draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-13.txt   draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-14.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: August 3, 2019 Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo Expires: October 7, 2019 Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo
F. Zhang, Ed. F. Zhang, Ed.
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
January 30, 2019 April 5, 2019
PCEP extensions for GMPLS PCEP extensions for GMPLS
draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-13 draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-14
Abstract Abstract
The Path Computation Element (PCE) provides path computation The Path Computation Element (PCE) provides path computation
functions for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized functions for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized
MPLS (GMPLS) networks. Additional requirements for GMPLS are MPLS (GMPLS) networks. Additional requirements for GMPLS are
identified in RFC7025. identified in RFC7025.
This memo provides extensions to the Path Computation Element This memo provides extensions to the Path Computation Element
communication Protocol (PCEP) for the support of the GMPLS control communication Protocol (PCEP) for the support of the GMPLS control
skipping to change at page 1, line 40 skipping to change at page 1, line 40
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 https://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 August 3, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on October 7, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 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
(https://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
skipping to change at page 2, line 47 skipping to change at page 2, line 47
3. Additional Error-Types and Error-Values Defined . . . . . . . 24 3. Additional Error-Types and Error-Values Defined . . . . . . . 24
4. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 4. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.1. Control of Function through Configuration and Policy . . 26 4.1. Control of Function through Configuration and Policy . . 26
4.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 4.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 4.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.4. Verifying Correct Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 4.4. Verifying Correct Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components 27 4.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components 27
4.6. Impact on Network Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 4.6. Impact on Network Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.1. PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 5.1. PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.2. END-POINTS Object, Object Type Generalized Endpoint . . . 28 5.2. Endpoint type field in Generalized END-POINTS Object . . 28
5.3. New PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 5.3. New PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.4. RP Object Flag Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 5.4. RP Object Flag Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.5. New PCEP Error Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 5.5. New PCEP Error Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.6. New NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 5.6. New NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.7. New Subobject for the Include Route Object . . . . . . . 31 5.7. New Subobject for the Include Route Object . . . . . . . 31
5.8. New Subobject for the Exclude Route Object . . . . . . . 31 5.8. New Subobject for the Exclude Route Object . . . . . . . 31
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
7. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 7. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Appendix A. LOAD-BALANCING Usage for SDH Virtual Concatenation . 39 Appendix A. LOAD-BALANCING Usage for SDH Virtual Concatenation . 39
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
skipping to change at page 17, line 27 skipping to change at page 17, line 27
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>
The different TLVs are described in the following sections. A PCE The different TLVs are described in the following sections. A PCE
MAY support any or all of IPV4-ADDRESS, IPV6-ADDRESS, and UNNUMBERED- MAY support any or all of IPV4-ADDRESS, IPV6-ADDRESS, and UNNUMBERED-
ENDPOINT TLVs. When receiving a PCReq, a PCE unable to resolve the ENDPOINT TLVs. When receiving a PCReq, a PCE unable to resolve the
identifier in one of those TLVs MUST respond using a PCRep with NO- identifier in one of those TLVs MUST respond using a PCRep with NO-
PATH and set the bit "Unknown destination" or "Unknown source" in the PATH and set the bit "Unknown destination" or "Unknown source" in the
skipping to change at page 22, line 29 skipping to change at page 22, line 29
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
X (1 bit): as per [RFC5521]. The X-bit indicates whether the X (1 bit): as per [RFC5521]. The X-bit indicates whether the
exclusion is mandatory or desired. 0 indicates that the resource exclusion is mandatory or desired. 0 indicates that the resource
specified MUST be excluded from the path computed by the PCE. 1 specified MUST be excluded from the path computed by the PCE. 1
indicates that the resource specified SHOULD be excluded from the indicates that the resource specified SHOULD be excluded from the
path computed by the PCE, but MAY be included subject to PCE path computed by the PCE, but MAY be included subject to PCE
policy and the absence of a viable path that meets the other policy and the absence of a viable path that meets the other
constraints and excludes the resource. constraints and excludes the resource.
Type (7 bits): The Type of the XRO Label subobject is TBA-39, Type (7 bits): The Type of the XRO Label subobject is TBA-39.
suggested value 3.
Length (8 bits): see [RFC5521], the total length of the subobject Length (8 bits): see [RFC5521], the total length of the subobject
in bytes (including the Type and Length fields). The Length is in bytes (including the Type and Length fields). The Length is
always divisible by 4. always divisible by 4.
U (1 bit): see [RFC3471]. U (1 bit): see [RFC3471].
C-Type (8 bits): the C-Type of the included Label Object as C-Type (8 bits): the C-Type of the included Label Object as
defined in [RFC3471]. defined in [RFC3471].
skipping to change at page 23, line 8 skipping to change at page 23, line 8
(type 4) subobject. If an IP address subobject is used, then the (type 4) subobject. If an IP address subobject is used, then the
given IP address 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
2.8. LSPA Extensions 2.8. LSPA Extensions
The LSPA carries the LSP attributes. In the end-to-end recovery 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. A new
object is introduced to fulfill requirement 7 of [RFC7025] section TLV is introduced to fulfill requirement 7 of [RFC7025] section 3.1
3.1 and requirement 3 of [RFC7025] section 3.2. This object contains and requirement 3 of [RFC7025] section 3.2. This TLV contains the
the information of the PROTECTION object defined by [RFC4872] and can information of the PROTECTION object defined by [RFC4872] and can be
be used as a policy input. The LSPA object MAY carry a PROTECTION- used as a policy input. The LSPA object MAY carry a PROTECTION-
ATTRIBUTE TLV defined as: Type TBA-12: PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE ATTRIBUTE TLV defined as: Type TBA-12: PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|S|P|N|O| Reserved | LSP Flags | Reserved | Link Flags| |S|P|N|O| Reserved | LSP Flags | Reserved | Link Flags|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|I|R| Reserved | Seg.Flags | Reserved | |I|R| Reserved | Seg.Flags | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The content is as defined in [RFC4872], [RFC4873]. The content is as defined in [RFC4872], [RFC4873].
LSP (protection) Flags or Link flags field can be used by a PCE 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. If ignored by
MUST NOT include the TLV in the LSPA, if present, of the response. the PCE, it MUST NOT include the TLV in the LSPA 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
skipping to change at page 25, line 5 skipping to change at page 24, line 45
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-Types 4 [RFC5440]. Additional Error- values are defined for Error-Types 4
and 10. A new Error-Type is introduced (value TBA-27). and 10. A new Error-Type is introduced (value TBA-27).
The error-type TBA-27 (path computation failure) is used to reflect
constraints not understood by the PCE, for instance when the PCE is
not able to understand the generalized bandwidth. If the constraints
are understood, but not path is found with those constraints, the NO-
PATH is to be used.
Error-Type Error-value Error-Type Error-value
4 Not supported 4 Not supported
object object
value=TBA-14: Bandwidth Object type TBA-2 or TBA-3 not value=TBA-14: Bandwidth Object type TBA-2 or TBA-3 not
supported. supported.
value=TBA-15: Unsupported endpoint type in value=TBA-15: Unsupported endpoint type in
END-POINTS Generalized Endpoint END-POINTS Generalized Endpoint
object type. object type.
value=TBA-16: Unsupported TLV present in END-POINTS value=TBA-16: Unsupported TLV present in END-POINTS
skipping to change at page 28, line 25 skipping to change at page 28, line 25
Name LOAD-BALANCING Name LOAD-BALANCING
Object-Type TBA-4: Generalized Load Balancing Object-Type TBA-4: Generalized Load Balancing
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
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. Endpoint type field in Generalized END-POINTS Object
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 are assigned by Standards New endpoint type in the Reserved range are assigned by Standards
Action [RFC8126]. Each endpoint type should be tracked with the Action [RFC8126]. Each endpoint type should be tracked with the
following qualities: following qualities:
o Endpoint type o Endpoint type
skipping to change at page 29, line 14 skipping to change at page 29, line 14
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 Unassigned
245-255 Experimental range 245-255 Experimental range
5.3. New PCEP TLVs 5.3. New PCEP TLVs
IANA manages the PCEP TLV code point registry (see [RFC5440]). This IANA manages the PCEP TLV code point registry (see [RFC5440]). This
is maintained as the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" sub-registry of the is maintained as the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" sub-registry of the
"Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry. This "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry. IANA is
document defines new PCEP TLVs, to be carried in the END-POINTS requested to do the following allocation.
object with Generalized Endpoint object Type. IANA is requested to
do the following allocation. The values here are suggested for use
by IANA.
Value Meaning Reference Value Meaning Reference
TBA-6 IPV4-ADDRESS This document (section Section 2.5.2.1) TBA-6 IPV4-ADDRESS This document (section Section 2.5.2.1)
TBA-7 IPV6-ADDRESS This document (section Section 2.5.2.2) TBA-7 IPV6-ADDRESS This document (section Section 2.5.2.2)
TBA-8 UNNUMBERED-ENDPOINT This document (section Section 2.5.2.3) TBA-8 UNNUMBERED-ENDPOINT This document (section Section 2.5.2.3)
TBA-9 LABEL-REQUEST This document (section Section 2.5.2.4) TBA-9 LABEL-REQUEST This document (section Section 2.5.2.4)
TBA-10 LABEL-SET This document (section Section 2.5.2.5) TBA-10 LABEL-SET This document (section Section 2.5.2.5)
TBA-12 PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE This document (section Section 2.8) TBA-12 PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE This document (section Section 2.8)
TBA-1 GMPLS-CAPABILITY This document (section Section 2.1.2) TBA-1 GMPLS-CAPABILITY This document (section Section 2.1.2)
5.4. RP Object Flag Field 5.4. RP Object Flag Field
As described in Section 2.2 new flag are defined in the RP Object As described in Section 2.2 new flag are defined in the RP Object
Flag IANA is requested to make the following Object-Type allocations Flag IANA is requested to make the following Object-Type allocations
from the "RP Object Flag Field" sub-registry. The values here are from the "RP Object Flag Field" sub-registry.
suggested for use by IANA.
Bit Description Reference Bit Description Reference
TBA-13 routing granularity This document, Section 2.2 TBA-13 (2 bits) routing granularity This document, Section 2.2
(suggested bit 17-16) (RG) (RG)
5.5. New PCEP Error Codes 5.5. New PCEP Error Codes
As described in Section 3, new PCEP Error-Types 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.
are suggested for use by IANA.
Error name Reference Error name Reference
Type=4 Not supported object [RFC5440] Type=4 Not supported object [RFC5440]
Value=TBA-14: Bandwidth Object type TBA-2 or TBA-3 not This Document Value=TBA-14: Bandwidth Object type TBA-2 or TBA-3 not This Document
supported. supported.
Value=TBA-15: Unsupported endpoint type in END-POINTS This Document Value=TBA-15: Unsupported endpoint type in END-POINTS This Document
Generalized Endpoint object type Generalized Endpoint object type
Value=TBA-16: Unsupported TLV present in END-POINTS This Document Value=TBA-16: Unsupported TLV present in END-POINTS This Document
Generalized Endpoint object type Generalized Endpoint object type
skipping to change at page 31, line 9 skipping to change at page 30, line 46
Value=TBA-28: Unacceptable request message. This Document Value=TBA-28: Unacceptable request message. This Document
Value=TBA-29: Generalized bandwidth value not This Document Value=TBA-29: Generalized bandwidth value not This Document
supported. supported.
Value=TBA-30: Label Set constraint could not be met. This Document Value=TBA-30: Label Set constraint could not be met. This Document
Value=TBA-31: Label constraint could not be met. This Document Value=TBA-31: Label constraint could not be met. This Document
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.
are suggested for use by IANA.
Bit number TBA-32 - 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-33 - 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-34 - 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 path with the requested that the PCE is not able to provide a path with the requested
skipping to change at page 31, line 37 skipping to change at page 31, line 26
Bit number TBA-36 - 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 path 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-37 - 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 path 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 "IRO
with an entry for the Include Route Object (IRO). Subobjects" 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-38, suggested value 3 Label subobject [RFC3473] TBA-38 Label subobject This Document
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 "XRO
with an entry for the XRO object (Exclude Route Object). Subobjects" 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-39, suggested value 3 Label subobject [RFC3473] TBA-39 Label subobject This Document
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 33, line 5 skipping to change at page 32, line 41
o Message inspection: As in the previous case, knowledge of an o Message inspection: 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. [RFC8253] provides origin cannot be completely trusted. [RFC8253] provides origin
verification, message integrity and replay protection, and ensures verification, message integrity and replay protection, and ensures
that a third party cannot decipher the contents of a message. that a third party cannot decipher the contents of a message.
In order to protect against against the malicious PCE case the PCC In order to protect against the malicious PCE case the PCC SHOULD
SHOULD have policies in place to accept or not the path provided by have policies in place to accept or not the path provided by the PCE.
the PCE. Those policies can verify if the path follows the provided Those policies can verify if the path follows the provided
constraints. In addition Technology specific data plane mechanism constraints. In addition Technology specific data plane mechanism
can be used (following [RFC5920] Section 5.8) to verify the data can be used (following [RFC5920] Section 5.8) to verify the data
plane connectivity and deviation from constraints. plane connectivity and deviation from constraints.
The document [RFC8253] describes the usage of Transport Layer The document [RFC8253] describes the usage of Transport Layer
Security (TLS) to enhance PCEP security. The document describes the Security (TLS) to enhance PCEP security. The document describes the
initiation of the TLS procedures, the TLS handshake mechanisms, the initiation of the TLS procedures, the TLS handshake mechanisms, the
TLS methods for peer authentication, the applicable TLS ciphersuites TLS methods for peer authentication, the applicable TLS ciphersuites
for data exchange, and the handling of errors in the security checks. for data exchange, and the handling of errors in the security checks.
 End of changes. 27 change blocks. 
45 lines changed or deleted 44 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/