Document
Value=3: Unsupported LSP Protection Type in This
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. Document
Value=4: Unsupported LSP Protection Flags in This
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. Document
Value=5: Unsupported Secondary LSP Protection Flags in This
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. Document
Value=6: Unsupported Link Protection Type in This
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. Document
Value=7: Unsupported Link Protection Type in This
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. Document
Value=8: LABEL-SET TLV present with 0 bit set but without This
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
Document
Value=1: Unacceptable request message. This
Document
Value=2: Generalized bandwidth object not supported. This
Document
Value=3: Label Set constraint could not be met. This
Document
Value=4: Label constraint could not be met. This
Document
Value=5: Unsupported endpoint type in END-POINTS This
Generalized Endpoint object type Document
Value=6: Unsupported TLV present in END-POINTS Generalized This
Endpoint object type Document
Value=7: Unsupported granularity in the RP object flags This Type=10 Reception of an invalid object [RFC5440]
Document Value=2: Bad Generalized Bandwidth Object This Document
value.
Value=3: Unsupported LSP Protection Type in This Document
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
Value=4: Unsupported LSP Protection Flags This Document
in PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
Value=5: Unsupported Secondary LSP This Document
Protection Flags in PROTECTION-
ATTRIBUTE TLV.
Value=6: Unsupported Link Protection Type This Document
in PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
Value=7: Unsupported Link Protection Type This Document
in PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
Value=8: LABEL-SET TLV present with 0 bit This Document
set but without R bit set in RP.
Value=9: Wrong LABEL-SET or SUGGESTED- This Document
LABEL-SET TLV present with 0 bit
set.
Type=14 Path computation failure This Document
Value=1: Unacceptable request message. This Document
Value=2: Generalized bandwidth object not This Document
supported.
Value=3: Label Set constraint could not be This Document
met.
Value=4: Label constraint could not be met. This Document
Value=5: Unsupported endpoint type in END- This Document
POINTS Generalized Endpoint
object type
Value=6: Unsupported TLV present in END- This Document
POINTS Generalized Endpoint
object type
Value=7: Unsupported granularity in the RP This Document
object flags
5.6. New NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Fields 5.6. New NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Fields
As described in Section Section 2.8.1, new NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Flag 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 Fields have been defined. IANA is requested to do the following
allocations in the "NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Flag Field" sub-registry. The allocations in the "NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Flag Field" sub-registry. The
values here are suggested for use by IANA. values here are suggested for use by IANA.
Bit number 23 - Protection Mismatch (1-bit). Specifies the Bit number 23 - Protection Mismatch (1-bit). Specifies the
mismatch of the protection type of the PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV in mismatch of the protection type of the PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV in
the request. the request.
skipping to change at page 39, line 45 skipping to change at page 33, line 4
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 [RFC4802] Nadeau, T. and A. Farrel, "Generalized Multiprotocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Management Switching (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Management
Information Base", RFC 4802, February 2007. 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
May 2007. 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.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP. and JL. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP. and JL. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element
(PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, March
March 2009. 2009.
[RFC5520] Bradford, R., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel, "Preserving [RFC5520] Bradford, R., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel, "Preserving
Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path Computation Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path Computation
Using a Path-Key-Based Mechanism", RFC 5520, April 2009. Using a Path-Key-Based Mechanism", RFC 5520, April 2009.
[RFC5521] Oki, E., Takeda, T., and A. Farrel, "Extensions to the [RFC5521] Oki, E., Takeda, T., and A. Farrel, "Extensions to the
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for
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.
[RFC6001] Papadimitriou, D., Vigoureux, M., Shiomoto, K., Brungard, [RFC6001] Papadimitriou, D., Vigoureux, M., Shiomoto, K., Brungard,
D., and JL. Le Roux, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Protocol D., and JL. Le Roux, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Protocol
Extensions for Multi-Layer and Multi-Region Networks (MLN/ Extensions for Multi-Layer and Multi-Region Networks (MLN/
MRN)", RFC 6001, October 2010. MRN)", RFC 6001, October 2010.
[RFC6003] Papadimitriou, D., "Ethernet Traffic Parameters", [RFC6003] Papadimitriou, D., "Ethernet Traffic Parameters", RFC
RFC 6003, October 2010. 6003, October 2010.
[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.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., Zhang, F., and C.
"Document:", draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-06 (work in Margaria, "Requirements for GMPLS applications of PCE",
progress), June 2012. draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-08 (work in progress), June
2013.
[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-07 (work in Engineering", draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext-07 (work in
progress), July 2012. progress), July 2012.
[I-D.ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength] [I-D.ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength]
Lee, Y., Bernstein, G., Martensson, J., Takeda, T., Lee, Y., Bernstein, G., Martensson, J., Takeda, T.,
Tsuritani, T., and O. Dios, "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-
draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-08 (work in routing-wavelength-09 (work in progress), June 2013.
progress), October 2012.
[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 [RFC6123] Farrel, A., "Inclusion of Manageability Sections in Path
Computation Element (PCE) Working Group Drafts", RFC 6123, Computation Element (PCE) Working Group Drafts", RFC 6123,
February 2011. February 2011.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Cyril Margaria (editor) Cyril Margaria (editor)
Nokia Siemens Networks Coriant GmbH
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@coriant.com
Oscar Gonzalez de Dios (editor) Oscar Gonzalez de Dios (editor)
Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo
C/ Emilio Vargas 6 C/ Emilio Vargas 6
Madrid, 28043 Madrid 28043
Spain Spain
Phone: +34 91 3374013 Phone: +34 91 3374013
Email: ogondio@tid.es Email: ogondio@tid.es
Fatai Zhang (editor) Fatai Zhang (editor)
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base
Bantian, Longgang District Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen, 518129 Shenzhen 518129
P.R.China P.R.China
Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com
 End of changes. 68 change blocks. 
311 lines changed or deleted 266 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/