draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-11.txt   draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-12.txt 
Network Working Group C. Margaria, Ed. Network Working Group C. Margaria, Ed.
Internet-Draft Juniper Internet-Draft Juniper
Intended status: Standards Track O. Gonzalez de Dios, Ed. Intended status: Standards Track O. Gonzalez de Dios, Ed.
Expires: April 19, 2016 Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo Expires: March 31, 2019 Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo
F. Zhang, Ed. F. Zhang, Ed.
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
October 17, 2015 September 27, 2018
PCEP extensions for GMPLS PCEP extensions for GMPLS
draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-11 draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-12
Abstract Abstract
This memo provides extensions for the Path Computation Element This memo provides extensions to the Path Computation Element
communication Protocol (PCEP) for the support of GMPLS control plane. communication Protocol (PCEP) for the support of GMPLS control plane.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://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 19, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on March 31, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. PCEP requirements for GMPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. PCEP Requirements for GMPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3. Current GMPLS support and limitation of existing PCEP 1.3. Current GMPLS Support and Limitation of Base 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.4. LOAD-BALANCING Object Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.5. END-POINTS Object extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.5. END-POINTS Object Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.5.1. Generalized Endpoint Object Type . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.5.1. Generalized Endpoint Object Type . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.5.2. END-POINTS TLVs extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 2.5.2. END-POINTS TLV Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.6. IRO extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 2.6. IRO Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.7. XRO extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2.7. XRO Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.8. LSPA extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 2.8. LSPA Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.9. NO-PATH Object Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 2.9. NO-PATH Object Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.9.1. Extensions to NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV . . . . . . . . . . 22 2.9.1. Extensions to NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV . . . . . . . . . . 21
3. Additional Error Type and Error Values Defined . . . . . . . 23 3. Additional Error-Types and Error-Values Defined . . . . . . . 21
4. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 4. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.1. Control of Function through Configuration and Policy . . 25 4.1. Control of Function through Configuration and Policy . . 23
4.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 4.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 4.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.4. Verifying Correct Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 4.4. Verifying Correct Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components 26 4.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components 24
4.6. Impact on Network Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 4.6. Impact on Network Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.1. PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 5.1. PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.2. END-POINTS object, Object Type Generalized Endpoint . . . 27 5.2. END-POINTS Object, Object Type Generalized Endpoint . . . 25
5.3. New PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 5.3. New PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.4. RP Object Flag Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 5.4. RP Object Flag Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.5. New PCEP Error Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 5.5. New PCEP Error Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.6. New NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 5.6. New NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.7. New Subobject for the Include Route Object . . . . . . . 30 5.7. New Subobject for the Include Route Object . . . . . . . 28
5.8. New Subobject for the Exclude Route Object . . . . . . . 30 5.8. New Subobject for the Exclude Route Object . . . . . . . 28
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 7. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
9.3. Experimental References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Appendix A. LOAD-BALANCING Usage for SDH Virtual Concatenation . 35
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
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, most preexisting PCEP RFCs [RFC5440],
[RFC5541], [RFC5520] are focused on MPLS networks, and do not cover [RFC5521], [RFC5541], [RFC5520] are focused on MPLS networks, and do
the wide range of GMPLS networks. This document complements these not cover the wide range of GMPLS networks. This document
RFCs by addressing the extensions required for GMPLS applications and complements these RFCs by addressing the extensions required for
routing requests, for example for OTN and WSON networks. GMPLS applications and 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
[RFC7449]. [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
The document [RFC7025] describes the set of PCEP requirements to The document [RFC7025] describes the set of PCEP requirements to
support GMPLS TE-LSPs. When a PCC requests a PCE to perform a path support GMPLS TE-LSPs. When a PCC requests a PCE to perform a path
computation (by means of a PCReq message), the PCC should be able to computation (by means of a PCReq message), the PCC should be able to
indicate the following additional information: indicate the following additional information:
o Which data flow is switched by the LSP: a combination of Switching o Which data flow is switched by the LSP: a combination of Switching
type (for instance L2SC or TDM), LSP Encoding type (e.g., type (for instance L2SC or TDM), LSP Encoding type (e.g.,
Ethernet, SONET/SDH) and sometimes the Signal Type (e.g. in case Ethernet, SONET/SDH) and sometimes the Signal Type (e.g. in case
of TDM/LSC switching capability) of TDM/LSC switching capability)
skipping to change at page 4, line 13 skipping to change at page 4, line 13
by RSVP-TE (Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering). by RSVP-TE (Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering).
o Ability to indicate the requested granularity for the path ERO: o Ability to indicate the requested granularity for the path ERO:
node, link or label. This is to allow the use of the explicit node, link or label. This is to allow the use of the explicit
label control feature of RSVP-TE. label control feature of RSVP-TE.
We describe in this document a set of PCEP protocol extensions, We describe in this document a set of PCEP protocol extensions,
including new object types, TLVs, encodings, error codes and including new object types, TLVs, encodings, error codes and
procedures, in order to fulfill the aforementioned requirements. procedures, in order to fulfill the aforementioned requirements.
1.3. Current GMPLS support and limitation of existing PCEP objects 1.3. Current GMPLS Support and Limitation of Base PCEP Objects
PCEP as of [RFC5440], [RFC5521] and [I-D.ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext], PCEP as of [RFC5440], [RFC5521] and [RFC8282], supports the following
supports the following objects, included in requests and responses objects, included in requests and responses related to the described
related to the described requirements. requirements.
From [RFC5440]: From [RFC5440]:
o END-POINTS: only numbered endpoints are considered. The context o END-POINTS: only numbered endpoints are considered. The context
specifies whether they are node identifiers or numbered specifies whether they are node identifiers or numbered
interfaces. interfaces.
o BANDWIDTH: the data rate is encoded in the bandwidth object (as o BANDWIDTH: the data rate is encoded in the bandwidth object (as
IEEE 32 bit float). [RFC5440] does not include the ability to IEEE 32 bit float). [RFC5440] does not include the ability to
convey an encoding proper to any GMPLS networks. convey an encoding proper to all GMPLS-controlled networks.
o ERO : Unnumbered endpoints are supported. o ERO: Unnumbered IDs are supported.
o LSPA: LSP attributes (setup and holding priorities) o LSPA: LSP attributes (setup and holding priorities)
From [RFC5521] : From [RFC5521]:
o XRO object : o XRO object:
* This object allows excluding (strict or not) resources, and * This object allows excluding (strict or not) resources, and
includes the requested diversity (node, link or SRLG). includes the requested diversity (node, link or SRLG).
* When the F bit is set, the request indicates that the existing * When the F bit is set, the request indicates that the existing
route has failed and the resources present in the RRO can be path has failed and the resources present in the RRO can be
reused. reused.
From [I-D.ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext]: From [RFC8282]:
o INTER-LAYER : indicates whether inter-layer computation is allowed o INTER-LAYER: indicates whether inter-layer computation is allowed
o SWITCH-LAYER : indicates which layer(s) should be considered, can o SWITCH-LAYER: indicates which layer(s) should be considered, can
be used to represent the RSVP-TE generalized label request be used to represent the RSVP-TE generalized label request
o REQ-ADAP-CAP : indicates the adaptation capabilities requested, o REQ-ADAP-CAP: indicates the adaptation capabilities requested, can
can also be used for the endpoints in case of mono-layer also be used for the endpoints in case of mono-layer computation
computation
The shortcomings of the existing PCEP object are: The shortcomings of the base PCEP object are:
The BANDWIDTH and LOAD-BALANCING objects do not describe the The BANDWIDTH and LOAD-BALANCING objects do not describe the
details of the traffic request (for example NVC, multiplier) in details of the traffic request (for example NVC, multiplier) in
the context of GMPLS networks, for instance TDM or OTN networks. the context of GMPLS networks, for instance TDM or OTN networks.
The END-POINTS object does not allow specifying an unnumbered The END-POINTS object does not allow specifying an unnumbered
interface, nor potential label restrictions on the interface. interface, nor potential label restrictions on the interface.
Those parameters are of interest in case of switching constraints. Those parameters are of interest in case of switching constraints.
The IRO/XRO objects do not allow the inclusion/exclusion of labels The Inclue/eXclude Route Objects (IRO/XRO) do not allow the
inclusion/exclusion of labels.
Current attributes do not allow expressing the requested link Base attributes do not allow expressing the requested link protection
protection level and/or the end-to-end protection attributes. level and/or the end-to-end protection attributes.
The covered PCEP extensions are: The covered PCEP extensions are:
Two new object types are introduced for the BANDWIDTH Two new object types are introduced for the BANDWIDTH
object(Generalized-Bandwidth, Generalized Bandwidth of existing object(Generalized bandwidth, Generalized bandwidth of existing
TE-LSP). TE-LSP for which a reoptimization is requested for which a
reoptimization is requested).
A new object type is introduced for the LOAD-BALANCING object A new object type is introduced for the LOAD-BALANCING object
(Generalized LOAD-BALANCING). (Generalized Load Balancing).
A new object type is introduced for the END-POINTS object A new object type is introduced for the END-POINTS object
(GENERALIZED-ENDPOINT). (Generalized Endpoint).
A new TLV is added to the OPEN message for capability negotiation. A new TLV is added to the OPEN message for capability negotiation.
A new TLV is added to the LSPA object. A new TLV is added to the LSPA object.
A new TLV type for label is allowed in IRO and XRO objects. A new TLV type for label is allowed in IRO and XRO objects.
In order to indicate the used routing granularity in the response, In order to indicate the used routing granularity in the response,
a new flag in the RP object is added. a new flag in the RP object is added.
1.4. Requirements Language 1.4. Requirements Language
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 necessary PCEP objects and extensions. This section describes the necessary PCEP objects and extensions.
The 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
the GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV it is RECOMMENDED that the PCC does not make GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV it is RECOMMENDED that the PCC does not make use
use of the objects and TLVs defined in this document. of the objects and TLVs defined in this document.
IANA has allocated value TBA-1 from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" IANA has allocated value TBA-1 from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators"
sub-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. As a where the outgoing label(s) is(are) encoded in the ERO. As a
consequence, the PCE can provide such label(s) directly in the path consequence, the PCE can provide such label(s) directly in the path
ERO. Depending on policies or switching layer, it can be necessary ERO. Depending on policies or switching layer, it can be necessary
for the PCC 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 corresponds to requirement 12 of
The possible granularities can be node, link or label. The [RFC7025] 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 (Bits TBA-13) is defined in A new 2-bit routing granularity (RG) flag (Bits TBA-13) is defined in
the RP 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
Table 1: RG flag
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 SHOULD follow this granularity and MAY return a NO-PATH if
if the requested granularity cannot be provided. The PCE MAY return the requested granularity cannot be provided. The PCE MAY return any
any granularity it likes on the route based on its policy. The PCC granularity on the route based on its policy. The PCC can decide if
can decide if the ERO is acceptable based on its content. the ERO is acceptable based on its content.
If a PCE honored the requested routing granularity for a request, it If a PCE honored the requested routing granularity for a request, it
MUST indicate the selected routing granularity in the RP object MUST indicate the selected routing granularity in the RP object
included in the response. Otherwise, the PCE MAY use the reserved RG included in the response. Otherwise, the PCE MUST use the reserved
to leave the check of the ERO to the PCC. The RG flag is backward- RG to leave the check of the ERO to the PCC. The RG flag is
compatible with [RFC5440]: the value sent by an implementation (PCC backward-compatible with [RFC5440]: the value sent by an
or PCE) not supporting it will indicate a reserved value. implementation (PCC 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 requested size for the TE-LSP
the BANDWIDTH object. The object types 1 and 2 defined in [RFC5440] is the BANDWIDTH object. The object types 1 and 2 defined in
do not describe enough information to describe the TE-LSP bandwidth [RFC5440] do not describe enough information to describe the TE-LSP
in GMPLS networks. The BANDWIDTH object encoding has to be extended bandwidth in GMPLS networks. The BANDWIDTH object encoding has to be
to allow to express the bandwidth as described in [RFC7025]. RSVP-TE extended to allow to express the bandwidth as described in [RFC7025].
extensions for GMPLS provide a set of encoding allowing such RSVP-TE 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 BANDWIDTH
object with new object types reusing the RSVP-TE encoding. object with new object types reusing the RSVP-TE encoding.
The following possibilities are to be supported by the new encoding: The following possibilities are supported by the extended 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-2 Requested generalized bandwidth TBA-2 Generalized bandwidth
TBA-3 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-2 and TBA-3. The The definitions below apply for Object Type TBA-2 and TBA-3. The
payload is as follows: body 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 ~
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
~ Optional : reverse generalized bandwidth ~ ~ Optional: Reverse Generalized Bandwidth ~
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
~ Optional TLVs ~ ~ Optional TLVs ~
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The BANDWIDTH object type TBA-2 and TBA-3 have a variable length. The BANDWIDTH object type TBA-2 and TBA-3 have a variable length.
The 16 bit Bandwidth Spec Length field indicates the length of the The 16-bit Bandwidth Spec Length field indicates the length of the
generalized bandwidth field. The Bandwidth Spec Length MUST be Generalized Bandwidth field. The Bandwidth Spec Length MUST be
strictly greater than 0. The 16 bit Reverse Bandwidth Spec Length strictly greater than 0. The 16-bit Reverse Bandwidth Spec Length
field indicates the length of the reverse generalized bandwidth field indicates the length of the Reverse Generalized Bandwidth
field. The Reverse 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 RSVP-TE SENDER_TSPEC (Object Class
Class 12) C-Types 12) C-Types
The encoding of the field generalized bandwidth and reverse The encoding of the fields Generalized Bandwidth and Reverse
generalized bandwidth is the same as the Traffic Parameters carried Generalized Bandwidth is the same as the Traffic Parameters carried
in RSVP-TE, it can be found in 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] 7 OTN-TDM [RFC7139]
8 SSON [RFC7792]
Generalized bandwidth and reverse generalized bandwidth field Table 2: Generalized Bandwidth and Reverse Generalized Bandwidth
encoding field encoding
When a PCC requests a bi-directional path with symetric bandwidth, it When a PCC requests a bi-directional path with symmetric bandwidth,
MUST specify the generalized bandwidth field, MUST NOT specify the it SHOULD only specify the Generalized Bandwidth field, and set the
reverse generalized bandwidth and MUST set the Reverse Bandwidth Spec Reverse Bandwidth Spec Length to 0. When a PCC needs to request a
Length to 0. When a PCC needs to request a bi-directional path with bi-directional path with asymmetric bandwidth, it SHOULD specify the
asymmetric bandwidth, it SHOULD specify the different bandwidth in different bandwidth in the forward and reverse directions with a
the forward and reverse directions with a generalized bandwidth and Generalized Bandwidth and Reverse Generalized Bandwidth fields.
reverse generalized bandwidth fields.
The procedures described in [RFC5440] for the PCRep is unchanged, a The procedure 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-3 MAY be used instead of object type 2 differ. The Object Type TBA-3 MAY be used instead of object type 2
to indicate the existing TE-LSP bandwidth. A PCC that requested a to indicate the existing TE-LSP bandwidth. A PCC that requested a
path with a BANDWIDTH object of object type 1 SHOULD use object type path with a BANDWIDTH object of object type 1 SHOULD use object type
2 to 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-2 specific bandwidth requirements. No TLVs for the Object Type TBA-2
and TBA-3 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.
SHOULD be allowed to request a set of TE-LSP also in case of GMPLS
bandwidth specification.
The LOAD-BALANCING has the same limitation as the BANDWIDTH for GMPLS Similarly to the BANDWIDTH object, a new object type is defined to
networks. Similarly to the BANDWIDTH object a new object type is allow a PCC to represent the bandwidth types supported by GMPLS
defined to allow a PCC to represent the bandwidth types supported by networks.
GMPLS networks.
This document defines the Generalized Load Balancing object type This document defines the Generalized Load Balancing object type
TBA-4 for the LOAD-BALANCING object. The generalized load balancing TBA-4 for the LOAD-BALANCING object. The Generalized Load Balancing
object 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 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 is to be noted that the RSVP-TE traffic Bandwidth Spec field. 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 from 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 Min
reverse min bandwidth specification. It MAY be equal to 0. Reverse Bandwidth Spec field. It MAY be equal to 0.
Bw Spec Type (8 bits) : the bandwidth specification type, it
correspond to the RSVPT-TE SENDER_TSPEC (Object Class 12) C-Types
Max-LSP (8 bits): maximum number of TE LSPs in the set.
Min Bandwidth spec (variable): Specifies the minimum bandwidth spec
of each element of the set of TE LSPs.
Min Reverse Bandwidth spec (variable): Specifies the minimum reverse Bw Spec Type (8 bits): the bandwidth specification type, it
bandwidth spec of each element of the set of TE LSPs. corresponds to the RSVP-TE SENDER_TSPEC (Object Class 12) C-Types.
The encoding of the field Min Bandwidth Spec and Min Reverse Max-LSP (8 bits): maximum number of TE-LSPs in the set.
Bandwidth spec is the same as in RSVP-TE SENDER_TSPEC object, it can
be found in the following references.
Object Type Name Reference Min Bandwidth Spec (variable): specifies the minimum bandwidth
specification of each element of the TE-LSP set.
2 Intserv [RFC2210] Min Reverse Bandwidth Spec (variable): specifies the minimum reverse
4 SONET/SDH [RFC4606] bandwidth specification of each element of the TE-LSP set.
5 G.709 [RFC4328]
6 Ethernet [RFC6003]
7 OTN-TDM [RFC7139]
Min Bandwidth Spec and Min reverse Bandwidth Spec field encoding The encoding of the fields Min Bandwidth Spec and Min Reverse
Bandwidth Spec is the same as in RSVP-TE SENDER_TSPEC object, it can
be found in Table 2 from Section 2.3.
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 SHOULD specify the Min
Bandwidth spec field, MUST NOT specify the min reverse bandwidth and Bandwidth Spec field, and set the Reverse Bandwidth Spec Length to 0.
MUST set the Reverse Bandwidth spec length to 0. When a PCC needs to When a PCC needs to request a bi-directional path with asymmetric
request a bi-directional path with asymmetric bandwidth while bandwidth while specifying load balancing constraints, it MUST
specifying load balancing constraints, it SHOULD specify the specify the different bandwidth in forward and reverse directions
different bandwidth in forward and reverse directions through a min through a Min Bandwidth Spec and Min Reverse Bandwidth Spec 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 have to have at least have a bandwidth of B, it and each TE-LSP must at least have a bandwidth of B, it inserts a
inserts a BANDWIDTH object specifying X as the required bandwidth and BANDWIDTH object specifying X as the required bandwidth and a LOAD-
a LOAD-BALANCING object with the Max-LSP and Min-traffic spec fields BALANCING object with the Max-LSP and Min Bandwidth Spec fields set
set to N and B, respectively. to N and B, respectively.
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
paths, the BANDWIDTH with object type 3 will contain a traffic
specification indicating the complete n x VC4 traffic specification
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
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
of the bandwidth specification is ST=6,RCC=0,NCC=0,NVC=10,MT=1. The
LOAD-BALANCING, OT=2 with Bandwidth spec set to 4,Max-LSP=5, min
Traffic spec is (ST=6,RCC=0,NCC=0,NVC=2,MT=1). The PCE can respond
with a response with maximum 5 path, each of them having a BANDWIDTH
OT=3 and traffic spec matching the minimum traffic spec from the
LOAD-BALANCING object of the corresponding request.
2.5. END-POINTS Object extensions 2.5. END-POINTS Object Extensions
The END-POINTS object is used in a PCEP request message to specify The END-POINTS object is used in a PCEP request message to specify
the source and the destination of the path for which a path the source and the destination of the path for which a path
computation is requested. From [RFC5440]the source IP address and computation is requested. From [RFC5440], the source IP address and
the destination IP address are used to identify those. A new Object the destination IP address are used to identify those. A new Object
Type is defined to address the following possibilities: Type is defined to address the following possibilities:
o Different source and destination endpoint types. o Different source and destination endpoint types.
o Label restrictions on the endpoint. o Label restrictions on the endpoint.
o Specification of unnumbered endpoints type as seen in GMPLS o Specification of unnumbered endpoints type as seen in GMPLS
networks. networks.
skipping to change at page 12, line 50 skipping to change at page 12, line 19
o 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 document defines the Generalized Endpoint object type TBA-5 for This document defines the Generalized Endpoint object type TBA-5 for
the END-POINTS object. This new C-Type also supports the the END-POINTS object. This new type also supports the specification
specification of constraints on the endpoint label to be use. The of constraints on the endpoint label to be used. The PCE might know
PCE might know the interface restrictions but this is not a the interface restrictions but this is not a requirement. This
requirement. This corresponds to requirements 6 and 10 of [RFC7025]. 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. The TLVs give the details of the
details of the endpoints and are described in Section 2.5.2. For endpoints and are described in Section 2.5.2. For each Endpoint
each endpoint type, a different grammar is defined. The TLVs defined Type, a different grammar is defined. The TLVs defined to describe
to describe an endpoint are: 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. 5. Label set.
6. Suggested label set. The Label set TLV is used to restrict or suggest the label allocation
in the PCE. This TLVs express the set of restrictions which may
The Label Set and Suggested label set TLVs are used to restrict the apply to signaling. Label restriction support can be an explicit or
label allocation in the PCE. Those TLVs express the set of a suggested value (Label set describing one label, with the L bit
restrictions provided by signaling. Label restriction support can be respectively cleared or set), mandatory range restrictions (Label set
an explicit value (Label set describing one label), mandatory range with L bit cleared) and optional range restriction (Label set with L
restrictions (Label set), OPTIONAL range restriction (suggested label bit set). Endpoints label restriction may not be part of the RRO or
set) and single suggested value is using the suggested label set. IRO, they can be included when following [RFC4003] in signaling for
Endpoints label restriction are not always part of the RRO or IRO, egress endpoint, but ingress endpoint properties can be local to the
they can be included when following [RFC4003] in signaling for egress PCC and not signaled. To support this case the label set allows to
endpoint, but ingress endpoint properties can be local to the PCC and indicate which label are used in case of reoptimization. The label
not signaled. To support this case the label set allows to indicate range restrictions are valid in GMPLS-controlled networks, either by
which label are used in case of reoptimization. The label range PCC policy or depending on the switching technology used, for
restrictions are valid in GMPLS networks, either by PCC policy or instance on given Ethernet or ODU equipment having limited hardware
depending on the switching technology used, for instance on given capabilities restricting the label range. Label set restriction also
Ethernet or ODU equipment having limited hardware capabilities applies to WSON networks where the optical senders and receivers are
restricting the label range. Label set restriction also applies to limited in their frequency tunability ranges, restricting then in
WSON networks where the optical sender and receivers are limited in GMPLS the possible label ranges on the interface. The END-POINTS
their frequency tunability ranges, restricting then in GMPLS the Object with Generalized Endpoint object type is encoded as follow:
possible label ranges on the interface. The END-POINTS Object with
Generalized Endpoint object type is encoded as follow:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | endpoint type | | Reserved | Endpoint Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
~ TLVs ~ ~ TLVs ~
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Reserved bits SHOULD be set to 0 when a message is sent and ignored Reserved bits SHOULD be set to 0 when a message is sent and ignored
when the message is received when the message is received.
the endpoint type is defined as follow: The Endpoint Type is defined as follow:
Value Type Meaning Value Type Meaning
0 Point-to-Point 0 Point-to-Point
1 Point-to-Multipoint New leaves to add 1 Point-to-Multipoint New leaves to add
2 Old leaves to remove 2 Old leaves to remove
3 Old leaves whose path can be 3 Old leaves whose path can be
modified/reoptimized modified/reoptimized
4 Old leaves whose path has to 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 Table 3: Generalized Endpoint endpoint types
point-to-multipoint endpoints. Endpoint type 0 MAY be accepted by
the PCE, other endpoint type MAY be supported if the PCE The Endpoint Type is used to cover both point-to-point and different
implementation supports P2MP path calculation. A PCE not supporting point-to-multipoint endpoints. A PCE may accept only Endpoint Type
a given endpoint type MUST respond with a PCErr with error code "Path 0: Endpoint Types 1-4 apply if the PCE implementation supports P2MP
computation failure", error type "Unsupported endpoint type in END- path calculation. A PCE not supporting a given Endpoint Type SHOULD
POINTS Generalized Endpoint object type". The TLVs present in the respond with a PCErr with Error Type 4, Value TBD "Unsupported
request object body MUST follow the following grammar: endpoint type in END-POINTS Generalized Endpoint object type". As
per [RFC5440], a PCE unable to process Generalized Endpoints may
respond with Error Type 3 or 4, Value 2. The TLVs present in the
request object body MUST follow the following [RFC5511] grammar:
<generalized-endpoint-tlvs>::= <generalized-endpoint-tlvs>::=
<p2p-endpoints> | <p2mp-endpoints> <p2p-endpoints> | <p2mp-endpoints>
<p2p-endpoints> ::= <p2p-endpoints> ::=
<source-endpoint> <endpoint> [<endpoint-restriction-list>]
<destination-endpoint> <endpoint> [<endpoint-restriction-list>]
<source-endpoint> ::=
<endpoint>
[<endpoint-restriction-list>]
<destination-endpoint> ::=
<endpoint>
[<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> ::=
<LABEL-REQUEST><label-restriction-list> <LABEL-REQUEST><label-restriction-list>
<label-restriction-list> ::= <label-restriction> <label-restriction-list> ::= <label-restriction>
[<label-restriction-list>] [<label-restriction-list>]
<label-restriction> ::= <LABEL-SET>| <label-restriction> ::= <LABEL-SET>
<SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET>
The different TLVs are described in the following sections. A PCE The different TLVs are described in the following sections. A PCE
MAY support IPV4-ADDRESS,IPV6-ADDRESS or UNNUMBERED-ENDPOINT TLV. A MAY support IPV4-ADDRESS, IPV6-ADDRESS or UNNUMBERED-ENDPOINT TLVs.
PCE not supporting one of those TLVs in a PCReq MUST respond with a When receiving a PCReq, a PCE unable to resolve the identifier in one
PCRep with NO-PATH with the bit "Unknown destination" or "Unknown of those TLVs MUST respond using a PCRep with NO-PATH and set the bit
source" in the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV, the response SHOULD include the "Unknown destination" or "Unknown source" in the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV.
ENDPOINT object in the response with only the TLV it did not The response SHOULD include the END-POINTS object with only the
understood. unsupported TLV(s).
A PCE MAY support LABEL-REQUEST, LABEL-SET or SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET A PCE MAY support LABEL-REQUEST or LABEL-SET TLVs. If a PCE finds a
TLV. If a PCE finds a non-supported TLV in the END-POINTS the PCE non-supported TLV in the END-POINTS the PCE MUST respond with a PCErr
MUST respond with a PCErr message with error type="Path computation message with Error Type 4 error value="Unsupported TLV present in
failure" error value="Unsupported TLV present in END-POINTS END-POINTS Generalized Endpoint object type" and the message SHOULD
Generalized Endpoint object type" and the message SHOULD include the include the END-POINTS object in the response with only the endpoint
ENDPOINT object in the response with only the endpoint and endpoint and endpoint restriction TLV it did not understand. A PCE supporting
restriction TLV it did not understand. A PCE supporting those TLVs those TLVs but not being able to fulfil the label restriction MUST
but not being able to fulfil the label restriction MUST send a send a response with a NO-PATH object which has the bit "No endpoint
response with a NO-PATH object which has the bit "No endpoint label label resource" or "No endpoint label resource in range" set in the
resource" or "No endpoint label resource in range" set in the NO- NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV. The response SHOULD include an END-POINTS object
PATH- VECTOR TLV. The response SHOULD include an ENDPOINT object containing only the TLV(s) related to the constraints the PCE could
containing only the TLV where the PCE could not meet the constraint. not meet.
2.5.2. END-POINTS TLVs extensions 2.5.2. END-POINTS TLV 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 TLV
This TLV represent a numbered endpoint using IPv4 numbering, the This TLV represents a numbered endpoint using IPv4 numbering, the
format of the IPv4-ADDRESS TLV value (TLV-Type=TBA-6) 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 represents a numbered endpoint using IPV6 numbering, the
format of the IPv6-ADDRESS TLV value (TLV-Type=TBA-7) 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 represents 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-8) 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.
skipping to change at page 17, line 32 skipping to change at page 16, line 25
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-9. 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 of [RFC7025] for the
not directly related to the TE-LSP label request, which is expressed endpoint. It is not directly related to the TE-LSP label request,
by the SWITCH-LAYER object. which is expressed 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 can 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 [RFC8282] can be used
[I-D.ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext] can be used in case of mono-layer in case of mono-layer request, however in case of multilayer it is
request, however in case of multilayer it is possible to have in the possible to have more than one object, so it is better to have a
future more than one object, so it is better to have a dedicated TLV dedicated TLV for the label and label request. Those TLV MAY be
for the label and label request (the scope is then more clear). ignored, in which case a response with NO-PATH SHOULD be responded,
as described in Section 2.5.1. TLVs are encoded as follow (following
Those TLV MAY be ignored, in which case a response with NO-PATH [RFC5440]):
SHOULD be responded, as described in Section 2.5.1. TLVs are encoded
as follow (following [RFC5440]) :
o LABEL-SET TLV, Type=TBA-10. 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, O bit and L bit. The L bit is used to represent a suggested
bidirectional LSP and the O bit is used to represent an old label. set of label, following the semantic of SUGGESTED_LABEL defined by
[RFC3471]. The U bit is set for upstream direction in case of
bidirectional LSP and the O bit is used to represent a previously
allocated 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 |L|O|U| Label Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Subchannel 1 | | Subchannel 1 |
| ... | | ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: : : : : :
: : : : : :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Subchannel N | | Subchannel N |
| ... | | ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
o SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET TLV Set, Type=TBA-11. The TLV length is
variable and its encoding is as LABEL-SET TLV. The O bit SHOULD
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. If the L bit is cleared, the label allocated on the
within the label set range. The action parameter in the Label set first endpoint MUST be within the label set range. The action
indicates the type of list provided. Those parameters are described parameter in the Label set indicates the type of list provided.
by [RFC3471] section 3.5.1 A SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET TLV has the same Those parameters are described by [RFC3471] section 3.5.1.
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
labels for label allocation.
The U and 0 bits have the following meaning: The U, O and L bits have the following meaning:
U: Upstream direction: set when the label or label set is in the U: Upstream direction: set when the label or label set is in the
reverse direction reverse direction
O: Old Label: set when the TLV represent the old label in case of re- 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. The R bit of the RP object MUST be set to 1. If the
TLV Set and ignored on receipt. This Label MAY be reused. The R L bit is set, this bit SHOULD be set to 0 and ignored on receipt.
bit of the RP object MUST be set. When this bit is set the Action When this bit is set, the Action field MUST be set to 0 (Inclusive
field MUST be set to 0 (Inclusive List) and the Label Set MUST List) and the Label Set MUST contain one subchannel.
contain one subchannel. L: Loose Label: set when the TLV indicates to the PCE a set of
preferred (ordered) labels to be used. The PCE MAY use those
labels for label allocation.
Several LABEL_SET TLVs MAY be present with the O bit cleared. At Labels TLV bits
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
given U bit value if more than one LABEL_SET TLV with the O bit set
is present, the first TLV SHOULD be processed and the following TLV
with the same U and O bit SHOULD be ignored.
A SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET TLV with the O bit set MUST trigger a PCErr Several LABEL_SET TLVs MAY be present with the O bit cleared,
message with error type="Reception of an invalid object" error LABEL_SET TLVs with L bit set can be combined with a LABEL_SET TLV
value="Wrong LABEL-SET or SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET TLV present with O bit with L bit cleared. At most 2 LABEL_SET TLVs MUST be present with
set". the O bit set, at most 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 is present, the first TLV MUST be
processed and the following TLVs with the same U and O bit MUST be
ignored.
A LABEL-SET TLV with the O and L bit set MUST trigger a PCErr message
with error type="Reception of an invalid object" error value="Wrong
LABEL-SET TLV present with O and L bit 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 TLV present with O bit and wrong
O bit set". format".
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, otherwise a PCErr message MUST be sent with error
an invalid object" error value="LABEL-SET TLV present with O bit set type="Reception of an invalid object" error value="LABEL-SET TLV
but without R bit set in RP". present with O bit set 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 needs to support the new subobject fulfill requirement 13 of [RFC7025] the IRO needs to support the new
type as defined in [RFC3473]: subobject type as defined in [RFC3473]:
Type Sub-object Type Sub-object
TBA-37 LABEL TBA-38 LABEL
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
address given MUST be associated with a link. More than one label given IP address 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 is able to allocate labels (e.g. via explicit label
MUST allocate one label from within the set of label values for the control) the PCE MUST allocate one label from within the set of label
given link. If the PCE does not assign labels then it sends a values for the given link. If the PCE does not assign labels, then
response with a NO-PATH object, containing a NO-PATH-VECTOR-TLV with it sends a response with a NO-PATH object, containing a NO-PATH-
the bit 'No label resource in range' set. VECTOR TLV with 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 needs to to fulfill requirement 13 of [RFC7025] section 3.1, the PCEP's XRO
support a new subobject to support label exclusion. needs to support a new subobject to enable 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-38: Label Subobject. XRO Subobject Type TBA-39: 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=TBA-39 | Length |U| Reserved | C-Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label | | Label |
| ... | | ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
X (1 bit) X (1 bit): as per [RFC5521]. The X-bit indicates whether the
exclusion is mandatory or desired. 0 indicates that the resource
As per [RFC5521]. The X-bit indicates whether the exclusion is specified MUST be excluded from the path computed by the PCE. 1
mandatory or desired. 0 indicates that the resource specified indicates that the resource specified SHOULD be excluded from the
MUST be excluded from the path computed by the PCE. 1 path computed by the PCE, but MAY be included subject to PCE
indicates that the resource specified SHOULD be excluded from policy and the absence of a viable path that meets the other
the path computed by the PCE, but MAY be included subject to constraints and excludes the resource.
PCE policy and the absence of a viable path that meets the
other constraints and excludes the resource.
Type (7 bits)
The Type of the XRO Label subobject is TBA, suggested value 3.
Length (8 bits)
See [RFC5521],The total length of the subobject in bytes
(including the Type and Length fields). The Length is always
divisible by 4.
U (1 bit)
See [RFC3471]. Type (7 bits): The Type of the XRO Label subobject is TBA-39,
suggested value 3.
C-Type (8 bits) Length (8 bits): see [RFC5521], the total length of the subobject
in bytes (including the Type and Length fields). The Length is
always divisible by 4.
The C-Type of the included Label Object as defined in U (1 bit): see [RFC3471].
[RFC3471].
Label C-Type (8 bits): the C-Type of the included Label Object as
defined in [RFC3471].
See [RFC3471]. Label: see [RFC3471].
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
address given MUST be associated with a link. More than one label given IP address MUST be associated with a link. More than one label
subobject MAY follow each link subobject. subobject MAY follow each link subobject.
Type Sub-object Type Sub-object
3 LABEL 3 LABEL
The L bit of such sub-object has no meaning within an XRO. 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 recovery
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 can
can be used as a policy input. The LSPA object MAY carry a be used as a policy input. The LSPA object MAY carry a PROTECTION-
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV defined as : Type TBA-12: PROTECTION- ATTRIBUTE TLV defined as: Type TBA-12: PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE
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 a PCE
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 additional constraints that led to the failure
failure like protection mismatch, lack of resources, and so on. Few like protection mismatch, lack of resources, and so on. Few new
new flags have been introduced in the 32-bit flag field of the NO- flags have been introduced in the 32-bit flag field of the NO-PATH-
PATH-VECTOR TLV and no modifications have been made in the NO-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-31 - Protection Mismatch (1-bit). Specifies the Bit number TBA-32 - 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-32 - No Resource (1-bit). Specifies that the Bit number TBA-33 - 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-33 - Granularity not supported (1-bit). Specifies Bit number TBA-34 - 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 path with the requested
granularity. granularity.
Bit number TBA-34 - No endpoint label resource (1-bit). Specifies Bit number TBA-35 - 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 path because of the endpoint
endpoint label restriction. label restriction.
Bit number TBA-35 - No endpoint label resource in range (1-bit). Bit number TBA-36 - 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 path because of
the endpoint label set restriction. the endpoint label set restriction.
Bit number TBA-36 - No label resource in range (1-bit). Specifies Bit number TBA-37 - 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 path because of the label
set restriction. set restriction.
3. Additional Error Type and Error Values Defined 3. Additional Error-Types 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-Types 4
and A new Error-Type is introduced (value TBA). and 10. A new Error-Type is introduced (value TBA-27).
Error-Type Error-value Error-Type Error-value
4 Not supported
object
value=TBA-14: Bandwidth Object type TBA-2 or TBA-3 not
supported.
value=TBA-15: Unsupported endpoint type in
END-POINTS Generalized Endpoint
object type.
value=TBA-16: Unsupported TLV present in END-POINTS
Generalized Endpoint object type.
value=TBA-17: Unsupported granularity in the RP object
flags.
10 Reception of 10 Reception of
an invalid an invalid
object object
value=TBA-14: Bad Bandwidth Object type TBA(Generalized value=TBA-18: Bad Bandwidth Object type TBA-2(Generalized
bandwidth) or TBA(Generalized bandwidth) or TBA-3( Generalized bandwidth
bandwidth,reoptimization). of existing TE-LSP for which a
value=TBA-15: Bandwidth Object type TBA or TBA not reoptimization is requested).
supported. value=TBA-19: Unsupported LSP Protection Type in
value=TBA-16: Unsupported LSP Protection Type in PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. value=TBA-20: Unsupported LSP Protection Flags in
value=TBA-17: Unsupported LSP Protection Flags in PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. value=TBA-21: Unsupported Secondary LSP Protection Flags
value=TBA-18: Unsupported Secondary LSP Protection Flags in PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
in PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. value=TBA-22: Unsupported Link Protection Type in
value=TBA-19: Unsupported Link Protection Type in PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. value=TBA-23: Unsupported Link Protection Type in
value=TBA-20: Unsupported Link Protection Type in PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. value=TBA-24: 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-25: Wrong LABEL-SET
value=TBA-22: Wrong LABEL-SET or TLV present with
SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET TLV present with 0 and L bit set.
0 bit set. value=TBA-26: Wrong LABEL-SET with O bit set and wrong
TBA-23 Path format.
TBA-27 Path
computation computation
failure failure
value=TBA-24: Unacceptable request message. value=0: Unassigned.
value=TBA-25: Generalized bandwidth value not supported. value=TBA-28: Unacceptable request message.
value=TBA-26: Label Set constraint could not be value=TBA-29: Generalized bandwidth value not supported.
met. value=TBA-30: Label Set constraint could not be
value=TBA-27: Label constraint could not be met.
met. value=TBA-31: Label constraint could not be
value=TBA-28: Unsupported endpoint type in met.
END-POINTS Generalized Endpoint
object type.
value=TBA-29: Unsupported TLV present in END-POINTS
Generalized Endpoint object type.
value=TBA-30: Unsupported granularity in the RP object
flags.
4. Manageability Considerations 4. Manageability Considerations
This section follows the guidance of [RFC6123]. This section follows the guidance of [RFC6123].
4.1. Control of Function through Configuration and Policy 4.1. Control of Function through Configuration and Policy
This document makes no change to the basic operation of PCEP and so This document makes no change to the basic operation of PCEP and so
the requirements described in [RFC5440] Section 8.1. also apply to the requirements described in [RFC5440] Section 8.1. also apply to
this document. In addition to those requirements a PCEP this document. In addition to those requirements a PCEP
implementation MAY allow the configuration of the following implementation may allow the configuration of the following
parameters: parameters:
Accepted RG in the RP object. Accepted RG in the RP object.
Default RG to use (overriding the one present in the PCReq) Default RG to use (overriding the one present in the PCReq)
Accepted BANDWIDTH object type TBA and TBA (Generalized Accepted BANDWIDTH object type TBA-2 and TBA-3 parameters in
Bandwidth)parameters in request, default mapping to use when not request, default mapping to use when not specified in the request
specified in the request
Accepted LOAD-BALANCING object type TBA parameters in request. Accepted LOAD-BALANCING object type TBA-4 parameters in request.
Accepted endpoint type and allowed TLVs in object END-POINTS with Accepted endpoint type and allowed TLVs in object END-POINTS with
object type Generalized Endpoint. object type Generalized Endpoint.
Accepted range for label restrictions in label restriction in END- Accepted range for label restrictions in label restriction in END-
POINTS, or IRO or XRO objects POINTS, or IRO or XRO objects
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV acceptance and suppression. PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV acceptance and suppression.
Those parameters configuration are applicable to the different Those parameters configuration are applicable to the different
sessions as described in [RFC5440] Section 8.1 (by default, per PCEP sessions as described in [RFC5440] Section 8.1 (by default, per PCEP
peer, ..etc). peer, etc.).
4.2. Information and Data Models 4.2. Information and Data Models
This document makes no change to the basic operation of PCEP and so This document makes no change to the basic operation of PCEP and so
the requirements described in [RFC5440] Section 8.2. also apply to the requirements described in [RFC5440] Section 8.2. also apply to
this document. This document does not introduces new ERO sub object, this document. This document does not introduces new ERO sub object,
ERO information model is already covered in [RFC4802]. ERO information model is already covered in [RFC4802].
4.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring 4.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
This document makes no change to the basic operation of PCEP and so This document makes no change to the basic operation of PCEP and so
there are no changes to the requirements for liveness detection and there are no changes to the requirements for liveness detection and
monitoring set out in [RFC4657] and [RFC5440] Section 8.3. monitoring set out in [RFC4657] and [RFC5440] Section 8.3.
4.4. Verifying Correct Operation 4.4. Verifying Correct Operation
This document makes no change to the basic operations of PCEP and This document makes no change to the basic operations of PCEP and
considerations described in [RFC5440] Section 8.4. New errors considerations described in [RFC5440] Section 8.4. New errors
introduced by this document should be covered by the requirement to introduced by this document should be covered by the requirement to
log error events. log error events.
4.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components 4.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components
No new Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components are No new Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components are
made by this document. This document does not require ERO object made by this document. This document does not require ERO object
extensions. Any new ERO subobject defined in CCAMP working group can extensions. Any new ERO subobject defined in the TEAS or CCAMP
be adopted without modifying the operations defined in this document. working group can be adopted without modifying the operations defined
in this document.
4.6. Impact on Network Operation 4.6. Impact on Network Operation
This document makes no change to the basic operations of PCEP and This document makes no change to the basic operations of PCEP and
considerations described in [RFC5440] Section 8.6. In addition to considerations described in [RFC5440] Section 8.6. In addition to
the limit on the rate of messages sent by a PCEP speaker, a limit MAY the limit on the rate of messages sent by a PCEP speaker, a limit MAY
be placed on the size of the PCEP messages. be placed on the size of the PCEP messages.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
IANA assigns values to the PCEP protocol objects and TLVs. IANA is IANA assigns values to the PCEP protocol objects and TLVs. IANA is
requested to make some allocations for the newly defined objects and requested to make some allocations for the newly defined objects and
TLVs introduced in this document. Also, IANA is requested to manage TLVs introduced in this document. Also, IANA is requested to manage
the space of flags that are newly added in the TLVs. the space of flags that are newly added in the TLVs.
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-2 : Generalized bandwidth Object-Type TBA-2: Generalized bandwidth
TBA-3: 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
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-4: Generalized load balancing Object-Type TBA-4: Generalized Load Balancing
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-5: Generalized Endpoint Object-Type TBA-5: Generalized Endpoint
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 3):
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 has to be 4 Old leaves whose path has to be
left unchanged left unchanged
skipping to change at page 29, line 7 skipping to change at page 27, line 7
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-13 (suggested 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-Types 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=4 Not supported object [RFC5440]
Value=TBA-14: Bad Bandwidth Object type TBA(Generalized This Document Value=TBA-14: Bandwidth Object type TBA or TBA not This Document
bandwidth) or TBA(Generalized
bandwidth,reoptimization).
Value=TBA-15: Bandwidth Object type TBA or TBA not This Document
supported. supported.
Value=TBA-16: Unsupported LSP Protection Type in This Document Value=TBA-15: Unsupported endpoint type in END-POINTS This Document
Generalized Endpoint object type
Value=TBA-16: Unsupported TLV present in END-POINTS This Document
Generalized Endpoint object type
Value=TBA-17: Unsupported granularity in the RP object This Document
flags
Type=10 Reception of an invalid object [RFC5440]
Value=TBA-18: Bad Bandwidth Object type This Document
TBA-2(Generalized bandwidth) or
TBA-3(Generalized bandwidth of existing
TE-LSP for which a reoptimization is
requested).
Value=TBA-19: Unsupported LSP Protection Type in This Document
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
Value=TBA-17: Unsupported LSP Protection Flags in This Document Value=TBA-20: Unsupported LSP Protection Flags in This Document
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
Value=TBA-18: Unsupported Secondary LSP Protection This Document Value=TBA-21: Unsupported Secondary LSP Protection This Document
Flags in PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. Flags in PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
Value=TBA-19: Unsupported Link Protection Type in This Document Value=TBA-22: Unsupported Link Protection Type in This Document
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
Value=TBA-20: Unsupported Link Protection Type in This Document Value=TBA-23: Unsupported Link Protection Type in This Document
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
Value=TBA-21: LABEL-SET TLV present with 0 bit set but This Document Value=TBA-24: 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-22: Wrong LABEL-SET or SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET This Document Value=TBA-25: Wrong LABEL-SET TLV present with 0 and L This Document
TLV present with 0 bit set. bit set.
Type=TBA-23 Path computation failure This Document Value=TBA-26: Wrong LABEL-SET with O bit set and wrong This Document
Value=TBA-24: Unacceptable request message. This Document format.
Value=TBA-25: Generalized bandwidth value not This Document Type=TBA-27 Path computation failure This Document
Value=0 Unassigned. This Document
Value=TBA-28: Unacceptable request message. This Document
Value=TBA-29: Generalized bandwidth value not This Document
supported. supported.
Value=TBA-26: Label Set constraint could not be met. This Document Value=TBA-30: Label Set constraint could not be met. This Document
Value=TBA-27: Label constraint could not be met. This Document Value=TBA-31: Label constraint could not be met. This Document
Value=TBA-28: Unsupported endpoint type in END-POINTS This Document
Generalized Endpoint object type
Value=TBA-29: Unsupported TLV present in END-POINTS This Document
Generalized Endpoint object type
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-31 - Protection Mismatch (1-bit). Specifies the Bit number TBA-32 - 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-32 - No Resource (1-bit). Specifies that the Bit number TBA-33 - 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-33 - Granularity not supported (1-bit). Specifies Bit number TBA-34 - 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 path with the requested
granularity. granularity.
Bit number TBA-34 - No endpoint label resource (1-bit). Specifies Bit number TBA-35 - 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 path because of the endpoint
endpoint label restriction. label restriction.
Bit number TBA-35 - No endpoint label resource in range (1-bit). Bit number TBA-36 - 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 path because of
the endpoint label set restriction. the endpoint label set restriction.
Bit number TBA-36 - No label resource in range (1-bit). Specifies Bit number TBA-37 - 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 path 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-37, suggested value 3 Label subobject [RFC3473] TBA-38, 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-38, suggested value 3 Label subobject [RFC3473] TBA-39, 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
skipping to change at page 31, line 48 skipping to change at page 30, line 7
o Message deciphering: As in the previous case, knowledge of an o Message deciphering: As in the previous case, knowledge of an
infrastructure can be obtained by sniffing PCEP messages. infrastructure can be obtained by sniffing PCEP messages.
The security mechanisms can provide authentication and The security mechanisms can provide authentication and
confidentiality for those scenarios where the PCC-PCE communication confidentiality for those scenarios where the PCC-PCE communication
cannot be completely trusted. Authentication can provide origin cannot be completely trusted. Authentication can provide origin
verification, message integrity and replay protection, while verification, message integrity and replay protection, while
confidentiality ensures that a third party cannot decipher the confidentiality ensures that a third party cannot decipher the
contents of a message. contents of a message.
The document [I-D.ietf-pce-pceps] describes the usage of Transport The document [RFC8253] describes the usage of Transport Layer
Layer Security (TLS) to enhance PCEP security. The document Security (TLS) to enhance PCEP security. The document describes the
describes the initiation of the TLS procedures, the TLS handshake initiation of the TLS procedures, the TLS handshake mechanisms, the
mechanisms, the TLS methods for peer authentication, the applicable TLS methods for peer authentication, the applicable TLS ciphersuites
TLS ciphersuites for data exchange, and the handling of errors in the for data exchange, and the handling of errors in the security checks.
security checks.
Finally, as mentioned by [RFC7025] the PCEP extensions to support Finally, as mentioned by [RFC7025] the PCEP extensions to support
GMPLS should be considered under the same security as current PCE GMPLS should be considered under the same security as current PCE
work and this extension will not change the underlying security work and this extension will not change the underlying security
issues. However, given the critical nature of the network issues. However, given the critical nature of the network
infrastructures under control by GMPLS, the security issues described infrastructures under control by GMPLS, the security issues described
above should be seriously considered when deploying a GMPLS-PCE based above should be seriously considered when deploying a GMPLS-PCE based
control plane for such networks. For more information on the control plane for such networks. For more information on the
security considerations on a GMPLS control plane, not only related to security considerations on a GMPLS control plane, not only related to
PCE/PCEP, [RFC5920] provides an overview of security vulnerabilities PCE/PCEP, [RFC5920] provides an overview of security vulnerabilities
skipping to change at page 33, line 39 skipping to change at page 31, line 44
Email: ramon.casellas@cttc.es Email: ramon.casellas@cttc.es
8. Acknowledgments 8. Acknowledgments
The research of Ramon Casellas, Francisco Javier Jimenez Chico, Oscar The research of Ramon Casellas, Francisco Javier Jimenez Chico, Oscar
Gonzalez de Dios, Cyril Margaria, and Franz Rambach leading to these Gonzalez de Dios, Cyril Margaria, and Franz Rambach leading to these
results has received funding from the European Community's Seventh results has received funding from the European Community's Seventh
Framework Program FP7/2007-2013 under grant agreement no 247674 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 Julien Meuric, Lyndon Ong, Giada
Hardwick and Diego Lopez for their useful comments to the document. Lander, Jonathan 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, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://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, DOI 10.17487/RFC2210, September 1997, Services", RFC 2210, DOI 10.17487/RFC2210, September 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2210>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2210>.
[RFC3471] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label [RFC3471] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description",
RFC 3471, DOI 10.17487/RFC3471, January 2003, RFC 3471, DOI 10.17487/RFC3471, January 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3471>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3471>.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label [RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol- Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3473, January 2003, DOI 10.17487/RFC3473, January 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3473>. <https://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, DOI 10.17487/RFC3477, January 2003, (RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, DOI 10.17487/RFC3477, January 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3477>. <https://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, DOI 10.17487/RFC4003, February 2005, Control", RFC 4003, DOI 10.17487/RFC4003, February 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4003>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4003>.
[RFC4328] Papadimitriou, D., Ed., "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, Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4328, January 2006, DOI 10.17487/RFC4328, January 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4328>. <https://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, Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control", RFC 4606,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4606, August 2006, DOI 10.17487/RFC4606, August 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4606>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4606>.
[RFC4802] Nadeau, T., Ed., Farrel, A., and , "Generalized [RFC4802] Nadeau, T., Ed., Farrel, A., and , "Generalized
Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering
Management Information Base", RFC 4802, Management Information Base", RFC 4802,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4802, February 2007, DOI 10.17487/RFC4802, February 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4802>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4802>.
[RFC4872] Lang, J., Ed., Rekhter, Y., Ed., and D. Papadimitriou, [RFC4872] Lang, J., Ed., Rekhter, Y., Ed., and D. Papadimitriou,
Ed., "RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End Ed., "RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Recovery", RFC 4872, DOI 10.17487/RFC4872, May 2007, Recovery", RFC 4872, DOI 10.17487/RFC4872, May 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4872>. <https://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, DOI 10.17487/RFC4873, "GMPLS Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, DOI 10.17487/RFC4873,
May 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4873>. May 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4873>.
[RFC5088] Le Roux, JL., Ed., Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R. [RFC5088] Le Roux, JL., Ed., Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R.
Zhang, "OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Zhang, "OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path Computation
Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5088, DOI 10.17487/RFC5088, Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5088, DOI 10.17487/RFC5088,
January 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5088>. January 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5088>.
[RFC5089] Le Roux, JL., Ed., Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R. [RFC5089] Le Roux, JL., Ed., Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R.
Zhang, "IS-IS Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Zhang, "IS-IS Protocol Extensions for Path Computation
Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5089, DOI 10.17487/RFC5089, Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5089, DOI 10.17487/RFC5089,
January 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5089>. January 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5089>.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
[RFC5511] Farrel, A., "Routing Backus-Naur Form (RBNF): A Syntax
Used to Form Encoding Rules in Various Routing Protocol
Specifications", RFC 5511, DOI 10.17487/RFC5511, April
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5511>.
[RFC5520] Bradford, R., Ed., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel, [RFC5520] Bradford, R., Ed., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel,
"Preserving Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path "Preserving Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path
Computation Using a Path-Key-Based Mechanism", RFC 5520, Computation Using a Path-Key-Based Mechanism", RFC 5520,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5520, April 2009, DOI 10.17487/RFC5520, April 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5520>. <https://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, DOI 10.17487/RFC5521, April Route Exclusions", RFC 5521, DOI 10.17487/RFC5521, April
2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5521>. 2009, <https://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, Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5541,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5541, June 2009, DOI 10.17487/RFC5541, June 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5541>. <https://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, DOI 10.17487/RFC6001, October 2010, MRN)", RFC 6001, DOI 10.17487/RFC6001, October 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6001>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6001>.
[RFC6003] Papadimitriou, D., "Ethernet Traffic Parameters", [RFC6003] Papadimitriou, D., "Ethernet Traffic Parameters",
RFC 6003, DOI 10.17487/RFC6003, October 2010, RFC 6003, DOI 10.17487/RFC6003, October 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6003>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6003>.
[RFC6205] Otani, T., Ed. and D. Li, Ed., "Generalized Labels for [RFC6205] Otani, T., Ed. and D. Li, Ed., "Generalized Labels for
Lambda-Switch-Capable (LSC) Label Switching Routers", Lambda-Switch-Capable (LSC) Label Switching Routers",
RFC 6205, DOI 10.17487/RFC6205, March 2011, RFC 6205, DOI 10.17487/RFC6205, March 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6205>. <https://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, DOI 10.17487/RFC6387, Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 6387, DOI 10.17487/RFC6387,
September 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6387>. September 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6387>.
[RFC7139] Zhang, F., Ed., Zhang, G., Belotti, S., Ceccarelli, D., [RFC7139] Zhang, F., Ed., Zhang, G., Belotti, S., Ceccarelli, D.,
and K. Pithewan, "GMPLS Signaling Extensions for Control and K. Pithewan, "GMPLS Signaling Extensions for Control
of Evolving G.709 Optical Transport Networks", RFC 7139, of Evolving G.709 Optical Transport Networks", RFC 7139,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7139, March 2014, DOI 10.17487/RFC7139, March 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7139>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7139>.
9.2. Informative References [RFC7792] Zhang, F., Zhang, X., Farrel, A., Gonzalez de Dios, O.,
and D. Ceccarelli, "RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions in
Support of Flexi-Grid Dense Wavelength Division
Multiplexing (DWDM) Networks", RFC 7792,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7792, March 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7792>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext] [RFC8253] Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody,
Oki, E., Takeda, T., Farrel, A., and F. Zhang, "Extensions "PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the
to the Path Computation Element communication Protocol Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)",
RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253>.
[RFC8282] Oki, E., Takeda, T., Farrel, A., and F. Zhang, "Extensions
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", RFC 8282, DOI 10.17487/RFC8282, December
progress), January 2014. 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8282>.
9.2. Informative References
[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, Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006, DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[RFC4657] Ash, J., Ed. and J. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation [RFC4657] Ash, J., Ed. and J. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic
Requirements", RFC 4657, DOI 10.17487/RFC4657, September Requirements", RFC 4657, DOI 10.17487/RFC4657, September
2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4657>. 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4657>.
[RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS [RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, DOI 10.17487/RFC5920, July 2010, Networks", RFC 5920, DOI 10.17487/RFC5920, July 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5920>. <https://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,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6123, February 2011, DOI 10.17487/RFC6123, February 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6123>. <https://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, DOI 10.17487/RFC7025, September 2013, RFC 7025, DOI 10.17487/RFC7025, September 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7025>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7025>.
[RFC7449] Lee, Y., Ed., Bernstein, G., Ed., Martensson, J., Takeda, [RFC7449] Lee, Y., Ed., Bernstein, G., Ed., Martensson, J., Takeda,
T., Tsuritani, T., and O. Gonzalez de Dios, "Path T., Tsuritani, T., and O. Gonzalez de Dios, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Requirements for Wavelength Switched Optical Network Requirements for Wavelength Switched Optical Network
(WSON) Routing and Wavelength Assignment", RFC 7449, (WSON) Routing and Wavelength Assignment", RFC 7449,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7449, February 2015, DOI 10.17487/RFC7449, February 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7449>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7449>.
9.3. Experimental References Appendix A. LOAD-BALANCING Usage for SDH Virtual Concatenation
[I-D.ietf-pce-pceps] For example a request for one co-signaled n x VC-4 TE-LSP will not
Lopez, D., Dios, O., Wu, W., and D. Dhody, "Secure use the LOAD-BALANCING. In case the VC-4 components can use
Transport for PCEP", draft-ietf-pce-pceps-04 (work in different paths, the BANDWIDTH with object type TBA-2 will contain a
progress), May 2015. traffic specification indicating the complete n x VC-4 traffic
specification and the LOAD-BALANCING the minimum co-signaled VC-4.
For an SDH network, a request to have a TE-LSP group with 10 VC-4
containers, each path using at minimum 2 x VC-4 containers, can be
represented with a BANDWIDTH object with OT=TBA-2, Bw Spec Type set
to 4, the content of the Generalized Bandwidth is ST=6, RCC=0, NCC=0,
NVC=10, MT=1. The LOAD-BALANCING, OT=TBA-4 with Bw Spec Type set to
4, Max-LSP=5, Min Bandwidth Spec is (ST=6, RCC=0, NCC=0, NVC=2,
MT=1). The PCE can respond with a response with maximum 5 paths,
each of them having a BANDWIDTH OT=TBA-2 and Generalized Bandwidth
matching the Min Bandwidth Spec from the LOAD-BALANCING object of the
corresponding request.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Cyril Margaria (editor) Cyril Margaria (editor)
Juniper Juniper
200 Somerset Corporate Boulevard, , Suite 4001 1133 Innovation Way,
Bridgewater, NJ 08807 Sunnyvale, CA 94089
USA USA
Email: cmargaria@juniper.net 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
skipping to change at page 38, line 4 skipping to change at page 36, line 32
Email: cmargaria@juniper.net 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. 213 change blocks. 
555 lines changed or deleted 542 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/