draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-10.txt   draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-11.txt 
Network Working Group C. Margaria, Ed. Network Working Group C. Margaria, Ed.
Internet-Draft Internet-Draft Juniper
Intended status: Standards Track O. Gonzalez de Dios, Ed. Intended status: Standards Track O. Gonzalez de Dios, Ed.
Expires: April 9, 2015 Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo Expires: April 19, 2016 Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo
F. Zhang, Ed. F. Zhang, Ed.
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
October 06, 2014 October 17, 2015
PCEP extensions for GMPLS PCEP extensions for GMPLS
draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-10 draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-11
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 April 9, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 19, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
skipping to change at page 2, line 20 skipping to change at page 2, line 20
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.2. RP object extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3. BANDWIDTH object extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.3. BANDWIDTH object extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4. LOAD-BALANCING object extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.4. LOAD-BALANCING object extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.5. END-POINTS Object extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.5. END-POINTS Object extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.5.1. Generalized Endpoint Object Type . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.5.1. Generalized Endpoint Object Type . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.5.2. END-POINTS TLVs extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 2.5.2. END-POINTS TLVs extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.6. IRO extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 2.6. IRO extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.7. XRO extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 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 . . 25 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 5.3. New PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.4. RP Object Flag Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 5.4. RP Object Flag Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.5. New PCEP Error Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 5.5. New PCEP Error Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.6. New NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 5.6. New NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.7. New Subobject for the Include Route Object . . . . . . . 31 5.7. New Subobject for the Include Route Object . . . . . . . 30
5.8. New Subobject for the Exclude Route Object . . . . . . . 31 5.8. New Subobject for the Exclude Route Object . . . . . . . 30
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
7. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 7. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
9.3. Experimental References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 9.3. Experimental References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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.
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 [RFC7025] and to support those application are described in [RFC7025] and
[I-D.ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength]. [RFC7449].
1.1. Contributing Authors 1.1. Contributing Authors
Elie Sfeir, Franz Rambach (Nokia Siemens Networks) Francisco Javier Elie Sfeir, Franz Rambach (Nokia Siemens Networks) Francisco Javier
Jimenez Chico (Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo) Suresh BR, Jimenez Chico (Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo) Suresh BR,
Young Lee, SenthilKumar S, Jun Sun (Huawei Technologies), Ramon Young Lee, SenthilKumar S, Jun Sun (Huawei Technologies), Ramon
Casellas (CTTC) Casellas (CTTC)
1.2. PCEP requirements for GMPLS 1.2. PCEP requirements for GMPLS
skipping to change at page 6, line 7 skipping to change at page 6, line 7
a new flag in the RP object is added. a new flag in the RP object is added.
1.4. Requirements Language 1.4. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. PCEP objects and extensions 2. PCEP objects and extensions
This section describes the required PCEP objects and extensions. The This section describes the necessary PCEP objects and extensions.
PCReq and PCRep messages are defined in [RFC5440]. This document The 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 have defined bit 0 for the OSPF and IS-IS protocols. Those documents have defined bit 0
in PCE-CAP-FLAGS Sub-TLV of the PCED TLV as "Path computation with in PCE-CAP-FLAGS Sub-TLV of the PCED TLV as "Path computation with
GMPLS link constraints". This capability can be used to detect GMPLS link constraints". This capability can be used to detect
GMPLS-capable PCEs. 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 TBA from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" sub- IANA has allocated value TBA-1 from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators"
registry, as documented in Section 5.3 ("New PCEP TLVs"). The sub-registry, as documented in Section 5.3 ("New PCEP TLVs"). The
description is "GMPLS-CAPABILITY". 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
No Flags are defined in this document, they are reserved for future No Flags are defined in this document, they are reserved for future
use. use.
2.2. RP object extension 2.2. RP object extension
Explicit label control (ELC) is a procedure supported by RSVP-TE, Explicit label control (ELC) is a procedure supported by RSVP-TE,
where the outgoing label(s) is(are) encoded in the ERO. In where the outgoing label(s) is(are) encoded in the ERO. As a
consequence, the PCE may be able to provide such label(s) directly in consequence, the PCE can provide such label(s) directly in the path
the path ERO. The PCC, depending on policies or switching layer, may ERO. Depending on policies or switching layer, it can be necessary
be required to use explicit label control or expect explicit link, for the PCC to use explicit label control or expect explicit link,
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 [RFC7025] expecting in the ERO. This correspond to requirement 12 of [RFC7025]
The possible granularities can be node, link or label. The The possible granularities can be node, link or label. The
granularities are inter-dependent, in the sense that link granularity granularities are inter-dependent, in the sense that link granularity
implies the presence of node information in the ERO; similarly, a implies the presence of node information in the ERO; similarly, a
label granularity implies that the ERO contains node, link and label label granularity implies that the ERO contains node, link and label
information. information.
A new 2-bit routing granularity (RG) flag is defined in the RP A new 2-bit routing granularity (RG) flag (Bits TBA-13) is defined in
object. The values are defined as follows the RP object. The values are defined as follows
0 : reserved 0 : reserved
1 : node 1 : node
2 : link 2 : link
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
skipping to change at page 7, line 46 skipping to change at page 7, line 46
included in the response. Otherwise, the PCE MAY use the reserved RG included in the response. Otherwise, the PCE MAY use the reserved RG
to leave the check of the ERO to the PCC. The RG flag is backward- to leave the check of the ERO to the PCC. The RG flag is backward-
compatible with [RFC5440]: the value sent by an implementation (PCC compatible with [RFC5440]: the value sent by an implementation (PCC
or PCE) not supporting it will indicate a reserved value. or PCE) not supporting it will indicate a reserved value.
2.3. 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 has to 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 BANDIDTH 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 are to 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] section This correspond to requirement 3, 4, 5 and 11 of [RFC7025] section
3.1. 3.1.
This document defines two Object Types for the BANDWIDTH object: This document defines two Object Types for the BANDWIDTH object:
TBA Requested generalized bandwidth TBA-2 Requested generalized bandwidth
TBA Generalized bandwidth of an existing TE LSP for which a TBA-3 Generalized bandwidth of an existing TE LSP for which a
reoptimization is requested reoptimization is requested
The definitions below apply for Object Type TBA and TBA. The payload The definitions below apply for Object Type TBA-2 and TBA-3. The
is as follows: payload 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 45 skipping to change at page 8, line 45
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
~ Optional : reverse generalized bandwidth ~ ~ Optional : reverse generalized bandwidth ~
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
~ Optional TLVs ~ ~ Optional TLVs ~
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The BANDWIDTH object type TBA and TBA have a variable length. The 16 The BANDWIDTH object type TBA-2 and TBA-3 have a variable length.
bit bandwidth spec length field indicates the length of the bandwidth The 16 bit Bandwidth Spec Length field indicates the length of the
spec field. The bandwidth spec length MUST be strictly greater than generalized bandwidth field. The Bandwidth Spec Length MUST be
0. The 16 bit reverse bandwidth spec length field indicates the strictly greater than 0. The 16 bit Reverse Bandwidth Spec Length
length of the reverse bandwidth spec field. The reverse bandwidth field indicates the length of the reverse generalized bandwidth
spec length MAY be equal to 0. field. The Reverse Bandwidth Spec Length MAY be equal to 0.
The Bw Spec Type field determines which type of bandwidth is The Bw Spec Type field determines which type of bandwidth is
represented by the object. represented by the object.
The Bw Spec Type 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 the Traffic Parameters carried
the following references. in RSVP-TE, 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]
7 OTN-TDM [RFC7139]
Traffic Spec field encoding Generalized bandwidth and reverse generalized bandwidth field
encoding
When a PCC requests a bi-directional path with symetric bandwidth, it When a PCC requests a bi-directional path with symetric bandwidth, it
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 in [RFC5440] in the case of the reoptimization 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 TBA MAY be used instead of object type 2 to differ. The Object Type TBA-3 MAY be used instead of object type 2
indicate the existing TE-LSP bandwidth. A PCC that requested a path to indicate the existing TE-LSP bandwidth. A PCC that requested a
with a BANDWIDTH object of object type 1 SHOULD use object type 2 to path with a BANDWIDTH object of object type 1 SHOULD use object type
represent the existing TE-LSP BANDWIDTH. 2 to 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 TBA and specific bandwidth requirements. No TLVs for the Object Type TBA-2
TBA are defined by this document. and TBA-3 are defined by this document.
2.4. LOAD-BALANCING object extensions 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 TBA This document defines the Generalized Load Balancing object type
for the LOAD-BALANCING object. The generalized load balancing object TBA-4 for the LOAD-BALANCING object. The generalized load balancing
type has a variable length. 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 |
skipping to change at page 10, line 39 skipping to change at page 10, line 45
| 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-TE traffic bandwidth specification. It is to 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.
skipping to change at page 11, line 21 skipping to change at page 11, line 26
The encoding of the field Min Bandwidth Spec and Min Reverse The encoding of the field Min Bandwidth Spec and Min Reverse
Bandwidth spec is the same as in RSVP-TE SENDER_TSPEC object, it can Bandwidth spec is the same as in RSVP-TE SENDER_TSPEC object, it can
be found in the following references. 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]
7 OTN-TDM [RFC7139]
Traffic Spec field encoding Min Bandwidth Spec and Min reverse Bandwidth Spec field encoding
When a PCC requests a bi-directional path with symetric bandwidth When a PCC requests a bi-directional path with symetric bandwidth
while specifying load balancing constraints it 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.
The semantic of the LOAD-BALANCING object is not changed. If a PCC The semantic of the LOAD-BALANCING object is not changed. If a PCC
requests the computation of a set of TE LSPs so that the total of requests the computation of a set of TE LSPs so that the total of
their generalized bandwidth is X, the maximum number of TE LSPs is N, their generalized bandwidth is X, the maximum number of TE LSPs is N,
and each TE LSP must at least have a bandwidth of B, it inserts a and each TE LSP have to have at least have a bandwidth of B, it
BANDWIDTH object specifying X as the required bandwidth and a LOAD- inserts a BANDWIDTH object specifying X as the required bandwidth and
BALANCING object with the Max-LSP and Min-traffic spec fields set to a LOAD-BALANCING object with the Max-LSP and Min-traffic spec fields
N and B, respectively. set to 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 2 x VC4 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
skipping to change at page 12, line 35 skipping to change at page 12, line 41
The Object encoding is described in the following sections. The Object encoding is described in the following sections.
In path computation within a GMPLS context the endpoints can: In path computation within a GMPLS context the endpoints can:
o Be unnumbered as described in [RFC3477]. o Be unnumbered as described in [RFC3477].
o Have label(s) associated to them, specifying a set of constraints o Have label(s) associated to them, specifying a set of constraints
in the allocation of labels. in the allocation of labels.
o May have different switching capabilities o Have different switching capabilities
The IPv4 and IPv6 endpoints are used to represent the source and The IPv4 and IPv6 endpoints are used to represent the source and
destination IP addresses. The scope of the IP address (Node or destination IP addresses. The scope of the IP address (Node or
numbered Link) is not explicitly stated. It is also possible to numbered Link) is not explicitly stated. It is also possible to
request a Path between a numbered link and an unnumbered link, or a request a Path between a numbered link and an unnumbered link, or a
P2MP path between different type of endpoints. P2MP path between different type of endpoints.
This new C-Type also supports the specification of constraints on the This document defines the Generalized Endpoint object type TBA-5 for
endpoint label to be use. The PCE might know the interface the END-POINTS object. This new C-Type also supports the
restrictions but this is not a requirement. This corresponds to specification of constraints on the endpoint label to be use. The
requirements 6 and 10 of [RFC7025]. PCE might know the interface restrictions but this is not a
requirement. This corresponds to requirements 6 and 10 of [RFC7025].
2.5.1. Generalized Endpoint Object Type 2.5.1. Generalized Endpoint Object Type
The Generalized Endpoint object type format consists of a body and a The Generalized Endpoint object type format consists of a body and a
list of TLVs scoped to this object type object. The TLVs give the list of TLVs scoped to this object type object. The TLVs give the
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 request. 4. Label request.
5. Label set restriction. 5. Label set.
6. Suggested label set restriction. 6. Suggested label set.
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 are not always part of the RRO or IRO,
may be included when following [RFC4003] in signaling for egress they can 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 can 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 reoptimization. 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:
skipping to change at page 14, line 15 skipping to change at page 14, line 15
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | endpoint type | | Reserved | endpoint type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
~ TLVs ~ ~ TLVs ~
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Reserved bits should be set to 0 when a message is sent and ignored Reserved bits SHOULD be set to 0 when a message is sent and ignored
when the message is received when the message is received
the endpoint type is defined as follow: the endpoint type is defined as follow:
Value Type Meaning Value Type Meaning
0 Point-to-Point 0 Point-to-Point
1 Point-to-Multipoint New leaves to add 1 Point-to-Multipoint New leaves to add
2 Old leaves to remove 2 Old leaves to remove
3 Old leaves whose path can be 3 Old leaves whose path can be
modified/reoptimized modified/reoptimized
4 Old leaves whose path must be 4 Old leaves whose path has to be
left unchanged left unchanged
5-244 Reserved 5-244 Reserved
245-255 Experimental range 245-255 Experimental range
The endpoint type is used to cover both point-to-point and different The endpoint type is used to cover both point-to-point and different
point-to-multipoint 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 15, line 24 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 For endpoint type Point-to-Multipoint, several endpoint objects MAY
be present in the message and each represents a leave, exact meaning be present in the message and each represents a leave, exact meaning
depend on 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> ::=
skipping to change at page 16, line 24 skipping to change at page 16, line 24
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.
2.5.2.1. IPV4-ADDRESS 2.5.2.1. 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-6) 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 2.5.1. responded, as described in Section 2.5.1.
2.5.2.2. IPV6-ADDRESS TLV 2.5.2.2. 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-7) 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 2.5.1. responded, as described in Section 2.5.1.
2.5.2.3. UNNUMBERED-ENDPOINT TLV 2.5.2.3. 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-8)
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 2.5.1. 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 and encoding is the same as described in [RFC3471] Section 3.1 format and encoding is the same as described in [RFC3471] Section 3.1
Generalized label request. The LABEL-REQUEST TLV use TLV-Type=TBA. Generalized label request. The LABEL-REQUEST TLV use TLV-Type=TBA-9.
The Encoding Type indicates the encoding type, e.g., SONET/SDH/GigE The Encoding Type indicates the encoding type, e.g., SONET/SDH/GigE
etc., of the LSP with which the data is associated. The Switching etc., of the LSP with which the data is associated. The Switching
type indicates the type of switching that is being requested on the type indicates the type of switching that is being requested on the
endpoint. G-PID identifies the payload. This TLV and the following endpoint. G-PID identifies the payload. This TLV and the following
one are introduced to satisfy requirement 13 for the endpoint. It is one are introduced to satisfy requirement 13 for the endpoint. It is
not directly related to the TE-LSP label request, which is expressed not directly related to the 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 can 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 multilayer 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-10. 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
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Action | Reserved |O|U| Label Type | | Action | Reserved |O|U| Label Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Subchannel 1 | | Subchannel 1 |
| ... | | ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: : : : : :
: : : : : :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Subchannel N | | Subchannel N |
| ... | | ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
o SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET TLV Set, Type=TBA. The TLV length is variable o SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET TLV Set, Type=TBA-11. The TLV length is
and its encoding is as LABEL-SET TLV. The 0 bit SHOULD be set to variable and its encoding is as LABEL-SET TLV. The O bit SHOULD
0. be set to 0.
A LABEL-SET TLV represents a set of possible labels that can be used A LABEL-SET TLV represents a set of possible labels that can be used
on an interface. The label allocated on the first link SHOULD be on an interface. The label allocated on the first link SHOULD be
within the label set range. The action parameter in the Label set within the label set range. The action parameter in the Label set
indicates the type of list provided. Those parameters are described indicates the type of list provided. Those parameters are described
by [RFC3471] section 3.5.1 A SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET TLV has the same by [RFC3471] section 3.5.1 A SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET TLV has the same
encoding as the LABEL-SET TLV, it indicates to the PCE a set of encoding as the LABEL-SET TLV, it indicates to the PCE a set of
preferred (ordered) set of labels to be used. The PCE MAY use those preferred (ordered) set of labels to be used. The PCE MAY use those
labels for label allocation. labels for label allocation.
skipping to change at page 19, line 5 skipping to change at page 19, line 5
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- 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 optimization. This Bit SHOULD be set to 0 in a SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET
TLV Set and ignored on receipt. This Label MAY be reused. The R TLV Set and ignored on receipt. This Label MAY be reused. The R
bit of the RP object MUST be set. When this bit is set the Action 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 field MUST be set to 0 (Inclusive List) and the Label Set MUST
contain one subchannel. 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 O 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 O 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
value="Wrong LABEL-SET or SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET TLV present with 0 bit value="Wrong LABEL-SET or SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET TLV present with O bit
set". set".
A LABEL-SET TLV with the O bit set and an Action Field not set to 0 A LABEL-SET TLV with the O bit set and an Action Field not set to 0
(Inclusive list) or containing more than one subchannel MUST trigger (Inclusive list) or containing more than one subchannel MUST trigger
a PCErr message with error type="Reception of an invalid object" a PCErr message with error type="Reception of an invalid object"
error value="Wrong LABEL-SET or SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET TLV present with error value="Wrong LABEL-SET or SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET TLV present with
0 bit set". O 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 O 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-TE 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 needs to support the new subobject
as defined in [RFC3473]: type as defined in [RFC3473]:
Type Sub-object Type Sub-object
TBA, recommended value 3 LABEL TBA-37 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. If an IP address subobject is used, then the IP (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 address given MUST be associated with a link. More than one label
subobject MAY follow each link subobject. The procedure associated subobject MAY follow each link subobject. The procedure associated
with this subobject is as follows. 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 from within the set of label values for the MUST allocate one label from within the set of label values for the
given link. If the PCE does not assign labels then it sends a given link. If the PCE does not assign labels then it sends a
response with a NO-PATH object, containing a NO-PATH-VECTOR-TLV with response with a NO-PATH object, containing a NO-PATH-VECTOR-TLV with
the bit 'No label resource in 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-TE allows to exclude labels ([RFC6001], in order in the path. RSVP-TE allows to exclude labels ([RFC6001], in order
to fulfill requirement 13 of [RFC7025] section 3.1, the XRO should to fulfill requirement 13 of [RFC7025] section 3.1, the XRO needs to
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 TBA, recommended value 3: Label Subobject. XRO Subobject Type TBA-38: 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 40 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 TBA, recommended value The Type of the XRO Label subobject is TBA, suggested value 3.
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 39 skipping to change at page 21, line 36
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
3.1 and requirement 3 of [RFC7025] section 3.2. This object contains 3.1 and requirement 3 of [RFC7025] section 3.2. This object contains
the information of the PROTECTION object defined by [RFC4872] and the information of the PROTECTION object defined by [RFC4872] and
may be used as a policy input. The LSPA object MAY carry a can be used as a policy input. The LSPA object MAY carry a
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV defined as : Type TBA: PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV defined as : Type TBA-12: 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The content is as defined in [RFC4872], [RFC4873]. The content is as defined in [RFC4872], [RFC4873].
LSP (protection) Flags or Link flags field can be used by LSP (protection) Flags or Link flags field can be used by
implementation for routing policy input. The other attributes are implementation for routing policy input. The other attributes are
only meaningful for a stateful PCE. only meaningful for a 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-
ATTRIBUTE TLV MUST be included in the response. Fields that were not ATTRIBUTE TLV MUST be included in the response. Fields that were not
considered MUST be set to 0. considered MUST be set to 0.
2.9. NO-PATH Object Extension 2.9. NO-PATH Object Extension
The NO-PATH object is used in PCRep messages in response to an The NO-PATH object is used in PCRep messages in response to an
unsuccessful path computation request (the PCE could not find a path unsuccessful path computation request (the PCE could not find a path
satisfying the set of constraints). In this scenario, PCE MUST satisfying the set of constraints). In this scenario, PCE MUST
include a NO-PATH object in the PCRep message. The NO-PATH object include a NO-PATH object in the PCRep message. The NO-PATH object
may carries the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV that specifies more information on MAY carries the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV that specifies more information on
the reasons that led to a negative reply. In case of GMPLS networks the reasons that led to a negative reply. In case of GMPLS networks
there could be some more additional constraints that led to the there could be some more additional constraints that led to the
failure like protection mismatch, lack of resources, and so on. Few failure like protection mismatch, lack of resources, and so on. Few
new flags have been introduced in the 32-bit flag field of the NO- new flags have been introduced in the 32-bit flag field of the NO-
PATH-VECTOR TLV and no modifications have been made in the NO-PATH PATH-VECTOR TLV and no modifications have been made in the NO-PATH
object. object.
2.9.1. Extensions to NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV 2.9.1. Extensions to NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV
The modified NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV carrying the additional information The modified NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV carrying the additional information
is as follows: is as follows:
Bit number TBA - Protection Mismatch (1-bit). Specifies the Bit number TBA-31 - Protection Mismatch (1-bit). Specifies the
mismatch of the protection type in the PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV in mismatch of the protection type in the PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV in
the request. the request.
Bit number TBA - No Resource (1-bit). Specifies that the Bit number TBA-32 - No Resource (1-bit). Specifies that the
resources are not currently sufficient to provide the path. resources are not currently sufficient to provide the path.
Bit number TBA - Granularity not supported (1-bit). Specifies Bit number TBA-33 - Granularity not supported (1-bit). Specifies
that 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 TBA - No endpoint label resource (1-bit). Specifies Bit number TBA-34 - No endpoint label resource (1-bit). Specifies
that the PCE is not able to provide a route because of the that the PCE is not able to provide a route because of the
endpoint label restriction. endpoint label restriction.
Bit number TBA - No endpoint label resource in range (1-bit). Bit number TBA-35 - No endpoint label resource in range (1-bit).
Specifies that the PCE is not able to provide a route because of Specifies that the PCE is not able to provide a route because of
the endpoint label set restriction. the endpoint label set restriction.
Bit number TBA - No label resource in range (1-bit). Specifies Bit number TBA-36 - 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. 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 10 Reception of
an invalid an invalid
object object
value=TBA: Bad Bandwidth Object type TBA(Generalized value=TBA-14: Bad Bandwidth Object type TBA(Generalized
bandwidth) or TBA(Generalized bandwidth) or TBA(Generalized
bandwidth,reoptimization). bandwidth,reoptimization).
value=TBA: Bandwidth Object type TBA or TBA not value=TBA-15: Bandwidth Object type TBA or TBA not
supported. supported.
value=TBA: Unsupported LSP Protection Type in value=TBA-16: Unsupported LSP Protection Type in
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
value=TBA: Unsupported LSP Protection Flags in value=TBA-17: Unsupported LSP Protection Flags in
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
value=TBA: Unsupported Secondary LSP Protection Flags value=TBA-18: Unsupported Secondary LSP Protection Flags
in PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. in PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
value=TBA: Unsupported Link Protection Type in value=TBA-19: Unsupported Link Protection Type in
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
value=TBA: Unsupported Link Protection Type in value=TBA-20: Unsupported Link Protection Type in
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
value=TBA: LABEL-SET TLV present with 0 bit set but value=TBA-21: LABEL-SET TLV present with 0 bit set but
without R bit set in RP. without R bit set in RP.
value=TBA: Wrong LABEL-SET or value=TBA-22: Wrong LABEL-SET or
SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET TLV present with SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET TLV present with
0 bit set. 0 bit set.
TBA Path TBA-23 Path
computation computation
failure failure
value=TBA: Unacceptable request message. value=TBA-24: Unacceptable request message.
value=TBA: Generalized bandwidth value not supported. value=TBA-25: Generalized bandwidth value not supported.
value=TBA: Label Set constraint could not be value=TBA-26: Label Set constraint could not be
met. met.
value=TBA: Label constraint could not be value=TBA-27: Label constraint could not be
met. met.
value=TBA: Unsupported endpoint type in value=TBA-28: 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-29: Unsupported TLV present in END-POINTS
Generalized Endpoint object type. Generalized Endpoint object type.
value=TBA: Unsupported granularity in the RP object value=TBA-30: 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
skipping to change at page 27, line 5 skipping to change at page 27, line 5
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 TBA : Generalized bandwidth Object-Type TBA-2 : Generalized bandwidth
TBA: Generalized bandwidth of an existing TE LSP for TBA-3: Generalized bandwidth of an existing TE LSP for
which a reoptimization is requested which a reoptimization is requested
5-15: Unassigned 5-15: Unassigned
Reference This document (section Section 2.3) Reference This document (section Section 2.3)
Object 14 Object 14
Class Class
Name LOAD-BALANCING Name LOAD-BALANCING
Object-Type TBA: Generalized load balancing Object-Type TBA-4: Generalized load balancing
3-15: Unassigned 3-15: Unassigned
Reference This document (section Section 2.4) Reference This document (section Section 2.4)
Object 4 Object 4
Class Class
Name END-POINTS Name END-POINTS
Object-Type TBA: Generalized Endpoint Object-Type TBA-5: Generalized Endpoint
6-15: unassigned 6-15: unassigned
Reference This document (section Section 2.5) 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:
o endpoint type o endpoint type
o Description o Description
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
TBA, recommended Point-to-Point 0 Point-to-Point
valude 0 1 Point-to-Multipoint New leaves to add
TBA, recommended Point-to-Multipoint New leaves to add 2 Old leaves to remove
valude 1 3 Old leaves whose path can be
TBA, recommended Old leaves to remove modified/reoptimized
valude 2 4 Old leaves whose path has to be
TBA, recommended Old leaves whose path can be left unchanged
valude 3 modified/reoptimized 5-244 Reserved
TBA, recommended Old leaves whose path must be 245-255 Experimental range
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
TBA IPv4 endpoint This document (section Section TBA-6 IPV4-ADDRESS This document (section Section 2.5.2.1)
2.5.2.1) TBA-7 IPV6-ADDRESS This document (section Section 2.5.2.2)
TBA IPv6 endpoint This document (section Section TBA-8 UNNUMBERED-ENDPOINT This document (section Section 2.5.2.3)
2.5.2.2) TBA-9 LABEL-REQUEST This document (section Section 2.5.2.4)
TBA Unnumbered endpoint This document (section Section TBA-10 LABEL-SET This document (section Section 2.5.2.5)
2.5.2.3) TBA-11 SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET This document (section Section 2.5.2.5)
TBA Label request This document (section Section TBA-12 PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE This document (section Section 2.8)
2.5.2.4) TBA-1 GMPLS-CAPABILITY This document (section Section 2.1.2)
TBA Requested GMPLS Label This document (section Section
Set 2.5.2.5)
TBA Suggested GMPLS Label This document (section Section
Set 2.5.2.5)
TBA PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE This document (section Section 2.8)
TBA 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
TBA (recommended bit routing granularity This document, Section TBA-13 (suggested bit routing granularity This document, Section
17-16) (RG) 2.2 17-16) (RG) 2.2
5.5. New PCEP Error Codes 5.5. New PCEP Error Codes
As described in Section 3, new PCEP Error-Type and Error Values are As described in Section 3, new PCEP Error-Type and Error Values are
defined. IANA is requested to make the following allocation in the defined. IANA is requested to make the following allocation in the
"PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" registry. The values here "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" 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=TBA: Bad Bandwidth Object type TBA(Generalized This Document Value=TBA-14: Bad Bandwidth Object type TBA(Generalized This Document
bandwidth) or TBA(Generalized bandwidth) or TBA(Generalized
bandwidth,reoptimization). bandwidth,reoptimization).
Value=TBA: Bandwidth Object type TBA or TBA not This Document Value=TBA-15: Bandwidth Object type TBA or TBA not This Document
supported. supported.
Value=TBA: Unsupported LSP Protection Type in This Document Value=TBA-16: Unsupported LSP Protection Type in This Document
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
Value=TBA: Unsupported LSP Protection Flags in This Document Value=TBA-17: Unsupported LSP Protection Flags in This Document
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
Value=TBA: Unsupported Secondary LSP Protection Flags This Document Value=TBA-18: Unsupported Secondary LSP Protection This Document
in PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. Flags in PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
Value=TBA: Unsupported Link Protection Type in This Document Value=TBA-19: Unsupported Link Protection Type in This Document
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
Value=TBA: Unsupported Link Protection Type in This Document Value=TBA-20: Unsupported Link Protection Type in This Document
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
Value=TBA: LABEL-SET TLV present with 0 bit set but This Document Value=TBA-21: LABEL-SET TLV present with 0 bit set but This Document
without R bit set in RP. without R bit set in RP.
Value=TBA: Wrong LABEL-SET or SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET TLV This Document Value=TBA-22: Wrong LABEL-SET or SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET This Document
present with 0 bit set. TLV present with 0 bit set.
Type=TBA Path computation failure This Document Type=TBA-23 Path computation failure This Document
Value=TBA: Unacceptable request message. This Document Value=TBA-24: Unacceptable request message. This Document
Value=TBA: Generalized bandwidth value not supported. This Document Value=TBA-25: Generalized bandwidth value not This Document
Value=TBA: Label Set constraint could not be met. This Document supported.
Value=TBA: Label constraint could not be met. This Document Value=TBA-26: Label Set constraint could not be met. This Document
Value=TBA: Unsupported endpoint type in END-POINTS This Document Value=TBA-27: Label constraint could not be met. This Document
Generalized Endpoint object type Value=TBA-28: Unsupported endpoint type in END-POINTS This Document
Value=TBA: Unsupported TLV present in END-POINTS This Document Generalized Endpoint object type
Generalized Endpoint object type Value=TBA-29: Unsupported TLV present in END-POINTS This Document
Value=TBA: Unsupported granularity in the RP object This Document Generalized Endpoint object type
flags Value=TBA-30: 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 2.9.1, new NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Flag Fields As described in Section 2.9.1, new NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Flag Fields
have been defined. IANA is requested to do the following allocations have been defined. IANA is requested to do the following allocations
in the "NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Flag Field" sub-registry. The values here in the "NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Flag Field" sub-registry. The values here
are suggested for use by IANA. are suggested for use by IANA.
Bit number TBA - Protection Mismatch (1-bit). Specifies the Bit number TBA-31 - 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 TBA - No Resource (1-bit). Specifies that the Bit number TBA-32 - No Resource (1-bit). Specifies that the
resources are not currently sufficient to provide the path. resources are not currently sufficient to provide the path.
Bit number TBA - Granularity not supported (1-bit). Specifies Bit number TBA-33 - Granularity not supported (1-bit). Specifies
that 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 TBA - No endpoint label resource (1-bit). Specifies Bit number TBA-34 - No endpoint label resource (1-bit). Specifies
that the PCE is not able to provide a route because of the that the PCE is not able to provide a route because of the
endpoint label restriction. endpoint label restriction.
Bit number TBA - No endpoint label resource in range (1-bit). Bit number TBA-35 - No endpoint label resource in range (1-bit).
Specifies that the PCE is not able to provide a route because of Specifies that the PCE is not able to provide a route because of
the endpoint label set restriction. the endpoint label set restriction.
Bit number TBA - No label resource in range (1-bit). Specifies Bit number TBA-36 - 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
TBA, recommended value 3 Label subobject [RFC3473] TBA-37, suggested 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
TBA, recommended value 3 Label subobject [RFC3473] TBA-38, suggested value 3 Label subobject [RFC3473]
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
GMPLS controls multiple technologies and types of network elements. GMPLS controls multiple technologies and types of network elements.
The LSPs that are established using GMPLS, whose paths can be The LSPs that are established using GMPLS, whose paths can be
computed using the PCEP extensions to support GMPLS described in this computed using the PCEP extensions to support GMPLS described in this
document, can carry a high amount of traffic and can be a critical 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 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 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 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 PCC, as well as the communication channel. In many deployments there
will be a completely isolated network where an external attack is of will be a completely isolated network where an external attack is of
very low probability. However, there are other deployment cases in very low probability. However, there are other deployment cases in
which the PCC-PCE communication may be more exposed and there could which the PCC-PCE communication can be more exposed and there could
be more security considerations. Three main situations in case of an be more security considerations. Three main situations in case of an
attack in the GMPLS PCE context could happen: attack in the GMPLS PCE context could happen:
o PCE Identity theft: A legitimate PCC could requests a path for a 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. GMPLS LSP to a malicious PCE, which poses as a legitimate PCE.
The answer can make that the LSP traverses some geographical place The answer can make that the LSP traverses some geographical place
known to the attacker where some sniffing devices could be known to the attacker where some sniffing devices could be
installed. Also, the answer can omit constraints given in the installed. Also, the answer can omit constraints given in the
requests (e.g. excluding certain fibers, avoiding some SRLGs) requests (e.g. excluding certain fibers, avoiding some SRLGs)
which could make that the LSP which will be later set-up may look which could make that the LSP which will be later set-up can look
perfectly fine, but will be in a risky situation. Also, the perfectly fine, but will be in a risky situation. Also, the
answer can lead to provide a LSP that does not provide the desired answer can lead to provide a LSP that does not provide the desired
quality and gives less resources tan necessary. quality and gives less resources tan necessary.
o PCC Identity theft: A malicious PCC, acting as a legitimate PCC, o PCC Identity theft: A malicious PCC, acting as a legitimate PCC,
requesting LSP paths to a legitimate PCE can obtain a good requesting LSP paths to a legitimate PCE can obtain a good
knowledge of the physical topology of a critical infrastructure. knowledge of the physical topology of a critical infrastructure.
It could get to know enough details to plan a later physical It could get to know enough details to plan a later physical
attack. attack.
skipping to change at page 34, line 35 skipping to change at page 34, line 4
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 and Framework Program FP7/2007-2013 under grant agreement no 247674 and
no 317999. no 317999.
The authors would like to thank Lyndon Ong, Giada Lander, Jonathan The authors would like to thank Lyndon Ong, Giada Lander, Jonathan
Hardwick and Diego Lopez 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,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC2210, September 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2210>.
[RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching [RFC3471] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
(GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description",
January 2003. RFC 3471, DOI 10.17487/RFC3471, January 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3471>.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching [RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
(GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3473, January 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3473>.
[RFC3477] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered Links [RFC3477] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered Links
in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, January 2003. (RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, DOI 10.17487/RFC3477, January 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3477>.
[RFC4003] Berger, L., "GMPLS Signaling Procedure for Egress [RFC4003] Berger, L., "GMPLS Signaling Procedure for Egress
Control", RFC 4003, February 2005. Control", RFC 4003, DOI 10.17487/RFC4003, February 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4003>.
[RFC4328] Papadimitriou, D., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label [RFC4328] Papadimitriou, D., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical
Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328, January 2006. Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4328, January 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4328>.
[RFC4606] Mannie, E. and D. Papadimitriou, "Generalized Multi- [RFC4606] Mannie, E. and D. Papadimitriou, "Generalized Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for
Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous
Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control", RFC 4606, August 2006. Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control", RFC 4606,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4606, August 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4606>.
[RFC4802] Nadeau, T. and A. Farrel, "Generalized Multiprotocol Label [RFC4802] Nadeau, T., Ed., Farrel, A., and , "Generalized
Switching (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Management Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering
Information Base", RFC 4802, February 2007. Management Information Base", RFC 4802,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4802, February 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4802>.
[RFC4872] Lang, J., Rekhter, Y., and D. Papadimitriou, "RSVP-TE [RFC4872] Lang, J., Ed., Rekhter, Y., Ed., and D. Papadimitriou,
Extensions in Support of End-to-End Generalized Multi- Ed., "RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End
Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery", RFC 4872, May Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
2007. Recovery", RFC 4872, DOI 10.17487/RFC4872, May 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4872>.
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC4873,
May 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4873>.
[RFC5088] Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., Ikejiri, Y., and R. Zhang, [RFC5088] Le Roux, JL., Ed., Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R.
"OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element Zhang, "OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path Computation
(PCE) Discovery", RFC 5088, January 2008. Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5088, DOI 10.17487/RFC5088,
January 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5088>.
[RFC5089] Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., Ikejiri, Y., and R. Zhang, [RFC5089] Le Roux, JL., Ed., Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R.
"IS-IS Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element Zhang, "IS-IS Protocol Extensions for Path Computation
(PCE) Discovery", RFC 5089, January 2008. Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5089, DOI 10.17487/RFC5089,
January 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5089>.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP. and JL. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
(PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, March Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
2009. DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
[RFC5520] Bradford, R., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel, "Preserving [RFC5520] Bradford, R., Ed., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel,
Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path Computation "Preserving Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path
Using a Path-Key-Based Mechanism", RFC 5520, April 2009. Computation Using a Path-Key-Based Mechanism", RFC 5520,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5520, April 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5520>.
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC5521, April
2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5521>.
[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,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5541, June 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5541>.
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC6001, October 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6001>.
[RFC6003] Papadimitriou, D., "Ethernet Traffic Parameters", RFC [RFC6003] Papadimitriou, D., "Ethernet Traffic Parameters",
6003, October 2010. RFC 6003, DOI 10.17487/RFC6003, October 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6003>.
[RFC6205] Otani, T. and D. Li, "Generalized Labels for Lambda- [RFC6205] Otani, T., Ed. and D. Li, Ed., "Generalized Labels for
Switch-Capable (LSC) Label Switching Routers", RFC 6205, Lambda-Switch-Capable (LSC) Label Switching Routers",
March 2011. RFC 6205, DOI 10.17487/RFC6205, March 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6205>.
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC6387,
September 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6387>.
[RFC7139] Zhang, F., Ed., Zhang, G., Belotti, S., Ceccarelli, D.,
and K. Pithewan, "GMPLS Signaling Extensions for Control
of Evolving G.709 Optical Transport Networks", RFC 7139,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7139, March 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7139>.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[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-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]
Lee, Y., Bernstein, G., Martensson, J., Takeda, T.,
Tsuritani, T., and O. Dios, "PCEP Requirements for WSON
Routing and Wavelength Assignment", draft-ietf-pce-wson-
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,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[RFC4657] Ash, J. and J. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element (PCE) [RFC4657] Ash, J., Ed. and J. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Communication Protocol Generic Requirements", RFC 4657, Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic
September 2006. Requirements", RFC 4657, DOI 10.17487/RFC4657, September
2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4657>.
[RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS [RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010. Networks", RFC 5920, DOI 10.17487/RFC5920, July 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5920>.
[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. DOI 10.17487/RFC6123, February 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6123>.
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC7025, September 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7025>.
[RFC7449] Lee, Y., Ed., Bernstein, G., Ed., Martensson, J., Takeda,
T., Tsuritani, T., and O. Gonzalez de Dios, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Requirements for Wavelength Switched Optical Network
(WSON) Routing and Wavelength Assignment", RFC 7449,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7449, February 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7449>.
9.3. Experimental References 9.3. Experimental References
[I-D.ietf-pce-pceps] [I-D.ietf-pce-pceps]
Lopez, D., Dios, O., Wu, W., and D. Dhody, "Secure Lopez, D., Dios, O., Wu, W., and D. Dhody, "Secure
Transport for PCEP", draft-ietf-pce-pceps-02 (work in Transport for PCEP", draft-ietf-pce-pceps-04 (work in
progress), October 2014. progress), May 2015.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Cyril Margaria (editor) Cyril Margaria (editor)
145 Valley Road Juniper
Princeton, NJ 08540 200 Somerset Corporate Boulevard, , Suite 4001
Bridgewater, NJ 08807
USA USA
Email: cyril.margaria@gmail.com Email: cmargaria@juniper.net
Oscar Gonzalez de Dios (editor) Oscar Gonzalez de Dios (editor)
Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo
C/ Ronda de la Comunicacion C/ Ronda de la Comunicacion
Madrid 28050 Madrid 28050
Spain Spain
Phone: +34 91 4833441 Phone: +34 91 4833441
Email: oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com 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. 149 change blocks. 
301 lines changed or deleted 336 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/