draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-07.txt   draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-08.txt 
Network Working Group S. Sivabalan Network Working Group S. Sivabalan
Internet-Draft J. Medved Internet-Draft J. Medved
Intended status: Standards Track C. Filsfils Intended status: Standards Track C. Filsfils
Expires: September 22, 2016 Cisco Systems, Inc. Expires: April 7, 2017 Cisco Systems, Inc.
E. Crabbe E. Crabbe
Oracle
R. Raszuk R. Raszuk
Mirantis Inc. Mirantis Inc.
V. Lopez V. Lopez
Telefonica I+D Telefonica I+D
J. Tantsura J. Tantsura
Ericsson Individual
W. Henderickx W. Henderickx
Alcatel Lucent Nokia
J. Hardwick J. Hardwick
Metaswitch Networks Metaswitch Networks
March 21, 2016 October 4, 2016
PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-07.txt draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-08
Abstract Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) enables any head-end node to select any path Segment Routing (SR) enables any head-end node to select any path
without relying on a hop-by-hop signaling technique (e.g., LDP or without relying on a hop-by-hop signaling technique (e.g., LDP or
RSVP-TE). It depends only on "segments" that are advertised by Link- RSVP-TE). It depends only on "segments" that are advertised by Link-
State Interior Gateway Protocols (IGPs). A Segment Routed Path can State Interior Gateway Protocols (IGPs). A Segment Routed Path can
be derived from a variety of mechanisms, including an IGP Shortest be derived from a variety of mechanisms, including an IGP Shortest
Path Tree (SPT), explicit configuration, or a Path Computation Path Tree (SPT), explicit configuration, or a Path Computation
Element (PCE). This document specifies extensions to the Path Element (PCE). This document specifies extensions to the Path
skipping to change at page 2, line 15 skipping to change at page 2, line 15
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 22, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 7, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 41 skipping to change at page 2, line 41
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Overview of PCEP Operation in SR Networks . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Overview of PCEP Operation in SR Networks . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. SR-Specific PCEP Message Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. SR-Specific PCEP Message Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Object Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Object Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. The OPEN Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1. The OPEN Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1.1. The SR PCE Capability TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1.1. The SR PCE Capability TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. The RP/SRP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.2. The RP/SRP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.3. ERO Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.3. ERO Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.3.1. SR-ERO Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.3.1. SR-ERO Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.3.2. NAI Associated with SID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.3.2. NAI Associated with SID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3.3. ERO Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.3.3. ERO Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.4. RRO Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.4. RRO Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.4.1. RRO Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.4.1. RRO Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.5. METRIC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.5. METRIC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7. Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.1. Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7.1. Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.2. The PCEP Data Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7.2. The PCEP Data Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.1. PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 9.1. PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.2. PCEP-Error Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 9.2. PCEP-Error Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.3. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 9.3. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.4. New Path Setup Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 9.4. New Path Setup Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.5. New Metric Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 9.5. New Metric Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
SR technology leverages the source routing and tunneling paradigms. SR technology leverages the source routing and tunneling paradigms.
A source node can choose a path without relying on hop-by-hop A source node can choose a path without relying on hop-by-hop
signaling protocols such as LDP or RSVP-TE. Each path is specified signaling protocols such as LDP or RSVP-TE. Each path is specified
as a set of "segments" advertised by link-state routing protocols as a set of "segments" advertised by link-state routing protocols
(IS-IS or OSPF). [I-D.filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing] provides an (IS-IS or OSPF). [I-D.filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing] provides an
introduction to SR architecture. The corresponding IS-IS and OSPF introduction to SR architecture. The corresponding IS-IS and OSPF
extensions are specified in extensions are specified in
skipping to change at page 3, line 41 skipping to change at page 3, line 41
by a link-state routing protocols, e.g. an IGP prefix or an IGP by a link-state routing protocols, e.g. an IGP prefix or an IGP
adjacency. Several types of segments are defined. A Node segment adjacency. Several types of segments are defined. A Node segment
represents an ECMP-aware shortest-path computed by IGP to a specific represents an ECMP-aware shortest-path computed by IGP to a specific
node, and is always global within SR/IGP domain. An Adjacency node, and is always global within SR/IGP domain. An Adjacency
Segment represents unidirectional adjacency. An Adjacency Segment is Segment represents unidirectional adjacency. An Adjacency Segment is
local to the node which advertises it. Both Node segments and local to the node which advertises it. Both Node segments and
Adjacency segments can be used for SR Traffic Engineering (SR-TE). Adjacency segments can be used for SR Traffic Engineering (SR-TE).
The SR architecture can be applied to the MPLS forwarding plane The SR architecture can be applied to the MPLS forwarding plane
without any change, in which case an SR path corresponds to an MPLS without any change, in which case an SR path corresponds to an MPLS
Label Switching Path (LSP). This document is relevant to only MPLS Label Switching Path (LSP). This document is relevant to MPLS
forwarding plane, and assumes that a 32-bit Segment Identifier (SID) forwarding plane only and assumes that a 32-bit Segment Identifier
represents an absolute value of MPLS label entry. In this document, (SID) represents an absolute value of MPLS label entry. In this
"Node-SID" and "Adjacency-SID" denote Node Segment Identifier and document, "Node-SID" and "Adjacency-SID" denote Node Segment
Adjacency Segment Identifier respectively. Identifier and Adjacency Segment Identifier respectively.
A Segment Routed path (SR path) can be derived from an IGP Shortest A Segment Routed path (SR path) can be derived from an IGP Shortest
Path Tree (SPT). SR-TE paths may not follow IGP SPT. Such paths may Path Tree (SPT). SR-TE paths may not follow IGP SPT. Such paths may
be chosen by a suitable network planning tool and provisioned on the be chosen by a suitable network planning tool and provisioned on the
source node of the SR-TE path. ingress node of the SR-TE path.
[RFC5440] describes Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) for [RFC5440] describes Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) for
communication between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a Path communication between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a Path
Computation Element (PCE) or between one a pair of PCEs. A PCE or a Computation Element (PCE) or between one a pair of PCEs. A PCE or a
PCC operating as a PCE (in hierarchical PCE environment) computes PCC operating as a PCE (in hierarchical PCE environment) computes
paths for MPLS Traffic Engineering LSPs (MPLS-TE LSPs) based on paths for MPLS Traffic Engineering LSPs (MPLS-TE LSPs) based on
various constraints and optimization criteria. various constraints and optimization criteria.
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] specifies extensions to PCEP that allow a [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] specifies extensions to PCEP that allow a
stateful PCE to compute and recommend network paths in compliance stateful PCE to compute and recommend network paths in compliance
with [RFC4657] and defines objects and TLVs for MPLS-TE LSPs. with [RFC4657] and defines objects and TLVs for MPLS-TE LSPs.
Stateful PCEP extensions provide synchronization of LSP state between Stateful PCEP extensions provide synchronization of LSP state between
a PCC and a PCE or between a pair of PCEs, delegation of LSP control, a PCC and a PCE or between a pair of PCEs, delegation of LSP control,
reporting of LSP state from a PCC to a PCE, controlling the setup and reporting of LSP state from a PCC to a PCE, controlling the setup and
path routing of an LSP from a PCE to a PCC. Stateful PCEP extensions path routing of an LSP from a PCE to a PCC. Stateful PCEP extensions
are intended for an operational model in which LSPs are configured on are intended for an operational model in which LSPs are configured on
the PCC, and control over them is delegated to the PCE. the PCC, and control over them is delegated to the PCE.
A mechanism to dynamically initiate LSPs on a PCC based on the A mechanism to dynamically initiate LSPs on a PCC based on the
requests from a stateful PCE or a controller using stateful PCE is requests from a stateful PCE or a controller using stateful PCE is
specified in [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]. Such mechanism is specified in [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]. Such mechanism is
useful in Software Driven Networks (SDN) applications, such as demand useful in Software Driven Networks (SDN) applications, such as on
engineering, or bandwidth calendaring. demand engineering, or bandwidth calendaring.
It is possible to use a stateful PCE for computing one or more SR-TE It is possible to use a stateful PCE for computing one or more SR-TE
paths taking into account various constraints and objective paths taking into account various constraints and objective
functions. Once a path is chosen, the stateful PCE can initiate an functions. Once a path is chosen, the stateful PCE can initiate an
SR-TE path on a PCC using PCEP extensions specified in SR-TE path on a PCC using PCEP extensions specified in
[I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] using the SR specific PCEP [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] using the SR specific PCEP
extensions described in this document. Additionally, using extensions specified in this document. Additionally, using
procedures described in this document, a PCC can request an SR path procedures described in this document, a PCC can request an SR path
from either stateful or a stateless PCE. This specification relies from either stateful or a stateless PCE. This specification relies
on the PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV and procedures specified in on the PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV and procedures specified in
[I-D.ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type]. [I-D.ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type].
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
The following terminologies are used in this document: The following terminologies are used in this document:
ERO: Explicit Route Object ERO: Explicit Route Object
skipping to change at page 6, line 14 skipping to change at page 6, line 14
node/adjacency represented by the SID. SR-capable PCEP speakers node/adjacency represented by the SID. SR-capable PCEP speakers
should be able to generate and/or process such ERO subobject. An ERO should be able to generate and/or process such ERO subobject. An ERO
containing SR-ERO subobjects can be included in the PCEP Path containing SR-ERO subobjects can be included in the PCEP Path
Computation Reply (PCRep) message defined in [RFC5440], the PCEP LSP Computation Reply (PCRep) message defined in [RFC5440], the PCEP LSP
Initiate Request message (PCInitiate) defined in Initiate Request message (PCInitiate) defined in
[I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp], as well as in the PCEP LSP Update [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp], as well as in the PCEP LSP Update
Request (PCUpd) and PCEP LSP State Report (PCRpt) messages defined in Request (PCUpd) and PCEP LSP State Report (PCRpt) messages defined in
defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]. defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce].
When a PCEP session between a PCC and a PCE is established, both PCEP When a PCEP session between a PCC and a PCE is established, both PCEP
speakers exchange information to indicate their ability to support speakers exchange their capabilites to indicate their ability to
SR-specific functionality. Furthermore, an LSP initially established support SR-specific functionality. Furthermore, an LSP initially
via RSVP-TE signaling can be updated with SR-TE path. This established via RSVP-TE signaling can be updated with SR-TE path.
capability is useful when a network is migrated from RSVP-TE to SR-TE This capability is useful when a network is migrated from RSVP-TE to
technology. Similarly, an LSP initially created with SR-TE path can SR-TE technology. Similarly, an LSP initially created with SR-TE
updated to signal the LSP using RSVP-TE if necessary. signaling can be updated using RSVP-TE if necessary.
A PCC MAY include an RRO object containing the recorded LSP in PCReq A PCC MAY include an RRO object containing the recorded LSP in PCReq
and PCRpt messages as specified in [RFC5440] and and PCRpt messages as specified in [RFC5440] and
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] respectively. This document defines a [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] respectively. This document defines a
new RRO subobject for SR networks. Methods used by a PCC to record new RRO subobject for SR networks. Methods used by a PCC to record
SR-TE LSP are outside the scope of this document. SR-TE LSP are outside the scope of this document.
In summary, this document: In summary, this document:
o Defines a new PCEP capability, new ERO subobject, new RRO o Defines a new PCEP capability, new ERO subobject, new RRO
skipping to change at page 7, line 36 skipping to change at page 7, line 36
The SR-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV is an optional TLV associated with the OPEN The SR-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV is an optional TLV associated with the OPEN
Object to exchange SR capability of PCEP speakers. The format of the Object to exchange SR capability of PCEP speakers. The format of the
SR-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV is shown in the following figure: SR-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV is shown in the 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=TBD | Length=4 | | Type=TBD | Length=4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Flags | MSD | | Reserved | Flags |L| MSD |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: SR-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV format Figure 1: SR-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV format
The code point for the TLV type is to be defined by IANA. The TLV The code point for the TLV type is to be defined by IANA. The TLV
length is 4 octets. length is 4 octets.
The 32-bit value is formatted as follows. The "Maximum SID Depth" (1 The 32-bit value is formatted as follows. The "Maximum SID Depth" (1
octet) field (MSD) specifies the maximum number of SIDs that a PCC is octet) field (MSD) specifies the maximum number of SIDs (MPLS label
capable of imposing on a packet. The "Flags" (1 octet) and stack depth in context of this document) that a PCC is capable of
"Reserved" (2 octets) fields are currently unused, and MUST be set to imposing on a packet. The "Reserved" (2 octets) field is unused, and
zero on transmission and ignored on reception. MUST be set to zero on transmission and ignored on reception. The
"Flags" field is 1 octect long, and this document defines the
following flag:
o L-flag: A PCC sets this flag to 1 to indicate that it does not
impose any limit on MSD.
5.1.1.1. Exchanging SR Capability 5.1.1.1. Exchanging SR Capability
By including the SR-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV in the OPEN message destined By including the SR-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV in the OPEN message destined
to a PCE, a PCC indicates that it is capable of supporting the head- to a PCE, a PCC indicates that it is capable of supporting the head-
end functions for SR-TE LSP. By including the TLV in the OPEN end functions for SR-TE LSP. By including the TLV in the OPEN
message destined to a PCC, a PCE indicates that it is capable of message destined to a PCC, a PCE indicates that it is capable of
computing SR-TE paths. computing SR-TE paths.
The number of SIDs that can be imposed on a packet depends on PCC's The number of SIDs that can be imposed on a packet depends on PCC's
data plane's capability. An MSD value of zero means that a PCC does data plane's capability. An MSD value MUST be non-zero otherwise the
not impose any default limitation on the number of SIDs included in receiver of the SR-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV MUST assume that the sender is
any SR-TE path coming from PCE. Once an SR-capable PCEP session is not capable of imposing a MSD of any depth and hence is not SR-TE
established with a non-zero MSD value, the corresponding PCE MUST NOT capable.
send SR-TE paths with SIDs exceeding that MSD value. If a PCC needs
to modify the MSD value, the PCEP session MUST be closed and re- Note that the MSD value exchanged via SR-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV indicates
established with the new MSD value. If a PCEP session is established the SID/label imposition limit for the PCC node. However, if a PCE
with a non-zero MSD value, and the PCC receives an SR-TE path learns MSD value of a PCC node via different means, e.g routing
containing more SIDs than specified in the MSD value, the PCC MUST protocols, as specified in: [I-D.tantsura-isis-segment-routing-msd];
send a PCErr message with Error-Type 10 (Reception of an invalid [I-D.tantsura-ospf-segment-routing-msd];
object) and Error-Value 3 (Unsupported number of Segment ERO). If a [I-D.tantsura-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd], then it ignores the
PCEP session is established with an MSD value of zero, then the PCC MSD value in the SR-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV. Furthermore, whenever a PCE
MAY specify an MSD for each path computation request that it sends to learns MSD for a link via different means, it MUST use that value for
the PCE. that link regardless of the MSD value exchanged via SR-PCE-CAPABILITY
TLV.
Once an SR-capable PCEP session is established with a non-zero MSD
value, the corresponding PCE MUST NOT send SR-TE paths with number of
SIDs exceeding that MSD value. If a PCC needs to modify the MSD
value, the PCEP session MUST be closed and re-established with the
new MSD value. If a PCEP session is established with a non-zero MSD
value, and the PCC receives an SR-TE path containing more SIDs than
specified in the MSD value, the PCC MUST send a PCErr message with
Error-Type 10 (Reception of an invalid object) and Error-Value 3
(Unsupported number of Segment ERO). If a PCEP session is
established with an MSD value of zero, then the PCC MAY specify an
MSD for each path computation request that it sends to the PCE.
The SR Capability TLV is meaningful only in the OPEN message sent The SR Capability TLV is meaningful only in the OPEN message sent
from a PCC to a PCE. As such, a PCE does not need to set MSD value from a PCC to a PCE. As such, a PCE does not need to set MSD value
in outbound message to a PCC. Similarly, a PCC ignores any MSD value in outbound message to a PCC. Similarly, a PCC ignores any MSD value
received from a PCE. If a PCE receives multiple SR-PCE-CAPABILITY received from a PCE. If a PCE receives multiple SR-PCE-CAPABILITY
TLVs in an OPEN message, it processes only the first TLV is TLVs in an OPEN message, it processes only the first TLV received.
processed.
5.2. The RP/SRP Object 5.2. The RP/SRP Object
In order to setup an SR-TE LSP using SR, RP or SRP object MUST PATH- In order to setup an SR-TE LSP using SR, RP or SRP object MUST PATH-
SETUP-TYPE TLV specified in [I-D.ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type]. This SETUP-TYPE TLV specified in [I-D.ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type]. This
document defines a new Path Setup Type (PST) for SR as follows: document defines a new Path Setup Type (PST) for SR as follows:
o PST = 1: Path is setup using Segment Routing Traffic Engineering o PST = 1: Path is setup using Segment Routing Traffic Engineering
technique. technique.
skipping to change at page 18, line 48 skipping to change at page 19, line 16
Koushik, K., Stephan, E., Zhao, Q., King, D., and J. Koushik, K., Stephan, E., Zhao, Q., King, D., and J.
Hardwick, "PCE communication protocol (PCEP) Management Hardwick, "PCE communication protocol (PCEP) Management
Information Base", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-mib-04 (work in Information Base", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-mib-04 (work in
progress), February 2013. progress), February 2013.
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]
Crabbe, E., Medved, J., Minei, I., and R. Varga, "PCEP Crabbe, E., Medved, J., Minei, I., and R. Varga, "PCEP
Extensions for Stateful PCE", draft-ietf-pce-stateful- Extensions for Stateful PCE", draft-ietf-pce-stateful-
pce-05 (work in progress), July 2013. pce-05 (work in progress), July 2013.
[I-D.tantsura-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd]
Tantsura, J., Mirsky, G., Sivabalan, S., and U. Chunduri,
"Signaling Maximum SID Depth using Border Gateway Protocol
Link-State", draft-tantsura-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-
msd-01 (work in progress), July 2016.
[I-D.tantsura-isis-segment-routing-msd]
Tantsura, J. and U. Chunduri, "Signaling MSD (Maximum SID
Depth) using IS-IS", draft-tantsura-isis-segment-routing-
msd-01 (work in progress), July 2016.
[I-D.tantsura-ospf-segment-routing-msd]
Tantsura, J. and U. Chunduri, "Signaling MSD (Maximum SID
Depth) using OSPF", draft-tantsura-ospf-segment-routing-
msd-01 (work in progress), September 2016.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
skipping to change at page 20, line 19 skipping to change at page 21, line 4
Email: jmedved@cisco.com Email: jmedved@cisco.com
Clarence Filsfils Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Pegasus Parc Pegasus Parc
De kleetlaan 6a, DIEGEM BRABANT 1831 De kleetlaan 6a, DIEGEM BRABANT 1831
BELGIUM BELGIUM
Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com
Edward Crabbe Edward Crabbe
Oracle
1501 4th Ave, suite 1800
Seattle, WA 98101
USA
Email: edward.crabbe@oracle.com
Robert Raszuk Robert Raszuk
Mirantis Inc. Mirantis Inc.
100-615 National Ave. 100-615 National Ave.
Mountain View, CA 94043 Mountain View, CA 94043
US US
Email: robert@raszuk.net Email: robert@raszuk.net
Victor Lopez Victor Lopez
Telefonica I+D Telefonica I+D
Don Ramon de la Cruz 82-84 Don Ramon de la Cruz 82-84
Madrid 28045 Madrid 28045
Spain Spain
Email: vlopez@tid.es Email: vlopez@tid.es
Jeff Tantsura Jeff Tantsura
Ericsson Individual
300 Holger Way 444 San Antonio Rd, 10A
San Jose, CA 95134 Palo Alto, CA 94306
USA USA
Email: jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com
Wim Henderickx Wim Henderickx
Alcatel Lucent Nokia
Copernicuslaan 50 Copernicuslaan 50
Antwerp 2018, CA 95134 Antwerp 2018, CA 95134
BELGIUM BELGIUM
Email: wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com Email: wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com
Jon Hardwick Jon Hardwick
Metaswitch Networks Metaswitch Networks
100 Church Street 100 Church Street
Enfield, Middlesex Enfield, Middlesex
UK UK
Email: jon.hardwick@metaswitch.com Email: jon.hardwick@metaswitch.com
 End of changes. 30 change blocks. 
62 lines changed or deleted 100 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/