draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-14.txt   draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-15.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: October 7, 2019 Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo Expires: April 17, 2020 Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo
F. Zhang, Ed. F. Zhang, Ed.
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
April 5, 2019 October 15, 2019
PCEP extensions for GMPLS PCEP extensions for GMPLS
draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-14 draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-15
Abstract Abstract
The Path Computation Element (PCE) provides path computation A Path Computation Element (PCE) provides path computation functions
functions for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
MPLS (GMPLS) networks. Additional requirements for GMPLS are networks. Additional requirements for GMPLS are identified in
identified in RFC7025. 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
plane to address those requirements. plane to address those requirements.
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 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 October 7, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 17, 2020.
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
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. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. PCEP Requirements for GMPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. PCEP Requirements for GMPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3. Requirements Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.3. Requirements Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3.1. Requirements on Path Computation Request . . . . . . 4 1.3.1. Requirements on Path Computation Request . . . . . . 6
1.3.2. Requirements on Path Computation Response . . . . . . 6 1.3.2. Requirements on Path Computation Response . . . . . . 7
1.4. GMPLS Support and Limitation of Base 1.4. Existing Support for GMPLS in Base PCEP Objects and its
PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2. PCEP Objects and Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2. PCEP Objects and Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.1. GMPLS Capability Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.1. GMPLS Capability Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.1.1. GMPLS Computation TLV in the Existing PCE Discovery 2.1.1. GMPLS Computation TLV in the Existing PCE Discovery
Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.1.2. OPEN Object Extension GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV . . . . . 9 2.1.2. OPEN Object Extension GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV . . . . . 10
2.2. RP Object Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.2. RP Object Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3. BANDWIDTH Object Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.3. BANDWIDTH Object Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.4. LOAD-BALANCING Object Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.4. LOAD-BALANCING Object Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.5. END-POINTS Object Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2.5. END-POINTS Object Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.5.1. Generalized Endpoint Object Type . . . . . . . . . . 15 2.5.1. Generalized Endpoint Object Type . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.5.2. END-POINTS TLV Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 2.5.2. END-POINTS TLV Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.6. IRO Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 2.6. IRO Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.7. XRO Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 2.7. XRO Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.8. LSPA Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 2.8. LSPA Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.9. NO-PATH Object Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 2.9. NO-PATH Object Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.9.1. Extensions to NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV . . . . . . . . . . 24 2.9.1. Extensions to NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV . . . . . . . . . . 27
3. Additional Error-Types and Error-Values Defined . . . . . . . 24 3. Additional Error-Types and Error-Values Defined . . . . . . . 27
4. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 4. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.1. Control of Function through Configuration and Policy . . 26 4.1. Control of Function through Configuration and Policy . . 29
4.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 4.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 4.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.4. Verifying Correct Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 4.4. Verifying Correct Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components 27 4.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components 30
4.6. Impact on Network Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 4.6. Impact on Network Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.1. PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 5.1. PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.2. Endpoint type field in Generalized END-POINTS Object . . 28 5.2. Endpoint type field in Generalized END-POINTS Object . . 31
5.3. New PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 5.3. New PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5.4. RP Object Flag Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 5.4. RP Object Flag Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5.5. New PCEP Error Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 5.5. New PCEP Error Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5.6. New NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 5.6. New NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.7. New Subobject for the Include Route Object . . . . . . . 31 5.7. New Subobject for the Include Route Object . . . . . . . 34
5.8. New Subobject for the Exclude Route Object . . . . . . . 31 5.8. New Subobject for the Exclude Route Object . . . . . . . 34
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 5.9. New GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV Flag Field . . . . . . . . . . . 35
7. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 7. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Appendix A. LOAD-BALANCING Usage for SDH Virtual Concatenation . 39 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Appendix A. LOAD-BALANCING Usage for SDH Virtual Concatenation . 43
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
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, most preexisting PCEP RFCs [RFC5440], both MPLS and GMPLS networks, most preexisting PCEP RFCs [RFC5440],
[RFC5521], [RFC5541], [RFC5520] are focused on MPLS networks, and do [RFC5521], [RFC5541], [RFC5520] are focused on MPLS networks, and do
not cover the wide range of GMPLS networks. This document not cover the wide range of GMPLS networks. This document
complements these RFCs by addressing the extensions required for complements these RFCs by addressing the extensions required for
GMPLS applications and routing requests, for example for OTN and WSON GMPLS applications and routing requests, for example for Optical
networks. Transport Network (OTN) and Wavelength Switched Optical Network
(WSON) networks.
The functional requirements to be considered by the PCEP extensions The functional requirements to be addressed by the PCEP extensions to
to support those application are fully described in [RFC7025] and support these applications are fully described in [RFC7025] and
[RFC7449]. [RFC7449].
1.1. Terminology 1.1. Terminology
This document uses terminologies from the PCE architecture document This document uses terminologies from the PCE architecture document
[RFC4655], the PCEP documents including [RFC5440], [RFC5521], [RFC4655], the PCEP documents including [RFC5440], [RFC5521],
[RFC5541], [RFC5520], [RFC7025] and [RFC7449], and the GMPLS [RFC5541], [RFC5520], [RFC7025] and [RFC7449], and the GMPLS
documents such as [RFC3471], [RFC3473] and so on. Note that it is documents such as [RFC3471], [RFC3473] and so on. Note that it is
expected the reader is familiar with these documents. expected the reader is familiar with these documents. The following
abbreviations are used in this document
ODU ODU Optical Channel Data Unit [G.709-v3]
OTN Optical Transport Network [G.709-v3]
L2SC Layer-2 Switch Capable [RFC3471]
TDM Time-Division Multiplex Capable [RFC3471]
LSC Lambda Switch Capable [RFC3471]
SONET Synchronous Optical Networking
SDH Synchronous Digital Hierarchy
PCC Path Computation Client
RSVP-TE Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering
LSP Label Switched Path
TE-LSP Traffic Engineering LSP
IRO Include Route Object
ERO Explicit Route Object
XRO eXclude Route Object
RRO Record Route Object
LSPA LSP Attribute
SRLG Shared Risk Link Group
NVC Number of Virtual Components [RFC4328][RFC4606]
NCC Number of Contiguous Components [RFC4328][RFC4606]
MT Multiplier [RFC4328][RFC4606]
RCC Requested Contiguous Concatenation [RFC4606]
PCReq Path Computation Request [RFC5440]
PCRep Path Computation Reply [RFC5440]
MEF Metro Ethernet Forum
SSON Spectrum-Switched Optical Network
P2MP Point to Multi-Point
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
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. This document assumes a significant support GMPLS TE-LSPs. This document assumes a significant
familiarity with [RFC7025] and existing PCEP extension. As a short familiarity with [RFC7025] and existing PCEP extensions. As a short
overview, those requirements can be broken down in the following overview, those requirements can be broken down into the following
categories. categories.
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).
o Data flow specific traffic parameters, which are technology o Data flow specific traffic parameters, which are technology
specific. For instance, in SDH/SONET and G.709 OTN networks the specific. For instance, in SDH/SONET and [G.709-v3] OTN networks
Concatenation Type and the Concatenation Number have an influence the Concatenation Type and the Concatenation Number have an
on the switched data and on which link it can be supported influence on the switched data and on which link it can be
supported
o Support for asymmetric bandwidth requests. o Support for asymmetric bandwidth requests.
o Support for unnumbered interface identifiers, as defined in o Support for unnumbered interface identifiers, as defined in
[RFC3477] [RFC3477]
o Label information and technology specific label(s) such as o Label information and technology specific label(s) such as
wavelength labels as defined in [RFC6205]. A PCC should also be wavelength labels as defined in [RFC6205]. A PCC should also be
able to specify a Label restriction similar to the one supported able to specify a label restriction similar to the one supported
by RSVP-TE (Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering). by RSVP-TE in [RFC3473].
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.
The requirements of [RFC7025] apply to several objects conveyed by The requirements of [RFC7025] apply to several objects conveyed by
PCEP, this is described in Section 1.3. Some of the requirements of PCEP, this is described in Section 1.3. Some of the requirements of
[RFC7025] are already supported in existing documents, as described [RFC7025] are already supported in existing documents, as described
in Section 1.4. in Section 1.4.
skipping to change at page 5, line 15 skipping to change at page 6, line 24
addressed in in [RFC8282] which addressing the TE-LSP itself, addressed in in [RFC8282] which addressing the TE-LSP itself,
but the TE-LSP endpoints are not addressed. but the TE-LSP endpoints are not addressed.
(2) Encoding type: see (1). (2) Encoding type: see (1).
(3) Signal type: see (1). (3) Signal type: see (1).
(4) Concatenation type: this parameter and the Concatenation Number (4) Concatenation type: this parameter and the Concatenation Number
(5) are specific to some TDM (SDH and ODU) switching (5) are specific to some TDM (SDH and ODU) switching
technology. They MUST be described together and are used to technology. They MUST be described together and are used to
derive the requested resource allocation for the TE-LSP. Its derive the requested resource allocation for the TE-LSP. It is
scoped to the TE-LSP and is related to the BANDWIDTH object in scoped to the TE-LSP and is related to the [RFC5440] BANDWIDTH
MPLS networks. object in MPLS networks. See [RFC4606] and [RFC4328] about
concatenation information.
(5) Concatenation number: see (4). (5) Concatenation number: see (4).
(6) Technology-specific label(s): as described in [RFC3471] the (6) Technology-specific label(s): as described in [RFC3471] the
GMPLS Labels are specific to each switching technology. They GMPLS Labels are specific to each switching technology. They
can be specified on each link and also on the TE-LSP endpoints can be specified on each link and also on the TE-LSP endpoints
, in WSON networks for instance, as described in [RFC6163]. , in WSON networks for instance, as described in [RFC6163].
The label restriction can apply to endpoints and on each hop, The label restriction can apply to endpoints and on each hop,
the related PCEP objects are END-POINTS, IRO, XRO and RRO. the related PCEP objects are END-POINTS, IRO, XRO and RRO.
skipping to change at page 6, line 10 skipping to change at page 7, line 20
the ERO. the ERO.
(13) Support of label restrictions in the requests/responses: This (13) Support of label restrictions in the requests/responses: This
is described in (6). is described in (6).
1.3.2. Requirements on Path Computation Response 1.3.2. Requirements on Path Computation Response
(1) Path computation with concatenation: This is related to Path (1) Path computation with concatenation: This is related to Path
Computation request requirement (4). In addition there is a Computation request requirement (4). In addition there is a
specific type of concatenation called virtual concatenation that specific type of concatenation called virtual concatenation that
allows different routes to be used between the endpoints. Its allows different routes to be used between the endpoints. It is
similar to the semantic and scope of the LOAD-BALANCING in MPLS similar to the semantic and scope of the LOAD-BALANCING in MPLS
networks. networks.
(2) Label constraint: The PCE should be able to include Labels in (2) Label constraint: The PCE should be able to include Labels in
the path returned to the PCC, the related object is the ERO the path returned to the PCC, the related object is the ERO
object. object.
(3) Roles of the routes: as defined in [RFC4872], this is applicable (3) Roles of the routes: as defined in [RFC4872], this is applicable
to the TE-LSP and is carried in association with the E2E path to the TE-LSP and is carried in association with the E2E path
protection type. protection type.
1.4. GMPLS Support and Limitation of Base PCEP Objects 1.4. Existing Support for GMPLS in Base PCEP Objects and its
Limitations
The support for requirements [RFC7025] is summarized in Table 1 and The support provided by specifications in [RFC8282] and [RFC5440] for
Table 2 the requirements listed in [RFC7025] is summarized in Table 1 and
Table 2. In some cases the support may not be complete, as noted,
and additional support need to be provided in this specification.
Req. Name Support Req. Name Support
1 Switching capability/type SWITCH-LAYER 1 Switching capability/type SWITCH-LAYER
(RFC8282) (RFC8282)
2 Encoding type SWITCH-LAYER 2 Encoding type SWITCH-LAYER
(RFC8282) (RFC8282)
3 Signal type SWITCH-LAYER 3 Signal type SWITCH-LAYER
(RFC8282) (RFC8282)
4 Concatenation type No 4 Concatenation type No
5 Concatenation number No 5 Concatenation number No
skipping to change at page 7, line 28 skipping to change at page 9, line 6
o END-POINTS: related to requirements (1, 2, 3, 6, 10 and 13). The o END-POINTS: related to requirements (1, 2, 3, 6, 10 and 13). The
object only supports numbered endpoints. The context specifies object only supports numbered endpoints. The context specifies
whether they are node identifiers or numbered interfaces. whether they are node identifiers or numbered interfaces.
o BANDWIDTH: related to requirements (4, 5 and 11). The data rate o BANDWIDTH: related to requirements (4, 5 and 11). The data rate
is encoded in the bandwidth object (as IEEE 32 bit float). is encoded in the bandwidth object (as IEEE 32 bit float).
[RFC5440] does not include the ability to convey an encoding [RFC5440] does not include the ability to convey an encoding
proper to all GMPLS-controlled networks. proper to all GMPLS-controlled networks.
o ERO: related to requirements (6, 10, 12 and 13). The ERO content o ERO: related to requirements (6, 10, 12 and 13). The ERO content
is defined in RSVP and supports all the requirements already. is defined in RSVP in [RFC3209][RFC3473][RFC3477][RFC7570] and
supports all the requirements already.
o LSPA: related to requirements (7, 8 and 9). The requirement 8 o LSPA: related to requirements (7, 8 and 9). The requirement 8
(setup and holding priorities) is already supported. (setup and holding priorities) is already supported.
From [RFC5521]: From [RFC5521]:
o XRO object: o XRO:
* This object allows excluding (strict or not) resources and is * This object allows excluding (strict or not) resources and is
related to requirements (6, 10 and 13). It also includes the related to requirements (6, 10 and 13). It also includes the
requested diversity (node, link or SRLG). 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
path 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 [RFC8282]: From [RFC8282]:
o SWITCH-LAYER: address requirements (1, 2 and 3) for the TE-LSP and o SWITCH-LAYER: addresses requirements (1, 2 and 3) for the TE-LSP
indicates which layer(s) should be considered, can be used to and indicates which layer(s) should be considered. The object can
represent the RSVP-TE generalized label request. It does not be used to represent the RSVP-TE generalized label request. It
address the endpoints case of requirements (1, 2 and 3). does not address the endpoints case of requirements (1, 2 and 3).
o REQ-ADAP-CAP: indicates the adaptation capabilities requested, can o REQ-ADAP-CAP: indicates the adaptation capabilities requested, can
also be used for the endpoints in case of mono-layer computation also be used for the endpoints in case of mono-layer computation
The gaps in functional coverage of the base PCEP objects are: The gaps in functional coverage of the base PCEP objects 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 (requirements 4 and 5, for example details of the traffic request (requirements 4 and 5, for example
NVC, multiplier) in the context of GMPLS networks, for instance NVC, multiplier) in the context of GMPLS networks, for instance
TDM or OTN networks. TDM or OTN networks.
skipping to change at page 8, line 26 skipping to change at page 10, line 5
interface, nor potential label restrictions on the interface interface, nor potential label restrictions on the interface
(requirements 6, 10 and 13). Those parameters are of interest in (requirements 6, 10 and 13). Those parameters are of interest in
case of switching constraints. case of switching constraints.
The Include/eXclude Route Objects (IRO/XRO) do not allow the The Include/eXclude Route Objects (IRO/XRO) do not allow the
inclusion/exclusion of labels (requirements 6, 10 and 13). inclusion/exclusion of labels (requirements 6, 10 and 13).
Base attributes do not allow expressing the requested link Base attributes do not allow expressing the requested link
protection level and/or the end-to-end protection attributes. protection level and/or the end-to-end protection attributes.
The PCEP extensions defined later in this document to cover the gap The PCEP extensions defined later in this document to cover the gaps
are: are:
Two new object types are introduced for the BANDWIDTH object Two new object types are defined for the BANDWIDTH object
(Generalized bandwidth, Generalized bandwidth of existing TE-LSP (Generalized bandwidth, Generalized bandwidth of existing 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 defined 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 defined 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.
The Label TLV is now allowed in the IRO and XRO objects. The Label TLV is now allowed in the 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.
2. PCEP Objects and Extensions 2. PCEP Objects and Extensions
skipping to change at page 9, line 12 skipping to change at page 10, line 40
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 is optional and can be used
GMPLS-capable PCEs. to detect GMPLS-capable PCEs. PCEs that set the bit to indicate
support of GMPLS path computation MUST follow the procedures in
Section 2.1.2 to further qualify the level of support during PCEP
session establishment.
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 MUST be able to
to discover the other peer GMPLS capabilities during the Open message 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 GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV for use in the OPEN
the OPEN object to negotiate the GMPLS capability. The inclusion of object to negotiate the GMPLS capability. The inclusion of this TLV
this TLV in the OPEN message indicates that the PCC/PCE support the in the Open message indicates that the PCEP speaker support the PCEP
PCEP extensions defined in the document. A PCE that is able to extensions defined in the document. A PCEP speaker that is able to
support the GMPLS extensions defined in this document SHOULD include support the GMPLS extensions defined in this document MUST include
the GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV on the OPEN message. If the PCE does not the GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV on the Open message. If one of the PCEP
include the GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV in the OPEN message and the PCC does peers does not include the GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV in the Open message,
include the TLV, it is RECOMMENDED that the PCC indicates a mismatch the peers MUST NOT make use of the objects and TLVs defined in this
of capabilities. Moreover, in case that the PCC does not receive the document.
GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV it is RECOMMENDED that the PCC does not make use
of the objects and TLVs defined in this document. If the PCEP speaker supports the extensions of this specification but
did not advertise the GMPLS-CAPABILITY capability, upon receipt of a
message from the PCE including an extension defined in this document,
it MUST generate a PCEP Error (PCErr) with Error-Type=10 (Reception
of an invalid object) and Error-value=TBA-42 (Missing GMPLS-
CAPABILITY TLV), and it SHOULD terminate the PCEP session.
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=TBA-1 | 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 labels are encoded in the ERO. As a consequence, where the outgoing labels are encoded in the ERO. As a consequence,
the PCE can provide such labels directly in the path ERO. Depending the PCE can provide such labels directly in the path ERO. Depending
on policies or switching layer, it can be necessary for the PCC to on policies or switching layer, it can be necessary for the PCC to
use explicit label control or expect explicit link, thus it needs to use explicit label control or explicit link ids, thus it needs to
indicate in the PCReq which granularity it is expecting in the ERO. indicate in the PCReq which granularity it is expecting in the ERO.
This corresponds to requirement 12 of [RFC7025]. The possible This corresponds to requirement 12 of [RFC7025]. The possible
granularities can be node, link or label. The granularities are granularities can be node, link or label. The granularities are
inter-dependent, in the sense that link granularity implies the inter-dependent, in the sense that link granularity implies the
presence of node information in the ERO; similarly, a label presence of node information in the ERO; similarly, a label
granularity implies that the ERO contains node, link and 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
skipping to change at page 10, line 44 skipping to change at page 12, line 31
backward-compatible with [RFC5440]: the value sent by an backward-compatible with [RFC5440]: the value sent by an
implementation (PCC or PCE) not supporting it will indicate a implementation (PCC or PCE) not supporting it will indicate a
reserved value. reserved value.
2.3. BANDWIDTH Object Extensions 2.3. BANDWIDTH Object Extensions
From [RFC5440] the object carrying the requested size for the TE-LSP From [RFC5440] the object carrying the requested size for the TE-LSP
is the BANDWIDTH object. The object types 1 and 2 defined in is the BANDWIDTH object. The object types 1 and 2 defined in
[RFC5440] do not describe enough information to describe the TE-LSP [RFC5440] do not describe enough information to describe the TE-LSP
bandwidth in GMPLS networks. The BANDWIDTH object encoding has to be bandwidth in GMPLS networks. The BANDWIDTH object encoding has to be
extended to allow to express the bandwidth as described in [RFC7025]. extended to allow the object to express the bandwidth as described in
RSVP-TE extensions for GMPLS provide a set of encoding allowing such [RFC7025]. RSVP-TE extensions for GMPLS provide a set of encodings
representation in an unambiguous way, this is encoded in the RSVP-TE allowing such representation in an unambiguous way, this is encoded
TSpec and FlowSpec objects. This document extends the BANDWIDTH in the RSVP-TE TSpec and FlowSpec objects. This document extends the
object with new object types reusing the RSVP-TE encoding. BANDWIDTH object with new object types reusing the RSVP-TE encoding.
The following possibilities are supported by the extended 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 corresponds to requirements 3, 4, 5 and 11 of [RFC7025] section This corresponds to requirements 3, 4, 5 and 11 of [RFC7025]
3.1. Section 3.1.
This document defines two Object Types for the BANDWIDTH object: This document defines two Object Types for the BANDWIDTH object:
TBA-2 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
body 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 |
skipping to change at page 12, line 5 skipping to change at page 13, line 40
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 RSVP-TE SENDER_TSPEC (Object Class The Bw Spec Type corresponds to the RSVP-TE SENDER_TSPEC (Object
12) C-Types Class 12) C-Types
The encoding of the fields 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. It is to be
noted that the RSVP-TE traffic specification MAY also include TLVs
(e.g., [RFC6003] different from the PCEP TLVs).
Object Type Name Reference Bw Spec 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] 8 SSON [RFC7792]
Table 4: Generalized Bandwidth and Reverse Generalized Bandwidth Table 4: Generalized Bandwidth and Reverse Generalized Bandwidth
field encoding field encoding
When a PCC requests a bi-directional path with symmetric bandwidth, When a PCC requests a bi-directional path with symmetric bandwidth,
it SHOULD only specify the Generalized Bandwidth field, and set the it SHOULD only specify the Generalized Bandwidth field, and set the
Reverse Bandwidth Spec Length to 0. When a PCC needs to request a Reverse Bandwidth Spec Length to 0. When a PCC needs to request a
bi-directional path with asymmetric bandwidth, it SHOULD specify the bi-directional path with asymmetric bandwidth, it SHOULD specify the
different bandwidth in the forward and reverse directions with a different bandwidth in the forward and reverse directions with a
Generalized Bandwidth and Reverse Generalized Bandwidth fields. Generalized Bandwidth and Reverse Generalized Bandwidth fields.
The procedure 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 the previously
to indicate the existing TE-LSP bandwidth. A PCC that requested a specified object type 2 to indicate the existing TE-LSP bandwidth
path with a BANDWIDTH object of object type 1 SHOULD use object type originally specified with object type TBA-2. A PCC that requested a
2 to represent the existing TE-LSP BANDWIDTH. path with a BANDWIDTH object of object type 1 MUST use object type 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 at
maximum Max-LSP TE-LSP having in total the bandwidth specified in most Max-LSP TE-LSP having in total the bandwidth specified in
BANDWIDTH, each TE-LSP having a minimum of bandwidth. The LOAD- BANDWIDTH, with each TE-LSP having at least a specified minimum
BALANCING follows the bandwidth encoding of the BANDWIDTH object, and bandwidth. The LOAD-BALANCING follows the bandwidth encoding of the
thus the existing definition from [RFC5440] does not describe enough BANDWIDTH object, and thus the existing definition from [RFC5440]
details for the bandwidth specification expected by GMPLS. does not describe enough details for the bandwidth specification
expected by GMPLS.
Similarly to the BANDWIDTH object, a new object type is defined to Similarly to the BANDWIDTH object, a new object type is defined to
allow a PCC to represent the bandwidth types supported by GMPLS allow a PCC to represent the bandwidth types supported by GMPLS
networks. 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
skipping to change at page 13, line 35 skipping to change at page 15, line 33
| 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 Spec field. It is to be noted that the RSVP-TE traffic Bandwidth Spec field. The length MUST be strictly greater than 0.
specification MAY also include TLV different from the PCEP TLVs. The
length MUST be strictly greater than 0.
Reverse Bandwidth Spec Length (16 bits): the total length of the Min Reverse Bandwidth Spec Length (16 bits): the total length of the Min
Reverse Bandwidth Spec field. 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 Bw Spec Type (8 bits): the bandwidth specification type, it
corresponds to the RSVP-TE SENDER_TSPEC (Object Class 12) C-Types. corresponds to the RSVP-TE SENDER_TSPEC (Object Class 12) C-Types.
Max-LSP (8 bits): maximum number of TE-LSPs in the set. Max-LSP (8 bits): maximum number of TE-LSPs in the set.
Min Bandwidth Spec (variable): specifies the minimum bandwidth Min Bandwidth Spec (variable): specifies the minimum bandwidth
specification of each element of the TE-LSP set. specification of each element of the TE-LSP set.
Min Reverse Bandwidth Spec (variable): specifies the minimum reverse Min Reverse Bandwidth Spec (variable): specifies the minimum reverse
bandwidth specification of each element of the TE-LSP set. bandwidth specification of each element of the TE-LSP set.
The encoding of the fields Min Bandwidth Spec and Min Reverse 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 Bandwidth Spec is the same as in RSVP-TE SENDER_TSPEC object, it can
be found in Table 4 from Section 2.3. be found in Table 4 from Section 2.3 from this document.
When a PCC requests a bi-directional path with symmetric bandwidth When a PCC requests a bi-directional path with symmetric bandwidth
while specifying load balancing constraints it SHOULD specify the Min while specifying load balancing constraints it SHOULD specify the Min
Bandwidth Spec field, and set the Reverse Bandwidth Spec Length to 0. Bandwidth Spec field, and set the Reverse Bandwidth Spec Length to 0.
When a PCC needs to request a bi-directional path with asymmetric When a PCC needs to request a bi-directional path with asymmetric
bandwidth while specifying load balancing constraints, it MUST bandwidth while specifying load balancing constraints, it MUST
specify the different bandwidth in forward and reverse directions specify the different bandwidth in forward and reverse directions
through a Min Bandwidth Spec and Min Reverse Bandwidth Spec fields. through a Min Bandwidth Spec and Min Reverse Bandwidth Spec 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 with at most N TE-LSPs
their generalized bandwidth is X, the maximum number of TE-LSPs is N, so that it can carry generalized bandwidth X , each TE-LSP must at
and each TE-LSP must at least have a bandwidth of B, it inserts a least transport bandwidth B, it inserts a BANDWIDTH object specifying
BANDWIDTH object specifying X as the required bandwidth and a LOAD- X as the required bandwidth and a LOAD-BALANCING object with the Max-
BALANCING object with the Max-LSP and Min Bandwidth Spec fields set LSP and Min Bandwidth Spec fields set to N and B, respectively. When
to N and B, respectively. the BANDWIDTH and Min Bandwidth Spec can be summarized as scalars,
the sum of all TE-LSPs bandwith in the set is greater than X. The
mapping of X over N path with (at least) bandwidth B is technology
and possibly node specific. Each standard definition of the
transport technology is defining those mappings and are not repeated
in this document. A simplified example for SDH is described in
Appendix A
In all other cases, including for technologies based on statistical
multiplexing (e.g., InterServ, Ethernet), the exact bandwidth
management (e.g., Ethernet's Excessive Rate) is left to the PCE's
policies, according to the operator's configuration. If required,
further documents may introduce a new mechanism to finely express
complex load balancing policies within PCEP.
The BANDWITH and LOAD-BALANCING Bw Spec Type can be different
depending on the endpoint nodes architecture. When the PCE is not
able to handle those two Bw Spec Type, it MUST return a NO-PATH with
the bit "LOAD-BALANCING could not be performed with the bandwidth
constraits " set in the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV.
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.
skipping to change at page 14, line 50 skipping to change at page 17, line 16
o Specification of unnumbered endpoints type as seen in GMPLS o Specification of unnumbered endpoints type as seen in GMPLS
networks. networks.
The Object encoding is described in the following sections. The Object encoding is described in the following sections.
In path computation within a GMPLS context the endpoints can: In path computation within a GMPLS context the endpoints can:
o Be unnumbered as described in [RFC3477]. o Be unnumbered as described in [RFC3477].
o Have labels associated to them, specifying a set of constraints in o Have labels associated to them, specifying a set of constraints on
the allocation of labels. the allocation of labels.
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.
skipping to change at page 15, line 38 skipping to change at page 17, line 52
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.
The Label set TLV is used to restrict or suggest the label allocation 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 in the PCE. This TLV expresses the set of restrictions which may
apply to signaling. Label restriction support can be an explicit or apply to signaling. Label restriction support can be an explicit or
a suggested value (Label set describing one label, with the L bit a suggested value (Label set describing one label, with the L bit
respectively cleared or set), mandatory range restrictions (Label set respectively cleared or set), mandatory range restrictions (Label set
with L bit cleared) and optional range restriction (Label set with L with L bit cleared) and optional range restriction (Label set with L
bit set). Endpoints label restriction may not be part of the RRO or bit set). Endpoints label restriction may not be part of the RRO or
IRO, they can be included when following [RFC4003] in signaling for IRO. They can be included when following [RFC4003] in signaling for
egress endpoint, but ingress endpoint properties can be local to the egress endpoint, but ingress endpoint properties can be local to the
PCC and not signaled. To support this case the label set allows to PCC and not signaled. To support this case the label set allows
indicate which label are used in case of reoptimization. The label indication which label are used in case of reoptimization. The label
range restrictions are valid in GMPLS-controlled networks, either by range restrictions are valid in GMPLS-controlled networks, either by
PCC policy or depending on the switching technology used, for PCC policy or depending on the switching technology used, for
instance on given Ethernet or ODU equipment having limited hardware instance on given Ethernet or ODU equipment having limited hardware
capabilities restricting the label range. Label set restriction also capabilities restricting the label range. Label set restriction also
applies to WSON networks where the optical senders and receivers are applies to WSON networks where the optical senders and receivers are
limited in their frequency tunability ranges, restricting then in limited in their frequency tunability ranges, consequently
GMPLS the possible label ranges on the interface. The END-POINTS restricting the possible label ranges on the interface in GMPLS. The
Object with Generalized Endpoint object type is encoded as follow: 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 ~
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 16, line 41 skipping to change at page 19, line 9
left unchanged left unchanged
5-244 Reserved 5-244 Reserved
245-255 Experimental range 245-255 Experimental range
Table 5: Generalized Endpoint endpoint types Table 5: Generalized Endpoint endpoint types
The Endpoint Type is used to cover both point-to-point and different The Endpoint Type is used to cover both point-to-point and different
point-to-multipoint endpoints. A PCE may accept only Endpoint Type point-to-multipoint endpoints. A PCE may accept only Endpoint Type
0: Endpoint Types 1-4 apply if the PCE implementation supports P2MP 0: Endpoint Types 1-4 apply if the PCE implementation supports P2MP
path calculation. A PCE not supporting a given Endpoint Type SHOULD path calculation. A PCE not supporting a given Endpoint Type SHOULD
respond with a PCErr with Error Type 4, Value TBD "Unsupported respond with a PCErr with Error-Type=4 (Not supported object), Error-
endpoint type in END-POINTS Generalized Endpoint object type". As value=TBA-15 (Unsupported endpoint type in END-POINTS Generalized
per [RFC5440], a PCE unable to process Generalized Endpoints may Endpoint object type). As per [RFC5440], a PCE unable to process
respond with Error Type 3 or 4, Value 2. The TLVs present in the Generalized Endpoints may respond with Error-Type=3 (Unknown Object),
request object body MUST follow the following [RFC5511] grammar: Error-value=2 (Unrecognized object Type) or Error-Type=4 (Not
supported object), Error-value=2 (Not supported object Type). 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> ::=
<endpoint> [<endpoint-restriction-list>] <endpoint> [<endpoint-restriction-list>]
<endpoint> [<endpoint-restriction-list>] <endpoint> [<endpoint-restriction-list>]
<p2mp-endpoints> ::= <p2mp-endpoints> ::=
<endpoint> [<endpoint-restriction-list>] <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-Point, 2 endpoint TLVs MUST be present in
be present in the message and each represents a leave, exact meaning the message. The first endpoint is the source and the second is the
depend on the endpoint type defined of the object. destination.
For endpoint type Point-to-Multipoint, several END-POINT objects MAY
be present in the message and the exact meaning depending on the
endpoint type defined for the object. The first endpoint TLV is the
root and other endpoints TLVs are the leaves. The root endpoint MUST
be the same for all END-POINTS objects. If the root endpoint is not
the same for all END-POINTS, a PCErr with Error-Type=17 (P2MP END-
POINTS Error), Error-value=4 (The PCE cannot satisfy the request due
to inconsistent END-POINTS) MUST be returned. The procedure defined
in [RFC8306] Section 3.10 also apply to the Generalized Endpoint with
Point-to-Multipoint endpoint types.
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>]
skipping to change at page 17, line 43 skipping to change at page 20, line 26
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
NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV. The response SHOULD include the END-POINTS NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV. The response SHOULD include the END-POINTS
object with only the unsupported TLV(s). object with only the unsupported TLV(s).
A PCE MAY support either or both of the LABEL-REQUEST and LABEL-SET A PCE MAY support either or both of the LABEL-REQUEST and LABEL-SET
TLVs. If a PCE finds a non-supported TLV in the END-POINTS the PCE TLVs. If a PCE finds a non-supported TLV in the END-POINTS the PCE
MUST respond with a PCErr message with Error Type 4 error MUST respond with a PCErr message with Error-Type=4 (Not supported
value="Unsupported TLV present in END-POINTS Generalized Endpoint object) and Error-value=TBA-15 (Unsupported TLV present in END-POINTS
object type" and the message SHOULD include the END-POINTS object in Generalized Endpoint object type) and the message SHOULD include the
the response with only the endpoint and endpoint restriction TLV it END-POINTS object in the response with only the endpoint and endpoint
did not understand. A PCE supporting those TLVs but not being able restriction TLV it did not understand. A PCE supporting those TLVs
to fulfil the label restriction MUST send a response with a NO-PATH but not being able to fulfil the label restriction MUST send a
object which has the bit "No endpoint label resource" or "No endpoint response with a NO-PATH object which has the bit "No endpoint label
label resource in range" set in the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV. The response resource" or "No endpoint label resource in range" set in the NO-
SHOULD include an END-POINTS object containing only the TLV(s) PATH-VECTOR TLV. The response SHOULD include an END-POINTS object
related to the constraints the PCE could not meet. containing only the TLV(s) related to the constraints the PCE could
not meet.
2.5.2. END-POINTS TLV 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. For the Generalized Endpoint Object Type the
MUST be followed according to the object type definition. TLVs MUST follow the ordering defined in Section 2.5.1.
2.5.2.1. IPV4-ADDRESS TLV 2.5.2.1. IPV4-ADDRESS TLV
This TLV represents 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. returned, as described in Section 2.5.1.
2.5.2.2. IPV6-ADDRESS TLV 2.5.2.2. IPV6-ADDRESS TLV
This TLV represents 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. returned, as described in Section 2.5.1.
2.5.2.3. UNNUMBERED-ENDPOINT TLV 2.5.2.3. UNNUMBERED-ENDPOINT TLV
This TLV represents 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 follows (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. returned, as described in Section 2.5.1.
2.5.2.4. LABEL-REQUEST TLV 2.5.2.4. LABEL-REQUEST TLV
The LABEL-REQUEST TLV indicates the switching capability and encoding The LABEL-REQUEST TLV indicates the switching capability and encoding
type of the following label restriction list for the endpoint. Its type of the following label restriction list for the endpoint. The
format and encoding is the same as described in [RFC3471] Section 3.1 value format and encoding is the same as described in [RFC3471]
Generalized label request. The LABEL-REQUEST TLV use TLV-Type=TBA-9. Section 3.1 Generalized label request. The LABEL-REQUEST TLV uses
The Encoding Type indicates the encoding type, e.g., SONET/SDH/GigE TLV-Type=TBA-9. The Encoding Type indicates the encoding type, e.g.,
etc., of the LSP with which the data is associated. The Switching SONET/SDH/GigE etc., of the LSP with which the data is associated.
type indicates the type of switching that is being requested on the The Switching type indicates the type of switching that is being
endpoint. G-PID identifies the payload. This TLV and the following requested on the endpoint. G-PID identifies the payload. This TLV
one are introduced to satisfy requirement 13 of [RFC7025] for the and the following one are defined to satisfy requirement 13 of
endpoint. It is not directly related to the TE-LSP label request, [RFC7025] for the endpoint. It is not directly related to the TE-LSP
which is expressed by the SWITCH-LAYER object. label request, 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 GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH and
to be coherent, the endpoint labels could be different (supporting a SWITCH-LAYER need to be coherent, the endpoint labels could be
different Tspec). Hence the label restrictions include a Generalized different (supporting a different LABEL-REQUEST). Hence the label
label request in order to interpret the labels. This TLV MAY be restrictions include a Generalized label request in order to
ignored, in which case a PCRep with NO-PATH SHOULD be responded, as interpret the labels. This TLV MAY be ignored, in which case a PCRep
described in Section 2.5.1. with NO-PATH SHOULD be returned, as described in Section 2.5.1.
2.5.2.5. Labels TLV 2.5.2.5. LABEL-SET 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 [RFC8282] can be used switching type. The REQ-ADAP-CAP object from [RFC8282] can be used
in case of mono-layer request, however in case of multilayer it is in case of mono-layer request, however in case of multilayer it is
possible to have more than one object, so it is better to have a possible to have more than one object, so it is better to have a
dedicated TLV for the label and label request. Those TLV MAY be dedicated TLV for the label and label request. These TLVs MAY be
ignored, in which case a response with NO-PATH SHOULD be responded, ignored, in which case a response with NO-PATH SHOULD be returned, as
as described in Section 2.5.1. TLVs are encoded as follow (following described in Section 2.5.1. TLVs are encoded as follows (following
[RFC5440]): [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, O bit and L bit. The L bit is used to represent a suggested bit, O bit and L bit. The L bit is used to represent a suggested
set of label, following the semantic of SUGGESTED_LABEL defined by set of labels, following the semantic of SUGGESTED_LABEL defined
[RFC3471]. The U bit is set for upstream direction in case of by [RFC3471].
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 |L|O|U| Label Type | | Action | Reserved |L|O|U| Label Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Subchannel 1 | | Subchannel 1 |
| ... | | ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: : : : : :
: : : : : :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Subchannel N | | Subchannel N |
| ... | | ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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. If the L bit is cleared, the label allocated on the on an interface. If the L bit is cleared, the label allocated on the
first endpoint MUST be within the label set range. The action first endpoint MUST be within the label set range. The action
parameter in the Label set indicates the type of list provided. parameter in the Label set indicates the type of list provided.
Those parameters are described by [RFC3471] section 3.5.1. These parameters are described by [RFC3471] Section 3.5.1.
The U, O and L 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: The U bit is set for upstream (revers)
reverse direction direction in case of bidirectional LSP.
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 (previously
optimization. The R bit of the RP object MUST be set to 1. If the allocated) label in case of re-optimization. The R bit of the RP
L bit is set, this bit SHOULD be set to 0 and ignored on receipt. object MUST be set to 1. If the L bit is set, this bit SHOULD be
When this bit is set, the Action field MUST be set to 0 (Inclusive set to 0 and ignored on receipt. When this bit is set, the Action
List) and the Label Set MUST contain one subchannel. field MUST be set to 0 (Inclusive List) and the Label Set MUST
contain one subchannel.
L: Loose Label: set when the TLV indicates to the PCE a set of 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 preferred (ordered) labels to be used. The PCE MAY use those
labels for label allocation. labels for label allocation.
Labels TLV bits Labels TLV bits
Several LABEL_SET TLVs MAY be present with the O bit cleared, Several LABEL_SET TLVs MAY be present with the O bit cleared,
LABEL_SET TLVs with L bit set can be combined with a LABEL_SET TLV LABEL_SET TLVs with L bit set can be combined with a LABEL_SET TLV
with L bit cleared. At most 2 LABEL_SET TLVs MUST be present with with L bit cleared. At most 2 LABEL_SET TLVs MAY be present with the
the O bit set, at most one with the U bit set and at most one with O bit set, with at most one of these having the U bit set and at most
the U bit cleared. For a given U bit value, if more than one one of these having the U bit cleared. For a given U bit value, if
LABEL_SET TLV with the O bit set is present, the first TLV MUST be more than one LABEL_SET TLV with the O bit set is present, the first
processed and the following TLVs with the same U and O bit MUST be TLV MUST be processed and the following TLVs with the same U and O
ignored. bit MUST be ignored.
A LABEL-SET TLV with the O and L bit set MUST trigger a PCErr message 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 with Error-Type=10 (Reception of an invalid object) Error-
LABEL-SET TLV present with O and L bit set". value=TBA-25 (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=10 (Reception of an invalid object)
error value="Wrong LABEL-SET TLV present with O bit and wrong Error-value=TBA-26 (Wrong LABEL-SET TLV present with O bit and wrong
format". 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, otherwise a PCErr message MUST be sent with error object MUST be set, otherwise a PCErr message MUST be sent with
type="Reception of an invalid object" error value="LABEL-SET TLV Error-Type=10 (Reception of an invalid object) Error-value=TBA-24
present with O bit set but without R bit set in RP". (LABEL-SET TLV 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 the inclusion of a label definition. In
fulfill requirement 13 of [RFC7025] the IRO needs to support the new order to fulfill requirement 13 of [RFC7025] the IRO needs to support
subobject type as defined in [RFC3473]: the new subobject type as defined in [RFC3473]:
Type Sub-object Type Sub-object
TBA-38 LABEL TBA-38 LABEL
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 (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. 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 is able to allocate labels (e.g. via explicit label If the PCE is able to allocate labels (e.g., via explicit label
control) the PCE MUST allocate one label from within the set of label control) the PCE MUST allocate one label from within the set of label
values for the given link. If the PCE does not assign labels, then values for the given link. If the PCE does not assign labels, then
it sends a response with a NO-PATH object, containing a NO-PATH- it sends a response with a NO-PATH object, containing a NO-PATH-
VECTOR TLV with 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 the exclusion of certain labels
to fulfill requirement 13 of [RFC7025] section 3.1, the PCEP's XRO ([RFC6001]). In order to fulfill requirement 13 of [RFC7025]
needs to support a new subobject to enable label exclusion. Section 3.1, the PCEP's XRO 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-39: 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=TBA-39 | Length |U| Reserved | C-Type | |X| Type=TBA-39 | Length |U| Reserved | C-Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 22, line 35 skipping to change at page 25, line 33
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.
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] Section 6.1.
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 [RFC3473].
Label: 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 (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. A new context, this also includes the protection state information. A new
TLV is introduced to fulfill requirement 7 of [RFC7025] section 3.1 TLV is defined to fulfil requirement 7 of [RFC7025] Section 3.1 and
and requirement 3 of [RFC7025] section 3.2. This TLV contains the requirement 3 of [RFC7025] Section 3.2. This TLV contains the
information of the PROTECTION object defined by [RFC4872] and can be information of the PROTECTION object defined by [RFC4872] and can 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] Section 14, [RFC4873]
Section 6.1.
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. If ignored by This TLV is OPTIONAL and MAY be ignored by the PCE. If ignored by
the PCE, it MUST NOT include the TLV in the LSPA 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
MAY carries the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV that specifies more information on MAY carry 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 additional constraints that led to the failure there could be some additional constraints that led to the failure
like protection mismatch, lack of resources, and so on. Few new such as protection mismatch, lack of resources, and so on. Several
flags have been introduced in the 32-bit flag field of the NO-PATH- new flags have been defined in the 32-bit flag field of the NO-PATH-
VECTOR TLV and no modifications have been made in the NO-PATH object. VECTOR TLV but no modifications have been made in the NO-PATH 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-32 - 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.
skipping to change at page 24, line 38 skipping to change at page 27, line 38
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.
3. Additional Error-Types 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 several error values are defined to
some of the errors related to the newly identified objects related to represent some of the errors related to the newly identified objects
GMPLS networks. For each PCEP error, an Error-Type and an Error- related to GMPLS networks. For each PCEP error, an Error-Type and an
value are defined. Error-Type 1 to 10 are already defined in Error-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
and 10. A new Error-Type is introduced (value TBA-27). 10. A new Error-Type is defined (value TBA-27).
The error-type TBA-27 (path computation failure) is used to reflect The Error-Type TBA-27 (path computation failure) is used to reflect
constraints not understood by the PCE, for instance when the PCE is constraints not understood by the PCE, for instance when the PCE is
not able to understand the generalized bandwidth. If the constraints not able to understand the generalized bandwidth. If the constraints
are understood, but not path is found with those constraints, the NO- are understood, but the PCE is unable to find with those constraints,
PATH is to be used. 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
Generalized Endpoint object type. Generalized Endpoint object type
value=TBA-17: Unsupported granularity in the RP object value=TBA-17: Unsupported granularity in the RP object
flags. flags
10 Reception of 10 Reception of
an invalid an invalid
object object
value=TBA-18: Bad Bandwidth Object type TBA-2(Generalized value=TBA-18: Bad Bandwidth Object type TBA-2(Generalized
bandwidth) or TBA-3( Generalized bandwidth bandwidth) or TBA-3( Generalized bandwidth
of existing TE-LSP for which a of existing TE-LSP for which a
reoptimization is requested). reoptimization is requested)
value=TBA-20: Unsupported LSP Protection Flags in value=TBA-20: Unsupported LSP Protection Flags in
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV
value=TBA-21: Unsupported Secondary LSP Protection Flags value=TBA-21: Unsupported Secondary LSP Protection Flags
in PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. in PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV
value=TBA-22: Unsupported Link Protection Type in value=TBA-22: 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-24: 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-25: Wrong LABEL-SET
TLV present with TLV present with
0 and L bit set. 0 and L bit set
value=TBA-26: Wrong LABEL-SET with O bit set and wrong value=TBA-26: Wrong LABEL-SET with O bit set and wrong
format. format
value=TBA-42: Missing GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV
TBA-27 Path TBA-27 Path
computation computation
failure failure
value=0: Unassigned. value=0: Unassigned
value=TBA-28: Unacceptable request message. value=TBA-28: Unacceptable request message
value=TBA-29: Generalized bandwidth value not supported. value=TBA-29: Generalized bandwidth value not supported
value=TBA-30: Label Set constraint could not be value=TBA-30: Label Set constraint could not be
met. met
value=TBA-31: Label constraint could not be value=TBA-31: Label constraint could not be
met. met
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
skipping to change at page 26, line 34 skipping to change at page 29, line 34
Accepted LOAD-BALANCING object type TBA-4 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 The configuration of the above parameters is applicable to the
sessions as described in [RFC5440] Section 8.1 (by default, per PCEP different sessions as described in [RFC5440] Section 8.1 (by default,
peer, etc.). per PCEP 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 introduce any new ERO sub
ERO information model is already covered in [RFC4802]. objects, so that the, 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 defined by this document should satisfy the requirement to log error
log error events. 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 the TEAS or CCAMP extensions. Any new ERO subobject defined in the TEAS or CCAMP
working group can be adopted without modifying the operations defined working group can be adopted without modifying the operations defined
in this document. 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 objects and TLVs. IANA is requested IANA assigns values to the PCEP objects and TLVs. IANA is requested
to make some allocations for the newly defined objects and TLVs to make some allocations for the newly defined objects and TLVs
introduced in this document. Also, IANA is requested to manage the defined in this document. Also, IANA is requested to manage the
space of flags that are newly added in the TLVs. 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
Reference This document (section Section 2.3) Reference This document (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
Reference This document (section Section 2.4) Reference This document (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 2.5)
5.2. Endpoint type field in Generalized END-POINTS Object 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 attributes:
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.
skipping to change at page 29, line 22 skipping to change at page 32, line 22
4 Old leaves whose path has to be 4 Old leaves whose path has to be
left unchanged left unchanged
5-244 Unassigned 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. IANA is "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry. IANA is
requested to do the following allocation. requested to do the following allocation. Note: TBA-11 is not used
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 2.5.2.1)
TBA-7 IPV6-ADDRESS This document (section Section 2.5.2.2) TBA-7 IPV6-ADDRESS This document (Section 2.5.2.2)
TBA-8 UNNUMBERED-ENDPOINT This document (section Section 2.5.2.3) TBA-8 UNNUMBERED-ENDPOINT This document (Section 2.5.2.3)
TBA-9 LABEL-REQUEST This document (section Section 2.5.2.4) TBA-9 LABEL-REQUEST This document (Section 2.5.2.4)
TBA-10 LABEL-SET This document (section Section 2.5.2.5) TBA-10 LABEL-SET This document (Section 2.5.2.5)
TBA-12 PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE This document (section Section 2.8) TBA-12 PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE This document (Section 2.8)
TBA-1 GMPLS-CAPABILITY This document (section Section 2.1.2) TBA-1 GMPLS-CAPABILITY This document (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. from the "RP Object Flag Field" sub-registry.
Bit Description Reference Bit Description Reference
TBA-13 (2 bits) routing granularity This document, Section 2.2 TBA-13 routing granularity (2 bits) This document, Section 2.2
(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. "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" registry.
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
Value=TBA-17: Unsupported granularity in the RP object This Document Value=TBA-17: Unsupported granularity in the RP object This Document
flags flags
Type=10 Reception of an invalid object [RFC5440] Type=10 Reception of an invalid object [RFC5440]
Value=TBA-18: Bad Bandwidth Object type This Document Value=TBA-18: Bad Bandwidth Object type This Document
TBA-2(Generalized bandwidth) or TBA-2(Generalized bandwidth) or
TBA-3(Generalized bandwidth of existing TBA-3(Generalized bandwidth of existing
TE-LSP for which a reoptimization is TE-LSP for which a reoptimization is
requested). requested)
Value=TBA-20: 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-21: 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-22: 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-24: 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-25: Wrong LABEL-SET TLV present with 0 and L This Document Value=TBA-25: Wrong LABEL-SET TLV present with 0 and L This Document
bit set. bit set
Value=TBA-26: Wrong LABEL-SET with O bit set and wrong This Document Value=TBA-26: Wrong LABEL-SET with O bit set and wrong This Document
format. format
Value=TBA-42: Missing GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV This Document
Type=TBA-27 Path computation failure This Document Type=TBA-27 Path computation failure This Document
Value=0 Unassigned. This Document Value=0 Unassigned This Document
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 supported This Document
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. in the "NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Flag Field" sub-registry.
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.
skipping to change at page 31, line 24 skipping to change at page 34, line 24
label restriction. label restriction.
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.
Bit number TBA-40 - LOAD-BALANCING could not be performed with the
bandwidth constraits (1 bit). Specifies that the PCE is not able
to provide a path because it could not map the BANDWIDTH into the
parameters specified by the LOAD-BALANCING.
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 "IRO The "PCEP Parameters" registry contains a subregistry "IRO
Subobjects" 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
skipping to change at page 31, line 48 skipping to change at page 35, line 5
The "PCEP Parameters" registry contains a subregistry "XRO The "PCEP Parameters" registry contains a subregistry "XRO
Subobjects" 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 Label subobject This Document TBA-39 Label subobject This Document
5.9. New GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV Flag Field
IANA is requested to create a sub-registry to manage the Flag field
of the GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV within the "Path Computation Element
Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry.
New bit numbers are to be assigned by Standards Action [RFC8126].
Each bit should be tracked with the following qualities:
o Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit)
o Capability description
o Defining RFC
The initial contents of the sub-registry are empty, with all bits
marked unassigned
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 volume of traffic and can be a critical
part of a network infrastructure. The PCE can then play a key role part of a network infrastructure. The PCE can then play a key role
in the use of the resources and in determining the physical paths of in the use of the resources and in determining the physical paths of
the LSPs and thus it is important to ensure the identity of PCE and the LSPs and thus it is important to ensure the identity of PCE and
PCC, as well as the communication channel. In many deployments there PCC, as well as the communication channel. In many deployments there
will be a completely isolated network where an external attack is of will be a completely isolated network where an external attack is of
very low probability. However, there are other deployment cases in very low probability. However, there are other deployment cases in
which the PCC-PCE communication can be more exposed and there could which the PCC-PCE communication can be more exposed and there could
be more security considerations. Three main situations in case of an be more security considerations. Three main situations in case of an
attack in the GMPLS PCE context could happen: attack in the GMPLS PCE context could happen:
o PCE Identity theft: A legitimate PCC could request a path for a o PCE Identity theft: A legitimate PCC could request a path for a
GMPLS LSP to a malicious PCE, which poses as a legitimate PCE. GMPLS LSP to a malicious PCE, which poses as a legitimate PCE.
The answer can make that the LSP traverses some geographical place The answer can make that the LSP traverses some geographical place
known to the attacker where some sniffing devices could be known to the attacker where confidentiality (sniffing), integrity
installed. Also, the answer can omit constraints given in the (traffic modification) or availability (traffic drop) attacks
requests (e.g. excluding certain fibers, avoiding some SRLGs) could be performed by use of an attacker-controlled middlebox
device. Also, the resulting LSP can omit constraints given in the
requests (e.g., excluding certain fibers, avoiding some SRLGs)
which could make that the LSP which will be later set-up can look which could make that the LSP which will be later set-up can look
perfectly fine, but will be in a risky situation. Also, the perfectly fine, but will be in a risky situation. Also, the
answer can lead to provide a LSP that does not provide the desired result can lead to the creation of an LSP that does not provide
quality and gives less resources than necessary. the desired quality and gives less resources than necessary.
o PCC Identity theft: A malicious PCC, acting as a legitimate PCC, o PCC Identity theft: A malicious PCC, acting as a legitimate PCC,
requesting LSP paths to a legitimate PCE can obtain a good requesting LSP paths to a legitimate PCE can obtain a good
knowledge of the physical topology of a critical infrastructure. knowledge of the physical topology of a critical infrastructure.
It could get to know enough details to plan a later physical It could get to know enough details to plan a later physical
attack. attack.
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 the malicious PCE case the PCC SHOULD In order to protect against the malicious PCE case the PCC SHOULD
have policies in place to accept or not the path provided by the PCE. have policies in place to accept or not the path provided by 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.
PCE and PCC SHOULD use [RFC8253] mechanism to protect against
malicious PCC and PCE.
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 35, line 9 skipping to change at page 38, line 31
The authors would like to thank Julien Meuric, Lyndon Ong, Giada The authors would like to thank Julien Meuric, Lyndon Ong, Giada
Lander, Jonathan Hardwick, Diego Lopez, David Sinicrope, Vincent Roca Lander, Jonathan Hardwick, Diego Lopez, David Sinicrope, Vincent Roca
and Tianran Zhou for their review and useful comments to the and Tianran Zhou for their review and useful comments to the
document. document.
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[G.709-v3]
ITU-T, "Interfaces for the optical transport network,
Recommendation G.709/Y.1331", June 2016,
<https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.709-201606-I/en>.
[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,
<https://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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2210>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2210>.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
[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,
<https://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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3473>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3473>.
skipping to change at page 37, line 42 skipping to change at page 41, line 31
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, <https://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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7139>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7139>.
[RFC7570] Margaria, C., Ed., Martinelli, G., Balls, S., and B.
Wright, "Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in the
Explicit Route Object (ERO)", RFC 7570,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7570, July 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7570>.
[RFC7792] Zhang, F., Zhang, X., Farrel, A., Gonzalez de Dios, O., [RFC7792] Zhang, F., Zhang, X., Farrel, A., Gonzalez de Dios, O.,
and D. Ceccarelli, "RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions in and D. Ceccarelli, "RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions in
Support of Flexi-Grid Dense Wavelength Division Support of Flexi-Grid Dense Wavelength Division
Multiplexing (DWDM) Networks", RFC 7792, Multiplexing (DWDM) Networks", RFC 7792,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7792, March 2016, DOI 10.17487/RFC7792, March 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7792>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7792>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
skipping to change at page 38, line 21 skipping to change at page 42, line 17
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)", Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)",
RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017, RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253>.
[RFC8282] Oki, E., Takeda, T., Farrel, A., and F. Zhang, "Extensions [RFC8282] Oki, E., Takeda, T., Farrel, A., and F. Zhang, "Extensions
to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
(PCEP) for Inter-Layer MPLS and GMPLS Traffic (PCEP) for Inter-Layer MPLS and GMPLS Traffic
Engineering", RFC 8282, DOI 10.17487/RFC8282, December Engineering", RFC 8282, DOI 10.17487/RFC8282, December
2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8282>. 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8282>.
[RFC8306] Zhao, Q., Dhody, D., Ed., Palleti, R., and D. King,
"Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic
Engineering Label Switched Paths", RFC 8306,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8306, November 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8306>.
9.2. Informative References 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,
<https://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
skipping to change at page 39, line 35 skipping to change at page 43, line 40
4, Max-LSP=5, Min Bandwidth Spec is (ST=6, RCC=0, NCC=0, NVC=2, 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, 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 each of them having a BANDWIDTH OT=TBA-2 and Generalized Bandwidth
matching the Min Bandwidth Spec from the LOAD-BALANCING object of the matching the Min Bandwidth Spec from the LOAD-BALANCING object of the
corresponding request. corresponding request.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Cyril Margaria (editor) Cyril Margaria (editor)
Juniper Juniper
1133 Innovation Way,
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
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
Phone: +34 91 4833441 Phone: +34 91 4833441
 End of changes. 131 change blocks. 
309 lines changed or deleted 466 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/