draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-15.txt   draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-16.txt 
Network Working Group C. Margaria, Ed. Network Working Group C. Margaria, Ed.
Internet-Draft Juniper Internet-Draft Juniper
Intended status: Standards Track O. Gonzalez de Dios, Ed. Intended status: Standards Track O. Gonzalez de Dios, Ed.
Expires: April 17, 2020 Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo Expires: June 14, 2020 Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo
F. Zhang, Ed. F. Zhang, Ed.
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
October 15, 2019 December 12, 2019
PCEP extensions for GMPLS PCEP extensions for GMPLS
draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-15 draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-16
Abstract Abstract
A Path Computation Element (PCE) provides path computation functions A Path Computation Element (PCE) provides path computation functions
for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
networks. Additional requirements for GMPLS are identified in networks. Additional requirements for GMPLS are 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
skipping to change at page 1, line 40 skipping to change at page 1, line 40
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 17, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 14, 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
skipping to change at page 19, line 38 skipping to change at page 19, line 38
[<endpoint> [<endpoint-restriction-list>]]... [<endpoint> [<endpoint-restriction-list>]]...
For endpoint type Point-to-Point, 2 endpoint TLVs MUST be present in For endpoint type Point-to-Point, 2 endpoint TLVs MUST be present in
the message. The first endpoint is the source and the second is the the message. The first endpoint is the source and the second is the
destination. destination.
For endpoint type Point-to-Multipoint, several END-POINT objects MAY For endpoint type Point-to-Multipoint, several END-POINT objects MAY
be present in the message and the exact meaning depending on the be present in the message and the exact meaning depending on the
endpoint type defined for the object. The first endpoint TLV is 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 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 be the same for all END-POINTS objects for that P2MP tree request.
the same for all END-POINTS, a PCErr with Error-Type=17 (P2MP END- If the root endpoint is not the same for all END-POINTS, a PCErr with
POINTS Error), Error-value=4 (The PCE cannot satisfy the request due Error-Type=17 (P2MP END-POINTS Error), Error-value=4 (The PCE cannot
to inconsistent END-POINTS) MUST be returned. The procedure defined satisfy the request due to inconsistent END-POINTS) MUST be returned.
in [RFC8306] Section 3.10 also apply to the Generalized Endpoint with The procedure defined in [RFC8306] Section 3.10 also apply to the
Point-to-Multipoint endpoint types. 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 23, line 44 skipping to change at page 23, line 44
field MUST be set to 0 (Inclusive List) and the Label Set MUST field MUST be set to 0 (Inclusive List) and the Label Set MUST
contain one subchannel. contain one subchannel.
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 MAY be present with the with L bit cleared. There MUST NOT be more than two LABEL_SET TLVs
O bit set, with at most one of these having the U bit set and at most present with the O bit set. If there are two LABEL_SET TLVs present,
one of these having the U bit cleared. For a given U bit value, if there MUST NOT be more than one with the U bit set, and there MUST
more than one LABEL_SET TLV with the O bit set is present, the first NOT be more than one with the U bit cleared. For a given U bit
TLV MUST be processed and the following TLVs with the same U and O value, if more than one LABEL_SET TLV with the O bit set is present,
bit MUST be ignored. the first TLV MUST be processed and the following TLVs with the same
U and O bit MUST be ignored.
A LABEL-SET TLV with the O and L bit set MUST trigger a PCErr message A LABEL-SET TLV with the O and L bit set MUST trigger a PCErr message
with Error-Type=10 (Reception of an invalid object) Error- with Error-Type=10 (Reception of an invalid object) Error-
value=TBA-25 (Wrong 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=10 (Reception of an invalid object) a PCErr message with Error-Type=10 (Reception of an invalid object)
Error-value=TBA-26 (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).
skipping to change at page 38, line 23 skipping to change at page 38, line 23
8. Acknowledgments 8. Acknowledgments
The research of Ramon Casellas, Francisco Javier Jimenez Chico, Oscar The research of Ramon Casellas, Francisco Javier Jimenez Chico, Oscar
Gonzalez de Dios, Cyril Margaria, and Franz Rambach leading to these Gonzalez de Dios, Cyril Margaria, and Franz Rambach leading to these
results has received funding from the European Community's Seventh results has received funding from the European Community's Seventh
Framework Program FP7/2007-2013 under grant agreement no 247674 and Framework Program FP7/2007-2013 under grant agreement no 247674 and
no 317999. no 317999.
The authors would like to thank 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
and Tianran Zhou for their review and useful comments to the Roca, Dhruv Dhody, Adrian Farrel and Tianran Zhou for their review
document. and useful comments to the document.
Thanks to Alisa Cooper, Benjamin Kaduk, Elwun-davies, Martin
Vigoureux, Roman Danyliw, and Suresh Krishnan for the IESG comments
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[G.709-v3] [G.709-v3]
ITU-T, "Interfaces for the optical transport network, ITU-T, "Interfaces for the optical transport network,
Recommendation G.709/Y.1331", June 2016, Recommendation G.709/Y.1331", June 2016,
<https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.709-201606-I/en>. <https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.709-201606-I/en>.
 End of changes. 7 change blocks. 
19 lines changed or deleted 23 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/