draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-09.txt   draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-10.txt 
Network Working Group C. Margaria, Ed. Network Working Group C. Margaria, Ed.
Internet-Draft Internet-Draft
Intended status: Standards Track O. Gonzalez de Dios, Ed. Intended status: Standards Track O. Gonzalez de Dios, Ed.
Expires: August 17, 2014 Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo Expires: April 9, 2015 Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo
F. Zhang, Ed. F. Zhang, Ed.
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
February 13, 2014 October 06, 2014
PCEP extensions for GMPLS PCEP extensions for GMPLS
draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-09 draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-10
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 34 skipping to change at page 1, line 34
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 August 17, 2014. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 9, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2014 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 13 skipping to change at page 2, line 13
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. PCEP requirements for GMPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. PCEP requirements for GMPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3. 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. PCEP objects and extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1. GMPLS capability advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.1. GMPLS capability advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.1. GMPLS Computation TLV in the Existing PCE Discovery 2.1.1. GMPLS Computation TLV in the Existing PCE Discovery
Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.2. OPEN Object extension GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV . . . . . 6 2.1.2. OPEN Object extension GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV . . . . . 6
2.2. RP object extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.2. RP object extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3. Traffic parameters encoding, BANDWIDTH object extensions 7 2.3. BANDWIDTH object extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4. Traffic parameters encoding, LOAD-BALANCING . . . . . . . 9 2.4. LOAD-BALANCING object extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.5. END-POINTS Object extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.5. END-POINTS Object extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.5.1. Generalized Endpoint Object Type . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.5.1. Generalized Endpoint Object Type . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.5.2. END-POINTS TLVs extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2.5.2. END-POINTS TLVs extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.6. IRO extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 2.6. IRO extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.7. XRO extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 2.7. XRO extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.8. LSPA extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 2.8. LSPA extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.9. NO-PATH Object Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 2.9. NO-PATH Object Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.9.1. Extensions to NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV . . . . . . . . . . 22 2.9.1. Extensions to NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV . . . . . . . . . . 22
3. Additional Error Type and Error Values Defined . . . . . . . 23 3. Additional Error Type and Error Values Defined . . . . . . . 23
4. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 4. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.1. Control of Function through Configuration and Policy . . 24 4.1. Control of Function through Configuration and Policy . . 25
4.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 4.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 4.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.4. Verifying Correct Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 4.4. Verifying Correct Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components 26 4.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components 26
4.6. Impact on Network Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 4.6. Impact on Network Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.1. PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 5.1. PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.2. END-POINTS object, Object Type Generalized Endpoint . . . 27 5.2. END-POINTS object, Object Type Generalized Endpoint . . . 27
5.3. New PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 5.3. New PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.4. RP Object Flag Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 5.4. RP Object Flag Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.5. New PCEP Error Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 5.5. New PCEP Error Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.6. New NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 5.6. New NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.7. New Subobject for the Include Route Object . . . . . . . 30 5.7. New Subobject for the Include Route Object . . . . . . . 31
5.8. New Subobject for the Exclude Route Object . . . . . . . 30 5.8. New Subobject for the Exclude Route Object . . . . . . . 31
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
7. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 7. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 9.3. Experimental References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
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.
skipping to change at page 3, line 33 skipping to change at page 3, line 35
Casellas (CTTC) Casellas (CTTC)
1.2. PCEP requirements for GMPLS 1.2. PCEP requirements for GMPLS
The document [RFC7025] describes the set of PCEP requirements to The document [RFC7025] describes the set of PCEP requirements to
support GMPLS TE-LSPs. When a PCC requests a PCE to perform a path support GMPLS TE-LSPs. When a PCC requests a PCE to perform a path
computation (by means of a PCReq message), the PCC should be able to computation (by means of a PCReq message), the PCC should be able to
indicate the following additional information: indicate the following additional information:
o Which data flow is switched by the LSP: a combination of Switching o Which data flow is switched by the LSP: a combination of Switching
Type (for instance L2SC or TDM), Switching Encoding (e.g., type (for instance L2SC or TDM), LSP Encoding type (e.g.,
Ethernet, SONET/SDH) and sometimes the Signal Type (e.g. in case Ethernet, SONET/SDH) and sometimes the Signal Type (e.g. in case
of TDM/LSC switching capability) of TDM/LSC switching capability)
o Data flow specific traffic parameters, which are technology o Data flow specific traffic parameters, which are technology
specific. For instance, in SDH/SONET and G.709 OTN networks the specific. For instance, in SDH/SONET and G.709 OTN networks the
Concatenation Type and the Concatenation Number have an influence Concatenation Type and the Concatenation Number have an influence
on the switched data and on which link it can be supported on the switched data and on which link it can be supported
o Support for asymmetric bandwidth requests. o Support for asymmetric bandwidth requests.
o Support for unnumbered interface identifiers, as defined in o Support for unnumbered interface identifiers, as defined in
[RFC3477] [RFC3477]
o Label information and technology specific label(s) such as o Label information and technology specific label(s) such as
wavelength labels as defined in [RFC6205]. A PCC should also be wavelength labels as defined in [RFC6205]. A PCC should also be
able to specify a Label restriction similar to the one supported able to specify a Label restriction similar to the one supported
by RSVP. by RSVP-TE (Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering).
o Ability to indicate the requested granularity for the path ERO: o Ability to indicate the requested granularity for the path ERO:
node, link or label. This is to allow the use of the explicit node, link or label. This is to allow the use of the explicit
label control feature of RSVP-TE. label control feature of RSVP-TE.
We describe in this document a set of PCEP protocol extensions, We describe in this document a set of PCEP protocol extensions,
including new objects, TLVs, encodings, error codes and procedures, including new object types, TLVs, encodings, error codes and
in order to fulfill the aforementioned requirements. procedures, in order to fulfill the aforementioned requirements.
1.3. Current GMPLS support and limitation of existing PCEP objects 1.3. Current GMPLS support and limitation of existing PCEP objects
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 objects, included in requests and responses supports the following objects, included in requests and responses
related to the described requirements. related to the described requirements.
From [RFC5440]: From [RFC5440]:
o ENDPOINTS: only numbered endpoints are considered. The context o END-POINTS: only numbered endpoints are considered. The context
specifies whether they are node identifiers or numbered specifies whether they are node identifiers or numbered
interfaces. interfaces.
o BANDWIDTH: the data rate is encoded in the bandwidth object (as o BANDWIDTH: the data rate is encoded in the bandwidth object (as
IEEE 32 bit float). [RFC5440] does not include the ability to IEEE 32 bit float). [RFC5440] does not include the ability to
convey an encoding proper to any GMPLS networks. convey an encoding proper to any GMPLS networks.
o ERO : Unnumbered endpoints are supported. o ERO : Unnumbered endpoints are supported.
o LSPA: LSP attributes (setup and holding priorities) o LSPA: LSP attributes (setup and holding priorities)
skipping to change at page 5, line 26 skipping to change at page 5, line 26
interface, nor potential label restrictions on the interface. interface, nor potential label restrictions on the interface.
Those parameters are of interest in case of switching constraints. Those parameters are of interest in case of switching constraints.
The IRO/XRO objects do not allow the inclusion/exclusion of labels The IRO/XRO objects do not allow the inclusion/exclusion of labels
Current attributes do not allow expressing the requested link Current attributes do not allow expressing the requested link
protection level and/or the 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:
A new object type are introduced for the BANDWIDTH object Two new object types are introduced for the BANDWIDTH
(Generalized-Bandwidth, Generalized Bandwidth of existing TE-LSP) object(Generalized-Bandwidth, Generalized Bandwidth of existing
TE-LSP).
A new object type is introduced for the LOAD-BALANCING object A new object type is introduced for the LOAD-BALANCING object
(Generalized bandwidth), (Generalized LOAD-BALANCING).
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 OPEN message for capability negotiation.
A new TLV is added to the LSPA object. A new TLV is added to the LSPA object.
A new TLV type for label is allowed in IRO and XRO objects. A new TLV type for label is allowed in IRO and XRO objects.
In order to indicate the used routing granularity in the response, In order to indicate the used routing granularity in the 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
skipping to change at page 6, line 10 skipping to change at page 6, line 16
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]. This document PCReq and PCRep messages are defined in [RFC5440]. This document
does not change the existing grammars does not change the existing grammars
2.1. GMPLS capability advertisement 2.1. GMPLS capability advertisement
2.1.1. GMPLS Computation TLV in the Existing PCE Discovery Protocol 2.1.1. GMPLS Computation TLV in the Existing PCE Discovery Protocol
IGP-based PCE Discovery (PCED) is defined in [RFC5088] and [RFC5089] IGP-based PCE Discovery (PCED) is defined in [RFC5088] and [RFC5089]
for the OSPF and IS-IS protocols. Those documents define bit 0 of for the OSPF and IS-IS protocols. Those documents have defined bit 0
the PCED TLV for Path computation with GMPLS link constraints. This in PCE-CAP-FLAGS Sub-TLV of the PCED TLV as "Path computation with
capability can be used to detect GMPLS-capable PCEs. GMPLS link constraints". This capability can be used to detect
GMPLS-capable PCEs.
2.1.2. OPEN Object extension GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV 2.1.2. OPEN Object extension GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV
In addition to the IGP advertisement, a PCEP speaker should be able In addition to the IGP advertisement, a PCEP speaker should be able
to discover the other peer GMPLS capabilities during the Open message to discover the other peer GMPLS capabilities during the Open message
exchange. This capability is also useful to avoid misconfigurations. exchange. This capability is also useful to avoid misconfigurations.
This document defines a new optional GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV for use in This document defines a new optional GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV for use in
the OPEN object to negotiate the GMPLS capability. The inclusion of the OPEN object to negotiate the GMPLS capability. The inclusion of
this TLV in the OPEN message indicates that the PCC/PCE support the this TLV in the OPEN message indicates that the PCC/PCE support the
PCEP extensions defined in the document. A PCE that is able to PCEP extensions defined in the document. A PCE that is able to
support the GMPLS extensions defined in this document SHOULD include support the GMPLS extensions defined in this document SHOULD include
the GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV on the OPEN message. If the PCE does not the GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV on the OPEN message. If the PCE does not
include the GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV in the OPEN message and PCC does include the GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV in the OPEN message and PCC does
include the TLV, it is RECOMMENDED that the PCC indicates a mismatch include the TLV, it is RECOMMENDED that the PCC indicates a mismatch
of capabilities. Moreover , in case that the PCC does not receive of capabilities. Moreover , in case that the PCC does not receive
the GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV it is RECOMMENDED that the PCC does not make the GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV it is RECOMMENDED that the PCC does not make
use of the objects and TLVs defined in this document. use of the objects and TLVs defined in this document.
IANA has allocated value 14 from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" sub- IANA has allocated value TBA from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" sub-
registry, as documented in Section Section 5.3 ("New PCEP TLVs"). registry, as documented in Section 5.3 ("New PCEP TLVs"). The
The description is "GMPLS capable". Its format is shown in the description is "GMPLS-CAPABILITY". Its format is shown in the
following figure. following figure.
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type=14 | Length | | Type=14 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags | | Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 7, line 29 skipping to change at page 7, line 36
3 : label 3 : label
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
any granularity it likes on the route based on its policy. The PCC any granularity it likes on the route based on its policy. The PCC
can decide if the ERO is acceptable based on its content. can decide if the ERO is acceptable based on its content.
If a PCE honored the requested routing granularity for a request, it If a PCE honored the requested routing granularity for a request, it
MUST indicate the selected routing granularity in the RP object MUST indicate the selected routing granularity in the RP object
included in the response. The PCE MAY use the reserved RG to leave included in the response. Otherwise, the PCE MAY use the reserved RG
the check of the ERO to the PCC. The RG flag is backward-compatible to leave the check of the ERO to the PCC. The RG flag is backward-
with [RFC5440]: the value sent by an implementation (PCC or PCE) not compatible with [RFC5440]: the value sent by an implementation (PCC
supporting it will indicate a reserved value. or PCE) not supporting it will indicate a reserved value.
2.3. Traffic parameters encoding, BANDWIDTH object extensions 2.3. BANDWIDTH object extensions
From [RFC5440] the object carrying the request size for the TE-LSP is From [RFC5440] the object carrying the request size for the TE-LSP is
the BANDWIDTH object. The object types 1 and 2 defined in [RFC5440] the BANDWIDTH object. The object types 1 and 2 defined in [RFC5440]
do not describe enough information to describe the TE-LSP bandwidth do not describe enough information to describe the TE-LSP bandwidth
in GMPLS networks. The BANDWIDTH object encoding should be extended in GMPLS networks. The BANDWIDTH object encoding should be extended
to allow to express the bandwidth as described in[RFC7025]. RSVP-TE to allow to express the bandwidth as described in [RFC7025]. RSVP-TE
extensions for GMPLS provide a set of encoding allowing such extensions for GMPLS provide a set of encoding allowing such
representation in an unambiguous way, this is encoded in the RSVP-TE representation in an unambiguous way, this is encoded in the RSVP-TE
TSpec and FlowSpec objects. This document extends the BANDWIDTH TSpec and FlowSpec objects. This document extends the BANDIDTH
object with new object types reusing the RSVP-TE encoding. object with new object types reusing the RSVP-TE encoding.
The following possibilities should be supported by the new encoding : The following possibilities should be supported by the new encoding :
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. o GMPLS (SDH/SONET, G.709, ATM, MEF etc) parameters.
This correspond to requirement 3,4,5 and 11 of [RFC7025]. This correspond to requirement 3, 4, 5 and 11 of [RFC7025] section
3.1.
This document defines two OT for the BANDWIDTH object: This document defines two Object Types for the BANDWIDTH object:
3 Requested generalized bandwidth TBA Requested generalized bandwidth
4 Generalized bandwidth of an existing TE LSP for which a re- TBA Generalized bandwidth of an existing TE LSP for which a
optimization is requested reoptimization is requested
The definitions below apply for Object Type 3 and 4. The payload is The definitions below apply for Object Type TBA and TBA. The payload
as follows: 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Bandwidth Spec Length | Rev. Bandwidth Spec Length | | Bandwidth Spec Length | Rev. Bandwidth Spec Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Bw Spec Type | Reserved | | Bw Spec Type | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
~ generalized bandwidth ~ ~ generalized bandwidth ~
skipping to change at page 8, line 37 skipping to change at page 8, line 45
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
~ Optional : reverse generalized bandwidth ~ ~ Optional : reverse generalized bandwidth ~
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
~ Optional TLVs ~ ~ Optional TLVs ~
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The BANDWIDTH object type 3 and 4 have a variable length. The 16 bit The BANDWIDTH object type TBA and TBA have a variable length. The 16
bandwidth spec length field indicates the length of the bandwidth bit bandwidth spec length field indicates the length of the bandwidth
spec field. The bandwidth spec length MUST be strictly greater than spec field. The bandwidth spec length MUST be strictly greater than
0. The 16 bit reverse bandwidth spec length field indicates the 0. The 16 bit reverse bandwidth spec length field indicates the
length of the reverse bandwidth spec field. The reverse bandwidth length of the reverse bandwidth spec field. The reverse bandwidth
spec length MAY be equal to 0. spec length MAY be equal to 0.
The Bw Type field determines which type of bandwidth is represented The Bw Spec Type field determines which type of bandwidth is
by the object. represented by the object.
The Bw Type types correspond to the RSVPT-TE SENDER_TSPEC (Object The Bw Spec Type correspond to the RSVPT-TE SENDER_TSPEC (Object
Class 12) C-Types Class 12) C-Types
The encoding of the field generalized bandwidth and reverse The encoding of the field generalized bandwidth and reverse
generalized bandwidth is the same as in RSVP-TE, it can be found in generalized bandwidth is the same as in RSVP-TE, it can be found in
the following references. 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
, When a PCC requests a bi-directional path with symmetric bandwidth, When a PCC requests a bi-directional path with symetric bandwidth, it
is MUST specify the generalized bandwidth field, MUST NOT specify the MUST specify the generalized bandwidth field, MUST NOT specify the
reverse generalized bandwidth and MUST set the Reverse Bandwidth Spec reverse generalized bandwidth and MUST set the Reverse Bandwidth Spec
Length to 0. When a PCC needs to request a bi-directional path with Length to 0. When a PCC needs to request a bi-directional path with
asymmetric bandwidth, it SHOULD specify the different bandwidth in asymmetric bandwidth, it SHOULD specify the different bandwidth in
the forward and reverse directions with a generalized bandwidth and the forward and reverse directions with a generalized bandwidth and
reverse generalized bandwidth fields. reverse generalized bandwidth fields.
The procedures described in [RFC5440] for the PCRep is unchanged, a The procedures described in [RFC5440] for the PCRep is unchanged, a
PCE MAY include the BANDWIDTH objects in the response to indicate the PCE MAY include the BANDWIDTH objects in the response to indicate the
BANDWIDTH of the path BANDWIDTH of the path
As specified i [RFC5440] in the case of the re-optimization of a TE As specified in [RFC5440] in the case of the reoptimization of a TE
LSP, the bandwidth of the existing TE LSP MUST also be included in LSP, the bandwidth of the existing TE LSP MUST also be included in
addition to the requested bandwidth if and only if the two values addition to the requested bandwidth if and only if the two values
differ. The Object Type 4 MAY be used instead of object type 2 to differ. The Object Type TBA MAY be used instead of object type 2 to
indicate the existing TE-LSP bandwidth. A PCC that requested a path indicate the existing TE-LSP bandwidth. A PCC that requested a path
with a BANDWIDTH object of with object type 1 SHOULD use object type with a BANDWIDTH object of object type 1 SHOULD use object type 2 to
2 to represent the existing TE-LSP BANDWIDTH. represent the existing TE-LSP BANDWIDTH.
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 Object Type 3 and 4 specific bandwidth requirements. No TLVs for the Object Type TBA and
are defined by this document. TBA are defined by this document.
2.4. Traffic parameters encoding, LOAD-BALANCING 2.4. LOAD-BALANCING object extensions
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 the existing definition from [RFC5440] does not describe enough thus the existing definition from [RFC5440] does not describe enough
details for the bandwidth specification expected by GMPLS. A PCC details for the bandwidth specification expected by GMPLS. A PCC
should be allowed to request a set of TE-LSP also in case of GMPLS should be allowed to request a set of TE-LSP also in case of GMPLS
bandwidth specification. bandwidth specification.
The LOAD-BALANCING has the same limitation as the BANDWIDTH for GMPLS The LOAD-BALANCING has the same limitation as the BANDWIDTH for GMPLS
networks. Similarly to the BANDWIDTH object a new object type is networks. Similarly to the BANDWIDTH object a new object type is
defined to allow a PCC to represent the bandwidth types supported by defined to allow a PCC to represent the bandwidth types supported by
GMPLS networks. GMPLS networks.
This document defines the generalized load balancing object type 2 This document defines the generalized load balancing object type TBA
for the LOAD-BALANCING object, for the LOAD-BALANCING object. The generalized load balancing object
type has a variable length.
The generalized load balancing object type has a variable length.
The format of the generalized load balancing object type is as The format of the generalized load balancing object type 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Bandwidth spec length | Reverse Bandwidth spec length | | Bandwidth spec length | Reverse Bandwidth spec length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| BW Spec Type | Max-LSP | Reserved | | Bw Spec Type | Max-LSP | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Min Bandwidth Spec | | Min Bandwidth Spec |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Min reverse Bandwidth Spec (optional) | | Min reverse Bandwidth Spec (optional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
~ Optional TLVs ~ ~ Optional TLVs ~
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Bandwidth spec length (16 bits): the total length of the min Bandwidth spec length (16 bits): the total length of the min
bandwidth specification. It should be noted that the RSVP traffic bandwidth specification. It should be noted that the RSVP-TE traffic
specification may also include TLV different than the PCEP TLVs. The specification may also include TLV different than the PCEP TLVs. The
length MUST be strictly greater than 0. length MUST be strictly greater than 0.
Reverse bandwidth spec length (16 bits): the total length of the Reverse bandwidth spec length (16 bits): the total length of the
reverse min bandwidth specification. It MAY be equal to 0. reverse min bandwidth specification. It MAY be equal to 0.
BW Spec Type (8 bits) : the bandwidth specification type, it Bw Spec Type (8 bits) : the bandwidth specification type, it
correspond to the RSVPT-TE SENDER_TSPEC (Object Class 12) C-Types correspond to the RSVPT-TE SENDER_TSPEC (Object Class 12) C-Types
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 Bandwidth spec (variable): Specifies the minimum bandwidth spec Min Bandwidth spec (variable): Specifies the minimum bandwidth spec
of each element of the set of TE LSPs. of each element of the set of TE LSPs.
Min Reverse Bandwidth spec (variable): Specifies the minimum reverse Min Reverse Bandwidth spec (variable): Specifies the minimum reverse
bandwidth spec of each element of the set of TE LSPs. bandwidth spec of each element of the set of TE LSPs.
skipping to change at page 11, line 14 skipping to change at page 11, line 24
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
. When a PCC requests a bi-directional path with symmetric bandwidth When a PCC requests a bi-directional path with symetric bandwidth
while specifying load balancing constraints is MUST specify the min while specifying load balancing constraints it MUST specify the min
Bandwidth spec field, MUST NOT specify the min reverse bandwidth and Bandwidth spec field, MUST NOT specify the min reverse bandwidth and
MUST set the Reverse Bandwidth spec length to 0. When a PCC needs to MUST set the Reverse Bandwidth spec length to 0. When a PCC needs to
request a bi-directional path with asymmetric bandwidth while request a bi-directional path with asymmetric bandwidth while
specifying load balancing constraints, it SHOULD specify the specifying load balancing constraints, it SHOULD specify the
different bandwidth in forward and reverse directions through a min different bandwidth in forward and reverse directions through a min
Bandwidth spec and min reverse bandwidth fields. Bandwidth spec and min reverse bandwidth fields.
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 object type are defined by this document. balancing object type are defined by this document.
skipping to change at page 11, line 41 skipping to change at page 11, line 51
BANDWIDTH object specifying X as the required bandwidth and a LOAD- BANDWIDTH object specifying X as the required bandwidth and a LOAD-
BALANCING object with the Max-LSP and Min-traffic spec fields set to BALANCING object with the Max-LSP and Min-traffic spec fields set to
N and B, respectively. N and B, respectively.
For example a request for one co-signaled n x VC-4 TE-LSP will not For example a request for one co-signaled n x VC-4 TE-LSP will not
use the LOAD-BALANCING. In case the V4 components can use different use the LOAD-BALANCING. In case the V4 components can use different
paths, the BANDWIDTH with object type 3 will contain a traffic paths, the BANDWIDTH with object type 3 will contain a traffic
specification indicating the complete n x VC4 traffic specification specification indicating the complete n x VC4 traffic specification
and the LOAD-BALANCING the minimum co-signaled VC4. For a SDH and the LOAD-BALANCING the minimum co-signaled VC4. For a SDH
network, a request to have a TE-LSP group with 10 VC4 container, each network, a request to have a TE-LSP group with 10 VC4 container, each
path using at minimum 2VC4 container, can be represented with a path using at minimum 2 x VC4 container, can be represented with a
BANDWIDTH object with OT=3, Bandwidth spec type set to 4, the content BANDWIDTH object with OT=3, Bandwidth spec type set to 4, the content
of the bandwidth specification is ST=6,RCC=0,NCC=0,NVC=10,MT=1. The of the bandwidth specification is ST=6,RCC=0,NCC=0,NVC=10,MT=1. The
LOAD-BALANCING, OT=2 with Bandwidth spec set to 4,Max-LSP=5, min LOAD-BALANCING, OT=2 with Bandwidth spec set to 4,Max-LSP=5, min
Traffic spec is (ST=6,RCC=0,NCC=0,NVC=2,MT=1). The PCE can respond Traffic spec is (ST=6,RCC=0,NCC=0,NVC=2,MT=1). The PCE can respond
with a response with maximum 5 path, each of them having a BANDWIDTH with a response with maximum 5 path, each of them having a BANDWIDTH
OT=3 and traffic spec matching the minimum traffic spec from the OT=3 and traffic spec matching the minimum traffic spec from the
LOAD-BALANCING object of the corresponding request. LOAD-BALANCING object of the corresponding request.
2.5. END-POINTS Object extensions 2.5. END-POINTS Object extensions
The END-POINTS object is used in a PCEP request message to specify The END-POINTS object is used in a PCEP request message to specify
the source and the destination of the path for which a path the source and the destination of the path for which a path
computation is requested. From [RFC5440] the source IP address and computation is requested. From [RFC5440]the source IP address and
the destination IP address are used to identify those. A new Object the destination IP address are used to identify those. A new Object
Type is defined to address the following possibilities: Type is defined to address the following possibilities:
o Different source and destination 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.
skipping to change at page 13, line 7 skipping to change at page 13, line 19
details of the endpoints and are described in Section 2.5.2. For details of the endpoints and are described in Section 2.5.2. For
each endpoint type, a different grammar is defined. The TLVs defined each endpoint type, a different grammar is defined. The TLVs defined
to describe an endpoint are: to describe an endpoint are:
1. IPv4 address endpoint. 1. IPv4 address endpoint.
2. IPv6 address endpoint. 2. IPv6 address endpoint.
3. Unnumbered endpoint. 3. Unnumbered endpoint.
4. Label set restriction. 4. Label request.
5. Suggested label set restriction. 5. Label set restriction.
6. Suggested label set restriction.
The Label Set and Suggested label set TLVs are used to restrict the The Label Set and Suggested label set TLVs are used to restrict the
label allocation in the PCE. Those TLVs express the set of label allocation in the PCE. Those TLVs express the set of
restrictions provided by signaling. Label restriction support can be restrictions provided by signaling. Label restriction support can be
an explicit value (Label set describing one label), mandatory range an explicit value (Label set describing one label), mandatory range
restrictions (Label set), optional range restriction (suggested label restrictions (Label set), optional range restriction (suggested label
set) and single suggested value is using the suggested label set. set) and single suggested value is using the suggested label set.
Endpoints label restriction may not be part of the RRO or IRO, they Endpoints label restriction may not be part of the RRO or IRO, they
may be included when following [RFC4003] in signaling for egress may be included when following [RFC4003] in signaling for egress
endpoint, but ingress endpoint properties may be local to the PCC and endpoint, but ingress endpoint properties may be local to the PCC and
not signaled. To support this case the label set allows to indicate not signaled. To support this case the label set allows to indicate
which label are used in case of re-optimization. The label range which label are used in case of reoptimization. The label range
restrictions are valid in GMPLS networks, either by PCC policy or restrictions are valid in GMPLS networks, either by PCC policy or
depending on the switching technology used, for instance on given depending on the switching technology used, for instance on given
Ethernet or ODU equipment having limited hardware capabilities Ethernet or ODU equipment having limited hardware capabilities
restricting the label range. Label set restriction also applies to restricting the label range. Label set restriction also applies to
WSON networks where the optical sender and receivers are limited in WSON networks where the optical sender and receivers are limited in
their frequency tunability ranges, restricting then in GMPLS the their frequency tunability ranges, restricting then in GMPLS the
possible label ranges on the interface. The END-POINTS Object with possible label ranges on the interface. The END-POINTS Object with
Generalized Endpoint object type is encoded as follow: Generalized Endpoint object type is encoded as follow:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
skipping to change at page 14, line 45 skipping to change at page 15, line 24
[<endpoint-restriction-list>] [<endpoint-restriction-list>]
<destination-endpoint> ::= <destination-endpoint> ::=
<endpoint> <endpoint>
[<endpoint-restriction-list>] [<endpoint-restriction-list>]
<p2mp-endpoints> ::= <p2mp-endpoints> ::=
<endpoint> [<endpoint-restriction-list>] <endpoint> [<endpoint-restriction-list>]
[<endpoint> [<endpoint-restriction-list>]]... [<endpoint> [<endpoint-restriction-list>]]...
For endpoint type Point-to-Multipoint several endpoint objects may be For endpoint type Point-to-Multipoint, several endpoint objects may
present in the message and represent a leave, exact meaning depend on be present in the message and each represents a leave, exact meaning
the endpoint type defined of the object. depend on the endpoint type defined of the object.
An endpoint is defined as follows: An endpoint is defined as follows:
<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-SET>| <label-restriction> ::= <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 TLVs 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 response SHOULD 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-SET or SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET A PCE MAY support LABEL-REQUEST, LABEL-SET or SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET
TLV. If a PCE finds a non-supported TLV in the END-POINTS the PCE TLV. If a PCE finds a non-supported TLV in the END-POINTS the PCE
MUST respond with a PCErr message with error type="Path computation MUST respond with a PCErr message with error type="Path computation
failure" error value="Unsupported TLV present in END-POINTS failure" error value="Unsupported TLV present in END-POINTS
Generalized Endpoint object type" and the message SHOULD include the Generalized Endpoint object type" and the message SHOULD include the
ENDPOINT object in the response with only the endpoint and endpoint ENDPOINT object in the response with only the endpoint and endpoint
restriction TLV it did not understand. A PCE supporting those TLVs restriction TLV it did not understand. A PCE supporting those TLVs
but not being able to fulfill the label restriction MUST send a but not being able to fulfil the label restriction MUST send a
response with a NO-PATH object which has the bit "No endpoint label response with a NO-PATH object which has the bit "No endpoint label
resource" or "No endpoint label resource in range" set in the NO- resource" or "No endpoint label resource in range" set in the NO-
PATH- VECTOR TLV. The response SHOULD include an ENDPOINT object PATH- VECTOR TLV. The response SHOULD include an ENDPOINT object
containing only the TLV where the PCE could not meet the constraint. containing only the TLV where the PCE could not meet the constraint.
2.5.2. END-POINTS TLVs extensions 2.5.2. 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. 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.
skipping to change at page 16, line 52 skipping to change at page 17, line 26
| 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 2.5.1. responded, as described in Section 2.5.1.
2.5.2.4. LABEL-REQUEST TLV 2.5.2.4. 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 and encoding is the same as described in [RFC3471] Section 3.1
label request. The LABEL-REQUEST TLV use TLV-Type=TBA. The fields Generalized label request. The LABEL-REQUEST TLV use TLV-Type=TBA.
are encoded as in the RSVP-TE. The Encoding Type indicates the The Encoding Type indicates the encoding type, e.g., SONET/SDH/GigE
encoding type, e.g., SONET/SDH/GigE etc., that will be used with the etc., of the LSP with which the data is associated. The Switching
data associated. The Switching type indicates the type of switching type indicates the type of switching that is being requested on the
that is being requested on the endpoint. G-PID identifies the endpoint. G-PID identifies the payload. This TLV and the following
payload. This TLV and the following one are introduced to satisfy one are introduced to satisfy requirement 13 for the endpoint. It is
requirement 13 for the endpoint. It is not directly related to the not directly related to the TE-LSP label request, which is expressed
TE-LSP label request, which is expressed by the SWITCH-LAYER object. by the SWITCH-LAYER object.
On the path calculation request only the Tspec and switch layer need On the path calculation request only the Tspec and switch layer need
to be coherent, the endpoint labels could be different (supporting a to be coherent, the endpoint labels could be different (supporting a
different Tspec). Hence the label restrictions include a Generalized different Tspec). Hence the label restrictions include a Generalized
label request in order to interpret the labels. This TLV MAY be label request in order to interpret the labels. This TLV MAY be
ignored, in which case a PCRep with NO-PATH should be responded, as ignored, in which case a PCRep with NO-PATH should be responded, as
described in Section 2.5.1. described in Section 2.5.1.
2.5.2.5. Labels TLV 2.5.2.5. 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 using the LABEL-SET TLV. The label endpoints. Those are encoded using the LABEL-SET TLV. The label
value need to be interpreted with a description on the Encoding and value need to be interpreted with a description on the Encoding and
switching type. The REQ-ADAP-CAP object from switching type. The REQ-ADAP-CAP object from
[I-D.ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext] can be used in case of mono-layer [I-D.ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext] can be used in case of mono-layer
request, however in case of multi-layer it is possible to have in the request, however in case of multilayer it is possible to have in the
future more than one object, so it is better to have a dedicated TLV future more than one object, so it is better to have a dedicated TLV
for the label and label request (the scope is then more clear). for the label and label request (the scope is then more clear).
Those TLV MAY be ignored, in which case a response with NO-PATH Those TLV MAY be ignored, in which case a response with NO-PATH
should be responded, as described in Section 2.5.1. TLVs are encoded should be responded, as described in Section 2.5.1. TLVs are encoded
as follow (following [RFC5440]) : as follow (following [RFC5440]) :
o LABEL-SET TLV, Type=TBA. The TLV Length is variable, Encoding o LABEL-SET TLV, Type=TBA. The TLV Length is variable, Encoding
follows [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 and O 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 and the O bit is used to represent an old label. bidirectional LSP and the O bit is used to represent an old label.
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
skipping to change at page 19, line 24 skipping to change at page 19, line 31
0 bit set". 0 bit set".
If a LABEL-SET TLV is present with O bit set, the R bit of the RP 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 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 an invalid object" error value="LABEL-SET TLV present with 0 bit set
but without R bit set in RP". but without R bit set in RP".
2.6. IRO extension 2.6. 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-TE allows to include label definition, in order to
fulfill requirement 13 the IRO should support the new subobject type fulfill requirement 13 the IRO should support the new subobject type
as defined in [RFC3473]: as defined in [RFC3473]:
Type Sub-object Type Sub-object
3 LABEL TBA, recommended value 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. IP address subobject MUST be a link subobject. (type 4) subobject. If an IP address subobject is used, then the IP
More than one label suboject MAY follow each link subobject. The address given MUST be associated with a link. More than one label
procedure associated with this subobject is as follow subobject MAY follow each link subobject. The procedure associated
with this subobject is as follows.
If the PCE allocates labels (e.g via explicit label control) the PCE If the PCE allocates labels (e.g via explicit label control) the PCE
MUST allocate one label of from within the set of label values for MUST allocate one label from within the set of label values for the
the given link. If the PCE does not assign labels a response with a given link. If the PCE does not assign labels then it sends a
NO-PATH and a NO-PATH-VECTOR-TLV with the bit .'No label resource in response with a NO-PATH object, containing a NO-PATH-VECTOR-TLV with
range' set. the bit 'No label resource in range' set.
2.7. XRO extension 2.7. 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-TE allows to exclude labels ([RFC6001], in order
fulfill requirement 13 of [RFC7025] section 4.1, the XRO should to fulfill requirement 13 of [RFC7025] section 3.1, the XRO should
support a new subobject to support label exclusion. support a new subobject to support label exclusion.
The encoding of the XRO Label subobject follows the encoding of the The encoding of the XRO Label subobject follows the encoding of the
Label ERO subobject defined in [RFC3473] and XRO subobject defined in Label ERO subobject defined in [RFC3473] and XRO subobject defined in
[RFC5521]. The XRO Label subobject represent one Label and is [RFC5521]. The XRO Label subobject represent one Label and is
defined as follows: defined as follows:
XRO Subobject Type 3: Label Subobject. XRO Subobject Type TBA, recommended value 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 20, line 33 skipping to change at page 20, line 40
As per [RFC5521]. The X-bit indicates whether the exclusion is As per [RFC5521]. The X-bit indicates whether the exclusion is
mandatory or desired. 0 indicates that the resource specified mandatory or desired. 0 indicates that the resource specified
MUST be excluded from the path computed by the PCE. 1 MUST be excluded from the path computed by the PCE. 1
indicates that the resource specified SHOULD be excluded from indicates that the resource specified SHOULD be excluded from
the path computed by the PCE, but MAY be included subject to the path computed by the PCE, but MAY be included subject to
PCE policy and the absence of a viable path that meets the PCE policy and the absence of a viable path that meets the
other constraints and excludes the resource. other constraints and excludes the resource.
Type (7 bits) Type (7 bits)
The Type of the XRO Label subobject is 3. The Type of the XRO Label subobject is TBA, recommended value
3.
Length (8 bits) Length (8 bits)
See [RFC5521],The total length of the subobject in bytes See [RFC5521],The total length of the subobject in bytes
(including the Type and Length fields). The Length is always (including the Type and Length fields). The Length is always
divisible by 4. divisible by 4.
U (1 bit) U (1 bit)
See [RFC3471]. See [RFC3471].
C-Type (8 bits) C-Type (8 bits)
skipping to change at page 21, line 14 skipping to change at page 21, line 21
C-Type (8 bits) C-Type (8 bits)
The C-Type of the included Label Object as defined in The C-Type of the included Label Object as defined in
[RFC3471]. [RFC3471].
Label Label
See [RFC3471]. See [RFC3471].
XRO Label subobjects MUST follow the numbered or unnumbered interface The Label subobject MUST follow a subobject identifying a link,
subobjects to which they refer. Each subobject represent one label, currently an IP address subobject (Type 1 or 2) or an interface id
several XRO Labels subobject MAY be present for each link. (type 4) subobject. If an IP address subobject is used, then the IP
address given MUST be associated with a link. More than one label
subobject MAY follow each link subobject.
Type Sub-object Type Sub-object
3 LABEL 3 LABEL
The L bit of such sub-object has no meaning within an XRO. The L bit of such sub-object has no meaning within an XRO.
2.8. LSPA extensions 2.8. 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 [RFC7025] section object is introduced to fulfill requirement 7 of [RFC7025] section
4.1 and requirement 3 of [RFC7025] section 4.2. This object contains 3.1 and requirement 3 of [RFC7025] section 3.2. This object contains
the the value of the PROTECTION object defined by [RFC4872] and may the information of the PROTECTION object defined by [RFC4872] and
be used as a policy input. The LSPA object MAY carry a PROTECTION- may be used as a policy input. The LSPA object MAY carry a
ATTRIBUTE TLV defined as : Type TBA: PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV defined as : Type TBA: PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|S|P|N|O| Reserved | LSP Flags | Reserved | Link Flags| |S|P|N|O| Reserved | LSP Flags | Reserved | Link Flags|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|I|R| Reserved | Seg.Flags | Reserved | |I|R| Reserved | Seg.Flags | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 24, line 7 skipping to change at page 24, line 7
Error-value that provides additional information about the error. An Error-value that provides additional information about the error. An
additional error type and few error values are defined to represent additional error type and few error values are defined to represent
some of the errors related to the newly identified objects related to some of the errors related to the newly identified objects related to
GMPLS networks. For each PCEP error, an Error-Type and an Error- GMPLS networks. For each PCEP error, an Error-Type and an 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 10 Reception of
invalid object an invalid
value=TBA: Bad Bandwidth Object type 3 or 4 value. object
value=TBA: Bad Bandwidth Object type 3 or 4 not value=TBA: Bad Bandwidth Object type TBA(Generalized
supported. bandwidth) or TBA(Generalized
value=TBA: Unsupported LSP Protection Type in bandwidth,reoptimization).
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. value=TBA: Bandwidth Object type TBA or TBA not
value=TBA: Unsupported LSP Protection Flags in supported.
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. value=TBA: Unsupported LSP Protection Type in
value=TBA: Unsupported Secondary LSP Protection PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
Flags in PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. value=TBA: Unsupported LSP Protection Flags in
value=TBA: Unsupported Link Protection Type in PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. value=TBA: Unsupported Secondary LSP Protection Flags
value=TBA: Unsupported Link Protection Type in in PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. value=TBA: Unsupported Link Protection Type in
value=TBA: LABEL-SET TLV present with 0 bit set but PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
without R bit set in RP. value=TBA: Unsupported Link Protection Type in
value=TBA: Wrong LABEL-SET or PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET TLV present with value=TBA: LABEL-SET TLV present with 0 bit set but
0 bit set. without R bit set in RP.
TBA Path computation value=TBA: Wrong LABEL-SET or
SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET TLV present with
0 bit set.
TBA Path
computation
failure failure
value=TBA: Unacceptable request message. value=TBA: Unacceptable request message.
value=TBA: Generalized bandwidth value not value=TBA: Generalized bandwidth value not supported.
supported. value=TBA: Label Set constraint could not be
value=TBA: Label Set constraint could not be met.
met. value=TBA: Label constraint could not be
value=TBA: Label constraint could not be met.
met. value=TBA: Unsupported endpoint type in
value=TBA: Unsupported endpoint type in END-POINTS Generalized Endpoint
END-POINTS Generalized Endpoint object type.
object type. value=TBA: Unsupported TLV present in END-POINTS
value=TBA: Unsupported TLV present in END-POINTS Generalized Endpoint object type.
Generalized Endpoint object type. value=TBA: Unsupported granularity in the RP object
value=TBA: Unsupported granularity in the RP object flags.
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 BANDWIDTH object type 3 and 4 parameters in request, Accepted BANDWIDTH object type TBA and TBA (Generalized
default mapping to use when not specified in the request Bandwidth)parameters in request, default mapping to use when not
specified in the request
Accepted LOAD-BALANCING object type 3 and 4 parameters in request. Accepted LOAD-BALANCING object type TBA parameters in request.
Accepted endpoint type in END-POINTS object type Generalized Accepted endpoint type and allowed TLVs in object END-POINTS with
Endpoint and allowed TLVs object type Generalized Endpoint.
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).
skipping to change at page 26, line 29 skipping to change at page 26, line 31
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 2.3, Section 2.4 and Section 2.5.1 new As described in Section 2.3, Section 2.4 and Section 2.5.1 new
Objects types are defined IANA is requested to make the following Objects types are defined. IANA is requested to make the following
Object-Type allocations from the "PCEP Objects" sub-registry. Object-Type allocations from the "PCEP Objects" sub-registry.
Object 5 Object 5
Class Class
Name BANDWIDTH Name BANDWIDTH
Object-Type 3: Generalized bandwidth Object-Type TBA : Generalized bandwidth
4: Generalized bandwidth of an existing TE LSP for which TBA: Generalized bandwidth of an existing TE LSP for
a reoptimization is requested which a reoptimization is requested
6-15: Unassigned 5-15: Unassigned
Reference This document (section Section 2.3) Reference This document (section Section 2.3)
Object Class 14 Object 14
Name LOAD-BALANCING Class
Object-Type 2: Generalized load balancing Name LOAD-BALANCING
3-15: Unassigned Object-Type TBA: Generalized load balancing
Reference This document (section Section 2.4) 3-15: Unassigned
Object Class 4 Reference This document (section Section 2.4)
Name END-POINTS Object 4
Object-Type 5: Generalized Endpoint Class
6-15: unassigned Name END-POINTS
Reference This document (section Section 2.3) Object-Type TBA: Generalized Endpoint
6-15: unassigned
Reference This document (section Section 2.5)
5.2. END-POINTS object, Object Type Generalized Endpoint 5.2. END-POINTS object, Object Type Generalized Endpoint
IANA is requested to create a registry to manage the endpoint type IANA is requested to create a registry to manage the endpoint type
field of the END-POINTS object, Object Type Generalized Endpoint and field of the END-POINTS object, Object Type Generalized Endpoint and
manage the code space. manage the code space.
New endpoint type in the Reserved range may be allocated by an IETF New endpoint type in the Reserved range may be allocated by an IETF
consensus action. Each endpoint type should be tracked with the consensus action. Each endpoint type should be tracked with the
following qualities: following qualities:
skipping to change at page 27, line 28 skipping to change at page 28, line 5
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 2.5.1, Table 4): (Section 2.5.1, Table 4):
Value Type Meaning Value Type Meaning
0 Point-to-Point TBA, recommended Point-to-Point
1 Point-to-Multipoint New leaves to add valude 0
2 Old leaves to remove TBA, recommended Point-to-Multipoint New leaves to add
3 Old leaves whose path can be valude 1
modified/reoptimized TBA, recommended Old leaves to remove
4 Old leaves whose path must be valude 2
left unchanged TBA, recommended Old leaves whose path can be
5-244 Reserved valude 3 modified/reoptimized
245-255 Experimental range TBA, recommended Old leaves whose path must be
valude 4
left unchanged
TBA, recommended Reserved
valude 5-244
TBA, recommended Experimental range
valude 245-255
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 TBA IPv4 endpoint This document (section Section
2.5.2.1) 2.5.2.1)
8 IPv6 endpoint This document (section Section TBA IPv6 endpoint This document (section Section
2.5.2.2) 2.5.2.2)
9 Unnumbered endpoint This document (section Section TBA Unnumbered endpoint This document (section Section
2.5.2.3) 2.5.2.3)
10 Label request This document (section Section TBA Label request This document (section Section
2.5.2.4) 2.5.2.4)
11 Requested GMPLS Label Set This document (section Section TBA Requested GMPLS Label This document (section Section
2.5.2.5) Set 2.5.2.5)
12 Suggested GMPLS Label Set This document (section Section TBA Suggested GMPLS Label This document (section Section
2.5.2.5) Set 2.5.2.5)
13 LSP Protection This document (section Section 2.8) TBA PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE This document (section Section 2.8)
Information TBA GMPLS-CAPABILITY This document (section Section 2.1.2)
14 GMPLS-CAPABILITY This document (section Section 2.1.2)
5.4. RP Object Flag Field 5.4. RP Object Flag Field
As described in Section 2.2 new flag are defined in the RP Object As described in Section 2.2 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 2.2 TBA (recommended bit routing granularity This document, Section
17-16) (RG) 2.2
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 3, new PCEP Error-Type and Error Values are
Values are defined. IANA is requested to make the following defined. IANA is requested to make the following allocation in the
allocation in the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" registry. The values here
registry. The values here are suggested for use by IANA. are suggested for use by IANA.
Error name Reference Error name Reference
Type=10 Reception of an invalid object [RFC5440] Type=10 Reception of an invalid object [RFC5440]
Value=2: Bad Bandwidth Object type 3 or 4. This Document Value=TBA: Bad Bandwidth Object type TBA(Generalized This Document
Value=3: Bandwidth Object type 3 or 4 not supported. This Document bandwidth) or TBA(Generalized
Value=4: Unsupported LSP Protection Type in This Document bandwidth,reoptimization).
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. Value=TBA: Bandwidth Object type TBA or TBA not This Document
Value=5: Unsupported LSP Protection Flags in This Document supported.
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. Value=TBA: Unsupported LSP Protection Type in This Document
Value=6: Unsupported Secondary LSP Protection Flags in This Document PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. Value=TBA: Unsupported LSP Protection Flags in This Document
Value=7: Unsupported Link Protection Type in This Document PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. Value=TBA: Unsupported Secondary LSP Protection Flags This Document
Value=8: Unsupported Link Protection Type in This Document in PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. Value=TBA: Unsupported Link Protection Type in This Document
Value=9: LABEL-SET TLV present with 0 bit set but This Document PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
without R bit set in RP. Value=TBA: Unsupported Link Protection Type in This Document
Value=q0: Wrong LABEL-SET or SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET TLV This Document PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
present with 0 bit set. Value=TBA: LABEL-SET TLV present with 0 bit set but This Document
Type=14 Path computation failure This Document without R bit set in RP.
Value=1: Unacceptable request message. This Document Value=TBA: Wrong LABEL-SET or SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET TLV This Document
Value=2: Generalized bandwidth value not supported. This Document present with 0 bit set.
Value=3: Label Set constraint could not be met. This Document Type=TBA Path computation failure This Document
Value=4: Label constraint could not be met. This Document Value=TBA: Unacceptable request message. This Document
Value=5: Unsupported endpoint type in END-POINTS This Document Value=TBA: Generalized bandwidth value not supported. This Document
Generalized Endpoint object type Value=TBA: Label Set constraint could not be met. This Document
Value=6: Unsupported TLV present in END-POINTS This Document Value=TBA: Label constraint could not be met. This Document
Generalized Endpoint object type Value=TBA: Unsupported endpoint type in END-POINTS This Document
Value=7: Unsupported granularity in the RP object This Document Generalized Endpoint object type
flags Value=TBA: Unsupported TLV present in END-POINTS This Document
Generalized Endpoint object type
Value=TBA: Unsupported granularity in the RP object This Document
flags
5.6. New NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Fields 5.6. New NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Fields
As described in Section Section 2.9.1, new NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Flag As described in Section 2.9.1, new NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Flag Fields
Fields have been defined. IANA is requested to do the following have been defined. IANA is requested to do the following allocations
allocations in the "NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Flag Field" sub-registry. The in the "NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Flag Field" sub-registry. The values here
values here are suggested for use by IANA. are suggested for use by IANA.
Bit number 23 - Protection Mismatch (1-bit). Specifies the Bit number TBA - 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.
Bit number 22 - No Resource (1-bit). Specifies that the resources Bit number TBA - No Resource (1-bit). Specifies that the
are not currently sufficient to provide the path. resources are not currently sufficient to provide the path.
Bit number 21 - Granularity not supported (1-bit). Specifies that Bit number TBA - Granularity not supported (1-bit). Specifies
the PCE is not able to provide a route with the requested that the PCE is not able to provide a route with the requested
granularity. granularity.
Bit number 20 - 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 19 - 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 18 - 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.
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
3 Label suboject [RFC3473] TBA, recommended value 3 Label subobject [RFC3473]
5.8. New Subobject for the Exclude Route Object 5.8. New Subobject for the Exclude 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 XRO object (Exclude Route Object). with an entry for the XRO object (Exclude Route Object).
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 XRO as follows: the XRO as follows:
Subobject type Reference Subobject type Reference
3 Label suboject [RFC3473] TBA, recommended value 3 Label subobject [RFC3473]
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
None. GMPLS controls multiple technologies and types of network elements.
The LSPs that are established using GMPLS, whose paths can be
computed using the PCEP extensions to support GMPLS described in this
document, can carry a high amount of traffic and can be a critical
part of a network infrastructure. The PCE can then play a key role
in the use of the resources and in determining the physical paths of
the LSPs and thus it is important to ensure the identity of PCE and
PCC, as well as the communication channel. In many deployments there
will be a completely isolated network where an external attack is of
very low probability. However, there are other deployment cases in
which the PCC-PCE communication may be more exposed and there could
be more security considerations. Three main situations in case of an
attack in the GMPLS PCE context could happen:
o PCE Identity theft: A legitimate PCC could requests a path for a
GMPLS LSP to a malicious PCE, which poses as a legitimate PCE.
The answer can make that the LSP traverses some geographical place
known to the attacker where some sniffing devices could be
installed. Also, the answer can omit constraints given in the
requests (e.g. excluding certain fibers, avoiding some SRLGs)
which could make that the LSP which will be later set-up may look
perfectly fine, but will be in a risky situation. Also, the
answer can lead to provide a LSP that does not provide the desired
quality and gives less resources tan necessary.
o PCC Identity theft: A malicious PCC, acting as a legitimate PCC,
requesting LSP paths to a legitimate PCE can obtain a good
knowledge of the physical topology of a critical infrastructure.
It could get to know enough details to plan a later physical
attack.
o Message deciphering: As in the previous case, knowledge of an
infrastructure can be obtained by sniffing PCEP messages.
The security mechanisms can provide authentication and
confidentiality for those scenarios where the PCC-PCE communication
cannot be completely trusted. Authentication can provide origin
verification, message integrity and replay protection, while
confidentiality ensures that a third party cannot decipher the
contents of a message.
The document [I-D.ietf-pce-pceps] describes the usage of Transport
Layer Security (TLS) to enhance PCEP security. The document
describes the initiation of the TLS procedures, the TLS handshake
mechanisms, the TLS methods for peer authentication, the applicable
TLS ciphersuites for data exchange, and the handling of errors in the
security checks.
Finally, as mentioned by [RFC7025] the PCEP extensions to support
GMPLS should be considered under the same security as current PCE
work and this extension will not change the underlying security
issues. However, given the critical nature of the network
infrastructures under control by GMPLS, the security issues described
above should be seriously considered when deploying a GMPLS-PCE based
control plane for such networks. For more information on the
security considerations on a GMPLS control plane, not only related to
PCE/PCEP, [RFC5920] provides an overview of security vulnerabilities
of a GMPLS control plane.
7. Contributing Authors 7. Contributing Authors
Nokia Siemens Networks: Elie Sfeir
Coriant
St Martin Strasse 76
Munich, 81541
Germany
Elie Sfeir Email: elie.sfeir@coriant.com
St Martin Strasse 76
Munich, 81541
Germany
Phone: +49 89 5159 16159
Email: elie.sfeir@nsn.com
Franz Rambach Franz Rambach
St Martin Strasse 76 Nockherstrasse 2-4,
Munich, 81541 Munich 81541
Germany Germany
Phone: +49 89 5159 31188 Phone: +49 178 8855738
Email: franz.rambach@nsn.com Email: franz.rambach@cgi.com
Francisco Javier Jimenez Chico Francisco Javier Jimenez Chico
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 3379037 Phone: +34 91 3379037
Email: fjjc@tid.es Email: fjjc@tid.es
skipping to change at page 32, line 20 skipping to change at page 34, line 28
08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona) 08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona)
Spain Spain
Phone: (34) 936452916 Phone: (34) 936452916
Email: ramon.casellas@cttc.es Email: ramon.casellas@cttc.es
8. Acknowledgments 8. Acknowledgments
The research of Ramon Casellas, Francisco Javier Jimenez Chico, Oscar The research of Ramon Casellas, Francisco Javier Jimenez Chico, Oscar
Gonzalez de Dios, Cyril Margaria, and Franz Rambach leading to these Gonzalez de Dios, Cyril Margaria, and Franz Rambach leading to these
results has received funding from the European Community's Seventh results has received funding from the European Community's Seventh
Framework Program FP7/2007-2013 under grant agreement no 247674. Framework Program FP7/2007-2013 under grant agreement no 247674 and
no 317999.
The authors would like to thank Lyndon Ong, Giada Lander and Jonathan The authors would like to thank Lyndon Ong, Giada Lander, Jonathan
Hardwick for their useful comments to the document. Hardwick and Diego Lopez for their 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 34, line 34 skipping to change at page 36, line 42
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-08 (work in Engineering", draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext-08 (work in
progress), January 2014. progress), January 2014.
[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", draft-ietf-pce-wson- Routing and Wavelength Assignment", draft-ietf-pce-wson-
routing-wavelength-10 (work in progress), December 2013. routing-wavelength-13 (work in progress), August 2014.
[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.
[RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
[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.
[RFC7025] Otani, T., Ogaki, K., Caviglia, D., Zhang, F., and C. [RFC7025] Otani, T., Ogaki, K., Caviglia, D., Zhang, F., and C.
Margaria, "Requirements for GMPLS Applications of PCE", Margaria, "Requirements for GMPLS Applications of PCE",
RFC 7025, September 2013. RFC 7025, September 2013.
9.3. Experimental References
[I-D.ietf-pce-pceps]
Lopez, D., Dios, O., Wu, W., and D. Dhody, "Secure
Transport for PCEP", draft-ietf-pce-pceps-02 (work in
progress), October 2014.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Cyril Margaria (editor) Cyril Margaria (editor)
SabenerStr. 44 145 Valley Road
Munich 81547 Princeton, NJ 08540
Germany USA
Email: cyril.margaria@gmail.com Email: cyril.margaria@gmail.com
Oscar Gonzalez de Dios (editor) Oscar Gonzalez de Dios (editor)
Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo
C/ Emilio Vargas 6 C/ Ronda de la Comunicacion
Madrid 28043 Madrid 28050
Spain Spain
Phone: +34 91 3374013 Phone: +34 91 4833441
Email: ogondio@tid.es Email: oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com
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. 105 change blocks. 
281 lines changed or deleted 374 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/