[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-margaria-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

Network Working Group                                   C. Margaria, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                    Nokia Siemens Networks
Intended status: Standards Track                O. Gonzalez de Dios, Ed.
Expires: April 27, 2011                       Telefonica Investigacion y
                                                              Desarrollo
                                                           F. Zhang, Ed.
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                        October 24, 2010


                       PCEP extensions for GMPLS
                draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-01

Abstract

   This memo provides extensions for the Path Computation Element
   communication Protocol (PCEP) for the support of GMPLS control plane.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 27, 2011.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as



Margaria, et al.         Expires April 27, 2011                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2010


   described in the Simplified BSD License.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1.  Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.2.  PCEP requirements for GMPLS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.3.  PCEP existing objects related to GMPLS . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.4.  Requirements Language  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   2.  PCEP objects and extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     2.1.  RP object extension  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     2.2.  Traffic parameters encoding, GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH . . . .  9
     2.3.  Traffic parameters encoding, GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING  . 11
     2.4.  END-POINTS Object extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       2.4.1.  Generalized endpoint Object Type . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       2.4.2.  END-POINTS TLVs extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     2.5.  LABEL-SET object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     2.6.  SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     2.7.  LSPA extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     2.8.  NO-PATH Object Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
       2.8.1.  Extensions to NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   3.  Additional Error Type and Error Values Defined . . . . . . . . 23
   4.  Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   5.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
     5.1.  PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
     5.2.  New PCEP TLVs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
     5.3.  New PCEP Error Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
   7.  Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
   8.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
     9.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
     9.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
















Margaria, et al.         Expires April 27, 2011                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2010


1.  Introduction

   PCEP RFCs [RFC5440], [RFC5521], [RFC5541], [RFC5520] are focused on
   path computation requests in MPLS networks.  [RFC4655] defines the
   PCE framework also for GMPLS networks.  This document complements
   these RFCs by providing some consideration of GMPLS applications and
   routing requests, for example for OTN and WSON networks.

   The requirements on PCE extensions to support those characteristics
   are described in [I-D.ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req] and
   [I-D.ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength].

1.1.  Contributing Authors

   Elie Sfeir, Franz Rambach (Nokia Siemens Networks) Francisco Javier
   Jimenez Chico (Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo) Suresh BR,
   Young Lee, SenthilKumar S, Jun Sun (Huawei Technologies), Ramon
   Casellas (CTTC)

1.2.  PCEP requirements for GMPLS

   This section provides a set of PCEP requirements to support GMPLS
   LSPs and assure signal compatibility in the path.  When requesting a
   path computation (PCReq) to PCE, the PCC should be able to indicate,
   according to [I-D.ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req] and to RSVP procedures like
   explicit label control (ELC), the following additional attributes:

      (1) Switching capability: for instance PSC1-4, L2SC, TDM, LSC, FSC

      (2) Encoding type: as defined in [RFC4202], [RFC4203], e.g.,
      Ethernet, SONET/SDH, Lambda, etc.

      (3) Signal Type: Indicates the type of elementary signal that
      constitutes the requested LSP.  A lot of signal types with
      different granularity have been defined in SONET/SDH and G.709
      ODUk, such as VC11, VC12, VC2, VC3 and VC4 in SDH, and ODU1, ODU2
      and ODU3 in G.709 ODUk [RFC4606], [RFC4328] and other signal types
      like the one defined in [I-D.ceccarelli-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709] or
      [I-D.zhang-ccamp-gmpls-evolving-g709] .

      (4) Concatenation Type: In SDH/SONET and G.709 OTN networks, two
      kinds of concatenation modes are defined: contiguous concatenation
      which requires co-route for each member signal and requires all
      the interfaces along the path to support this capability, and
      virtual concatenation which allows diverse routes for the member
      signals and only requires the ingress and egress interfaces to
      support this capability.  Note that for the virtual concatenation,
      it also may specify co-routed or separated-routed.  See [RFC4606]



Margaria, et al.         Expires April 27, 2011                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2010


      and [RFC4328] about concatenation information.

      (5) Concatenation Number: Indicates the number of signals that are
      requested to be contiguously or virtually concatenated.  See also
      [RFC4606] and [RFC4328].

      (6) Technology specific label(s) such as wavelength label as
      defined in [I-D.ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels]

      (7) e2e Path protection type: as defined in [RFC4872], e.g., 1+1
      protection, 1:1 protection, (pre-planned) rerouting, etc.

      (8) Link Protection type: as defined in [RFC4203]

      (9) Support for unnumbered interfaces: as defined in [RFC3477]

      (10) Support for asymmetric bandwidth requests.

      (11) Indicate the requested granularity for the path ERO: node,
      link, label to allow the use of the explicit/suggested label
      control of RSVP.

   We describe in this document a proposal to fulfill those
   requirements.

1.3.  PCEP existing objects related to GMPLS

   PCEP as of [RFC5440], [RFC5521] and [I-D.ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext],
   supports the following information (in the PCReq and PCRep) related
   to the described requirements.

   From [RFC5440]:

   o  numbered endpoints

   o  bandwidth (encoded as IEEE float)

   o  ERO

   o  LSP attributes (setup and holding priorities)

   o  Request attribute (include some LSP attributes)

   From [RFC5521]:

   o  Extensions to PCEP for Route Exclusions, definition of a XRO
      object and a new semantic (F bit or Fail bit) indicating that the
      existing route is failed and resources present in the RRO can be



Margaria, et al.         Expires April 27, 2011                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2010


      reused.  This object also allows to exclude (strict or not)
      resources; XRO include the diversity level (node, link, SRLG).
      The requested diversity is expressed in the XRO.

   From [I-D.ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext]:

   o  INTER-LAYER : indicates if inter-layer computation is allowed

   o  SWITCH-LAYER : indicates which layer(s) should be considered, can
      be used to represent the RSVP-TE generalized label request

   o  REQ-ADAP-CAP : indicates the adaptation capabilities requested,
      can also be used for the endpoints in case of mono-layer
      computation

   The shortcomings of the existing PCEP information are:

      The BANDWIDTH and LOAD-BALANCING objects do not describe the
      details of the traffic request (for example NVC, multiplier) in
      the context of GMPLS networks, for instance TDM or OTN networks.

      The END-POINTS object does not allow specifying an unnumbered
      interface, nor the labels on the interface.  Those parameters are
      of interest in case of switching constraints.

   Current attributes do not allow to express the requested link level
   protection and end-to-end protection attributes.

   The covered PCEP extensions are:

      New objects are introduced (GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH and GENERALIZED-
      LOAD-BALANCING) for flexible bandwidth encoding,

      A new object type is introduced for the END-POINTS object
      (generalized-endpoint),

      A new TLV is added to the LSPA object.

      In order to allow to restrict the range of labels returned, an
      additional object is added: LABEL-SET

      In order to indicate the mandatory routing granularity in the
      response, a new flag in the RP object is added.








Margaria, et al.         Expires April 27, 2011                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2010


1.4.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.














































Margaria, et al.         Expires April 27, 2011                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2010


2.  PCEP objects and extensions

   This section describes the required PCEP objects and extensions.  The
   PCReq and PCRep messages are defined in [RFC5440].  The format of the
   request and response messages with the proposed extensions
   (GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH, SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET and LABEL-SET) is as
   follows:

     <request>::= <RP>
                  <segment-computation>|<path-key-expansion>
     <segment-computation> ::=
       <ENDPOINTS>
       [<LSPA>]
       [<BANDWIDTH>]
       [<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>]
       [<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>]
       [<metric-list>]
       [<OF>]
       <RRO>[<BANDWIDTH>]
       [<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>]
       [<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>]
       [<IRO>]
       [<SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET>]
       [<LABEL-SET>]
       [<LOAD-BALANCING>]
       [<GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING>]
       [<GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING>]
       [<XRO>]

     <path-key-expansion> ::= <PATH-KEY>

     <response>::=<RP>
       [<NO-PATH>]
       [<attribute-list>]
       [<path-list>]

     <path-list>::=<path>[<path-list>]
     <path>::= <ERO><attribute-list>
     <metric-list>::=<METRIC>[<metric-list>]


   For point-to-multipoint(P2MP) computations, the proposed grammar is:









Margaria, et al.         Expires April 27, 2011                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2010


    <segment-computation> ::=
        <end-point-rro-pair-list>
        [<LSPA>]
        [<BANDWIDTH>]
        [<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>][<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>]
        [<metric-list>]
        [<IRO>]
        [<SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET>]
        [<LABEL-SET>]
        [<LOAD-BALANCING>]
        [<GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING>]
        [<GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING>]
        [<XRO>]

     <end-point-rro-pair-list>::=
              <END-POINTS>[<RRO-List>][<BANDWIDTH>]
             [<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>]
             [<end-point-rro-pair-list>]

     <RRO-List>::=<RRO>[<BANDWIDTH>]
     [< GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>][<RRO-List>]

   Where:

      <attribute-list>::=[<LSPA>]
      [<BANDWIDTH>]
      [<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>]
      [<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>]
      [<metric-list>]
      [<IRO>]

2.1.  RP object extension

   Explicit label control (ELC) is a procedure supported by RSVP-TE,
   where the outgoing label(s) is(are) encoded in the ERO.  In
   consequence, the PCE may be able to provide such label(s) directly in
   the path ERO.  The PCC, depending on policies or switching layer, may
   be required to use explicit label control or expect explicit link,
   thus it need to indicate in the PCEReq which granularity it is
   expecting in the ERO.  The possible granularities can be node, link,
   label.  Those granularities are dependent, i.e link granularity imply
   that the nodes are provided, label granularity that the links and
   nodes are provided in the ERO

   A new 2-bit routing granularity (RG) flag is defined in the RP object
   (IANA suggestion : bit 17 and 16).  The values are defined as follows





Margaria, et al.         Expires April 27, 2011                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2010



                               00 : node

                               01 : link

                               02 : label

                               03 : reserved

   When the RP object appears in a request within a PCReq message the
   flag indicates the requested route granularity.  The PCE SHOULD try
   to follow this granularity and MAY return a NO-PATH if the requested
   granularity cannot be provided.  The PCE MAY return more details on
   the route based on its policy.  The PCC can decide if the ERO is
   acceptable based on its content.

   When the RP object appears in a response within a PCRep message the
   flag indicates the granularity provided in the response.  The PCE MAY
   indicates the granularity of the returned ERO.  The RG flag is
   backward-compatible with previous RFCs: the value sent by
   implementation not supporting it will indicate a node granularity.
   this flag is optional for responses.  A new capability flag in the
   PCE-CAP-FLAGS from RFC [RFC5088] and [RFC5089] may be added.

2.2.  Traffic parameters encoding, GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH

   The PCEP BANDWIDTH does not describe the details of the signal (for
   example NVC, multiplier), hence the bandwidth information should be
   extended to use the RSVP Tspec object encoding.  The PCEP BANDWIDTH
   object defines two types: 1 and 2.  C-Type 2 is representing the
   existing bandwidth in case of re-optimization.

   The following possibilities cannot be represented in the BANDWIDTH
   object:

   o  Asymmetric bandwidth (different bandwidth in forward and reverse
      direction), as described in [RFC5467]

   o  GMPLS (SDH/SONET, G.709, ATM, MEF etc) parameters are not
      supported.

   According to [RFC5440] the BANDWIDTH object has no TLV and has a
   fixed size of 4 bytes.  This definition does not allows extending it
   with the required information.  To express this information, a new
   Object named GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH having the following format is
   defined:





Margaria, et al.         Expires April 27, 2011                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2010


       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |   Traffic Spec Length          | Reserved                 |R|O|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |             Traffic Spec                                      |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      ~                Optional   TLVs                                ~
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH has a variable length.  The Traffic spec
   length field indicate the length of the Traffic spec field.  The bits
   R and O have the following meaning:

      O bit : set when the value refer to the previous bandwidth in case
      of re-optimization

      R bit : set when the value refer to the bandwidth of the reverse
      direction

   The Object type determines which type of bandwidth is represented by
   the object.  The following object types are defined:

   1.  Intserv

   2.  SONET/SDH

   3.  G.709

   4.  Ethernet

   The encoding of the field Traffic Spec is the same as in RSVP-TE, it
   can be found in the following references.
















Margaria, et al.         Expires April 27, 2011                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2010


                      Object Type Name      Reference

                      0           Reserved

                      1           Reserved

                      2           Intserv   [RFC2210]

                      3           Reserved

                      4           SONET/SDH [RFC4606]

                      5           G.709     [RFC4328]

                      6           Ethernet  [RFC6003]

                        Traffic Spec field encoding

   The GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH MAY appear more than once in a PCReq
   message.  If more than one GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH have the same Object
   Type, Reserved, R and O values, only the first one is processed, the
   others are ignored.  On the response the object that were considered
   in the processing SHOULD be included.

   When a PCC needs to get a bi-directional path with asymmetric
   bandwidth, it SHOULD specify the different bandwidth in forward and
   reverse directions through two separate GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH
   objects.  The PCE MUST compute a path that satisfies the asymmetric
   bandwidth constraint and return the path to PCC if the path
   computation is successful.

   Optional TLVs may be included within the object body to specify more
   specific BW requirements.  The specification of such TLVs is outside
   the scope of this document.

2.3.  Traffic parameters encoding, GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING

   The PCEP LOAD-BALANCING follows the bandwidth encoding of the
   BANDWIDTH object, it does not describe enough details for the traffic
   specification expected by GMPLS, hence this bandwidth information
   should be extended to use the RSVP Tspec object encoding.

   According to [RFC5440] the LOAD-BALANCING object has no TLV and has a
   fixed size of 8 bytes.  This definition does not allows extending it
   with the required information.  To express this information, a new
   Object named GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING is defined

   The GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING object is optional.



Margaria, et al.         Expires April 27, 2011                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2010


   GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING Object-Class is To be assigned by IANA.

   The format of the GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING object body is as
   follows:

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |    Traffic spec length        |     Flags   |R|     Max-LSP   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |        Min  Traffic Spec                                      |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      ~                Optional   TLVs                                ~
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Traffic spec length (16 bits): the length of the min traffic spec
   length, also including the eventual TLV present in RSVP-TE traffic
   specification.

   Flags (8 bits): The undefined Flags field MUST be set to zero on
   transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.  The following flag is
   defined:

      R Flag : (1 bit) set when the value refer to the bandwidth of the
      reverse direction

   Max-LSP (8 bits): maximum number of TE LSPs in the set.

   Min-Traffic spec (variable): Specifies the minimum traffic spec of
   each element of the set of TE LSPs.

   The GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING has a variable length.  The Object
   type determines which type of minimum bandwidth is represented by the
   object.  The following object types are defined:

   1.  Intserv

   2.  SONET/SDH

   3.  G.709

   4.  Ethernet

   The encoding of the field Traffic Spec is the same as in RSVP-TE, it
   can be found in the following references.




Margaria, et al.         Expires April 27, 2011                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2010


                      Object Type Name      Reference

                      2           Intserv   [RFC2210]

                      4           SONET/SDH [RFC4606]

                      5           G.709     [RFC4328]

                      6           Ethernet  [RFC6003]

                        Traffic Spec field encoding

   The GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING MAY appear more than once in a PCReq
   message.  If more than one GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING have the same
   Object Type, and R Flag, only the first one is processed, the others
   are ignored.  On the response the object that were considered in the
   processing SHOULD be included.

   When a PCC needs to get a bi-directional path with asymmetric
   bandwidth, it SHOULD specify the different bandwidth in forward and
   reverse directions through two separate GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING
   objects with different R Flag.  The PCE MUST compute a path that
   satisfies the asymmetric bandwidth constraint and return the path to
   PCC if the path computation is successful.

   Optional TLVs may be included within the object body to specify more
   specific bandwidth requirements.  The specification of such TLVs is
   outside the scope of this document.

   The GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING object has the same semantic as the
   LOAD-BALANCING object, If a PCC requests the computation of a set of
   TE LSPs so that the total of their generalized bandwidth is X, the
   maximum number of TE LSPs is N, and each TE LSP must at least have a
   bandwidth of B, it inserts a GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH object specifying
   X as the required bandwidth and a GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING object
   with the Max-LSP and Min-traffic spec fields set to N and B,
   respectively.

   For example a request for one co-signaled VCAT members will not use
   the GENERALIZEd-LOAD-BALANCING.  In case the VCAT member can be
   diversely routed, the GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH will contain a traffic
   specification indicating the complete VCAT group and the GENERALIZED-
   LOAD-BALANCING the minimum co-signaled members.  For a SDH network, a
   request to have a VC4 VCAT group with 10 VC4 container, diversely
   routed with 2VC4 container on each path minimum, can be represented
   with a GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH object with OT=4, the content of the
   Traffic specification is ST=6,RCC=0,NCC=0,NVC=10,MT=1.  The
   GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING, OT=4,R=0,Max-LSP=5, min Traffic spec is



Margaria, et al.         Expires April 27, 2011                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2010


   (ST=6,RCC=0,NCC=0,NVC=2,MT=1).  The PCE can respond with a response
   with maximum 5 path, each of then having a GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH
   OT=4,R=0, and traffic spec matching the minimum traffic spec from the
   GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING object of the corresponding request

2.4.  END-POINTS Object extensions

   The END-POINTS object is used in a PCReq message to specify the
   source and destination of the path for which a path computation is
   requested.  From [RFC3471] the source IP address and the destination
   IP address are used to identify those.  A new Object Type is defined
   to address the following possibilities:

   o  Different endpoint types.

   o  Label restrictions on the endpoint.

   o  Specification of unnumbered endpoints type as seen in GMPLS
      networks.

   The Object encoding is described in the following sections.

2.4.1.  Generalized endpoint Object Type

   In GMPLS context the endpoints can:

   o  Be unnumbered

   o  Have label(s) associated to them

   o  May have different switching capabilities

   The IPV4 and IPV6 endpoints are used to represent the source and
   destination IP addresses.  The scope of the IP address (Node or Link)
   is not explicitly stated.  It should also be possible to request a
   Path between a numbered link and an unnumbered link, or a P2MP path
   between different type of endpoints.

   Since the PCEP ENDPOINTS object only support endpoints of the same
   type new C-Types are proposed that support different endpoint types,
   including unnumbered.  This new C-Type also supports the
   specification of constraints on the endpoint label to be use.  The
   PCE might know the interface restrictions but this is not a
   requirement.  On the path calculation request only the TSPEC and
   SWITCH layer need to be coherent, the endpoint labels could be
   different (supporting a different TSPEC).  Hence the label
   restrictions include a Generalized label request in order to
   interpret the labels.



Margaria, et al.         Expires April 27, 2011                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2010


   The proposed object format consists of a body and a list of TLVs with
   the following defined TLVs (described in Section 2.4.2).

   1.  IPV4 address.

   2.  IPV6 address.

   3.  Unnumbered endpoint.

   4.  Label request.

   5.  Label.

   6.  Label set.

   7.  Suggested label set.

   The Object is encoded as follow:

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |      Reserved                 | endpoint type                 |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      ~                           TLVs                                ~
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   Reserved bits should be set to 0 when a message is sent and ignored
   when the message is received

   the endpoint type is defined as follow:

















Margaria, et al.         Expires April 27, 2011                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2010


   Value       Type                Meaning

   0           Point-to-Point

   1           Point-to-Multipoint New leaves to add

   2                               Old leaves to remove

   3                               Old leaves whose path can be
                                   modified/reoptimized

   4                               Old leaves whose path must be left
                                   unchanged

   5-32767     Reserved

   32768-65535 Experimental range

   Endpoint type 0 MUST be accepted by the PCE, other endpoint type MAY
   be supported if the PCE implementation supports P2MP path
   calculation.  The TLVs present in the object body should follow the
   following grammar:

       <generalized-endpoint-tlvs>::=
        <p2p-endpoints> | <p2mp-endpoints>

       <p2p-endpoints> ::=
              <endpoint>
              [<endpoint-restrictions>]
              <endpoint>
              [<endpoint-restrictions>]

        <p2mp-endpoints> ::=
             <endpoint> [<endpoint-restrictions>]
             [<endpoint> [<endpoint-restrictions>] ...]


   Private TLV MAY be inserted at any place and SHOULD be ignored if not
   supported by the PCE

   For endpoint type Point-to-Point the first endpoint and optional
   endpoint-restriction is the ingress endpoint.  The second endpoint
   and optional endpoint-restriction is the egress endpoint The further
   endpoint and endpoint-restriction are ignored

   For endpoint type Point-to-Multipoint several endpoint objects may be
   present in the message and represent a leave, exact meaning depend on
   the endpoint type defined of the object.



Margaria, et al.         Expires April 27, 2011                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2010


   An endpoint is defined as follow:

     <endpoint>::=<IPV4-ADDRESS>|<IPV6-ADDRESS>|<UNNUMBERED-ENDPOINT>
     <endpoint-restrictions> ::= <LABEL-REQUEST><label-restriction>
                                [<endpoint-restrictions>]
     <label-restriction> ::= ((<LABEL><UPSTREAM-LABEL>)|
                             <LABEL-SET>|
                             <SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET>)
                             [<label-restriction>]

2.4.2.  END-POINTS TLVs extensions

2.4.2.1.  IPV4-ADDRESS

   The format of the END-POINTS TLV object for IPv4 (TLV-Type=To be
   assigned) is as follows:

      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |         Type                  |  Length                       |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                          IPv4 address                         |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

2.4.2.2.  IPV6-ADDRESS TLV

   The format of the END-POINTS TLV object for IPv6 (TLV-Type=To be
   assigned) is as follows:

      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |         Type                  |  Length                       |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |              IPv6 address (16 bytes)                          |
     |                                                               |
     |                                                               |
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

2.4.2.3.  UNNUMBERED-ENDPOINT TLV

   This TLV represent an unnumbered interface.  This TLV has the same
   semantic as in [RFC3477]






Margaria, et al.         Expires April 27, 2011                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2010


      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |         Type                  |  Length                       |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                          LSR's Router ID                      |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                       Interface ID (32 bits)                  |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

2.4.2.4.  LABEL-REQUEST TLV

   The LABEL-REQUEST indicate the and encoding of the LABEL restriction
   present in the ENDPOINTS its format is the same as described in
   [RFC3471] Section 3.1 Generalized label request

2.4.2.5.  LABELS TLV

   Label or label range may be specified for the TE-LSP endpoints.
   Those are encoded in the TLVs.  The label value cannot be interpreted
   without a description on the Encoding and switching type.  The REQ-
   ADAP-CAP object from [I-D.ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext] can be used in
   case of mono-layer request, however in case of multilayer it is
   possible to have in the future more than one object, so it is better
   to have a dedicated TLV for the label (the scope is then more clear).
   TLVs are encoded as follow (following [RFC5440]) :

   o  LABEL TLV, Type = TBA by IANA, Length is variable, Encoding is as
      [RFC3471] Section 3.2 Generalized label.  This represent the
      downstream label

   o  UPSTEAM-LABEL TLV , Type = TBA by IANA, Length is variable,
      Encoding is as [RFC3471] Section 3.2 Generalized label.  This
      represent the upstream label

   o  LABEL-SET TLV, Type = TBA by IANA , Length is variable, Encoding
      follow :[RFC3471] Section 3.5 Label set with the addition of a U
      bit, the U bit is set for upstream direction in case of
      bidirectional LSP.












Margaria, et al.         Expires April 27, 2011                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2010


      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |         Type                  |  Length                       |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |    Action     |    Reserved     |U|        Label Type         |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                          Subchannel 1                         |
     |                              ...                              |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     :                               :                               :
     :                               :                               :
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                          Subchannel N                         |
     |                              ...                              |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   o  SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET TLV Set, Type = TBA by IANA, Length is
      variable, Encoding is as Label Set.

   A LABEL TLV represent the label used on the unnumbered interface,
   bits I and U are used to indicate which exact unnumbered interface/
   direction is considered. the fields are encoded as in the RSVP-TE.
   The Encoding Type indicates the encoding type, e.g., SONET/SDH/GigE
   etc., that will be used with the data associated with the LSP.  The
   Switching type indicates the type of switching that is being
   requested on the link.  G-PID identifies the payload of the TE-LSP.
   The label type indicates which type of label (2) for generalized
   label is carried.  A LABEL-SET TLV represents a set of possible
   labels that can be used on the unnumbered interface.  The action
   parameter in the Label set indicates the type of list provided.
   Those parameters are described by [RFC3471] A SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET TLV
   has the same encoding as the LABEL-SET TLV, it includes the preferred
   (ordered) set of label to be used.

   The U bit has the following meaning:


   U: Upstream direction: set when the label or label set is in the
      reverse direction

2.4.2.6.  Private TLVs

   The format of the private TLV object is described as follow:






Margaria, et al.         Expires April 27, 2011                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2010


      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |         Type                  |  Length                       |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                SMI entreprise code                            |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                                               |
     ~                        data                                   ~
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The length is at minimum 4 bytes.

2.5.  LABEL-SET object

   The LABEL-SET object is carried in a request within a PCReq message
   to restrict the set of labels to be assigned during the path
   computation.  Any label included in the ERO object on the response
   must comply with the restrictions stated in the LABEL-SET, whose
   encoding is defined as following

     <LABEL-SET-OBJECT> ::= <LABEL-REQUEST><LABEL-SET>[<LABEL-SET>]

   The LABEL-REQUEST and LABEL-SET TLVs are as defined in
   Section 2.4.2.5, See also [RFC3471] and [RFC3473] for the definitions
   of the fields.

   It is allowed to have more than one LABEL-SET object per request
   within a PCReq message (for example in case of multiple SWITCH-LAYER
   present).

   In the case of unsuccessful path computation the LABEL-SET object MAY
   be used to indicate the set of constraint that could not be
   satisfied.

2.6.  SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET object

   The SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET object is carried within a PCReq or PCRep
   message to indicate the preferred set of labels to be assigned during
   the path computation.  The encoding is the same as the LABEL-SET
   object.  It is allowed to have more than one SUGGESTED LABEL-SET
   object per PCReq (for example in case of multiple SWITCH-LAYER
   present).







Margaria, et al.         Expires April 27, 2011                [Page 20]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2010


2.7.  LSPA extensions

   The LSPA carries the LSP attributes.  In the end-to-end protection
   context this also includes the protection state information.  The
   LSPA object can be extended by a protection TLV type: Type TBA by
   IANA: protection attribute

      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |         Type                  |  Length                       |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |S|P|N|O|  Reserved | LSP Flags |     Reserved      | Link Flags|
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |I|R|   Reserved    | Seg.Flags |           Reserved            |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The content is as defined in [RFC4872], [RFC4873].

   LSP Flags can be considered for routing policy based on the
   protection type.  The other attributes are only meaningful for a
   stateful PCE.

2.8.  NO-PATH Object Extension

   The NO-PATH object is used in PCRep messages in response to an
   unsuccessful path computation request (the PCE could not find a path
   by satisfying the set of constraints).  In this scenario, PCE MUST
   include a NO-PATH object in the PCRep message.  The NO-PATH object
   carries the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV that specifies more information on the
   reasons that led to a negative reply.  In case of GMPLS networks
   there could be some more additional constraints that led to the
   failure like protection mismatch, lack of resources, and so on.  Few
   new flags have been introduced in the 32-bit flag field of the NO-
   PATH-VECTOR TLV and no modifications have been made in the NO-PATH
   object.

2.8.1.  Extensions to NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV

   The current NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV carry the following information:

      Bit number 31 - PCE currently unavailable [RFC5440]

      Bit number 30 - Unknown destination [RFC5440]

      Bit number 29 - Unknown source [RFC5440]





Margaria, et al.         Expires April 27, 2011                [Page 21]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2010


      Bit number 28 - BRPC Path computation chain unavailable [RFC5440]

      Bit number 27 - PKS expansion failure [RFC5520]

      Bit number 26 - No GCO migration path found [RFC5557]

      Bit number 25 - No GCO solution found [RFC5557]

      Bit number 24 - P2MP Reachability Problem [RFC5440]

   The modified NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV carrying the additional information
   is as follows: New fields PM and NR are defined in the 23th and 22th
   bit of the Flags field respectively.

      Bit number 23 (TBA by IANA) - Protection Mismatch (1-bit).
      Specifies the mismatch of the protection type in the request.

      Bit number 22 (TBA by IANA) - No Resource (1-bit).  Specifies that
      the resources are not currently sufficient to provide the path.

      Bit number 21 (TBA by IANA) - Granularity not supported (1-bit).
      Specifies that the PCE is not able to provide a route with the
      requested granularity.




























Margaria, et al.         Expires April 27, 2011                [Page 22]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2010


3.  Additional Error Type and Error Values Defined

   A PCEP-ERROR object is used to report a PCEP error and is
   characterized by an Error-Type that specifies the type of error and
   an Error-value that provides additional information about the error
   type.  An additional error type and few error values are defined to
   represent some of the errors related to the newly identified objects
   related to SDH networks.  For each PCEP error, an Error-Type and an
   Error-value are defined.  Error-Type 1 to 10 are already defined in
   [RFC5440].  Additional Error- values are defined for Error-Type 10
   and A new Error-Type 14 is introduced.

   Error-Type Error-value

       10     Reception of an
              invalid object

              Error-value=1:    Bad Generalized Bandwidth Object value.

              Error-value=2:    Unsupported LSP Protection Type in
                                protection attribute TLV.

              Error-value=3:    Unsupported LSP Protection Flags in
                                protection attribute TLV.

              Error-value=4:    Unsupported Secondary LSP Protection
                                Flags in protection attribute TLV.

              Error-value=5:    Unsupported Link Protection Type in
                                protection attribute TLV.

              Error-value=6:    Unsupported Link Protection Type in
                                protection attribute TLV.

       14     Path computation
              failure

              Error-value=1:    Unacceptable request message.

              Error-value=2:    Generalized bandwidth object not
                                supported.

              Error-value=3:    Label Set constraint could not be met.

              Error-value=4:    Label constraint could not be met.

              Error-value=5:    Unsupported endpoint type in END-POINTS
                                GENERALIZED-ENDPOINTS object type



Margaria, et al.         Expires April 27, 2011                [Page 23]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2010


              Error-value=6:    Unsupported TLV present in END-POINTS
                                GENERALIZED-ENDPOINTS object type

              Error-value=7:    Unsupported granularity in the RP object
                                flags














































Margaria, et al.         Expires April 27, 2011                [Page 24]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2010


4.  Manageability Considerations

   Liveness Detection and Monitoring This document makes no change to
   the basic operation of PCEP and so there are no changes to the
   requirements for liveness detection and monitoring set out in
   [RFC4657] and [RFC5440].













































Margaria, et al.         Expires April 27, 2011                [Page 25]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2010


5.  IANA Considerations

   IANA assigns values to the PCEP protocol objects and TLVs.  IANA is
   requested to make some allocations for the newly defined objects and
   TLVs introduced in this document.  Also, IANA is requested to manage
   the space of flags that are newly added in the TLVs.

5.1.  PCEP Objects

   As described in Section 2.2 and Section 2.3new Objects are defined
   IANA is requested to make the following Object-Type allocations from
   the "PCEP Objects" sub-registry:


             Object Class to be assigned

             Name         GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH

             Object-Type  0 to 6

             Reference    This document (section Section 2.2)

             Object Class to be assigned

             Name         GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING

             Object-Type  0 to 6

             Reference    This document (section Section 2.3)

   As described in Section 2.4.1 a new Object type is defined IANA is
   requested to make the following Object-Type allocations from the
   "PCEP Objects" sub-registry:


             Object Class 4

             Name         END-POINTS

             Object-Type  5 : Generalized Endpoint

                          6-15 : unassigned

             Reference    This document (section Section 2.2)







Margaria, et al.         Expires April 27, 2011                [Page 26]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2010


5.2.  New PCEP TLVs

   IANA is requested to create a registry for the following TLVs:

   Value Meaning                     Reference

     x   IPV4 endpoint               This document (section
                                     Section 2.4.2.1)

     x   IPV6 endpoint               This document (section
                                     Section 2.4.2.2)

     x   Unnumbered endpoint         This document (section
                                     Section 2.4.2.3)

     x   Label request               This document (section
                                     Section 2.4.2.4)

     x   Requested GMPLS Label       This document (section
                                     Section 2.4.2.5)

     x   Requested GMPLS Upstream    This document (section
         Label                       Section 2.4.2.5)

     x   Requested GMPLS Label Set   This document (section
                                     Section 2.4.2.5)

     x   Suggested GMPLS Label Set   This document (section
                                     Section 2.4.2.5)

     x   LSP Protection Information  This document (section Section 2.7)

5.3.  New PCEP Error Codes

   As described in Section Section 3, new PCEP Error-Type and Error
   Values are defined.  IANA is requested to manage the code space of
   the Error object.














Margaria, et al.         Expires April 27, 2011                [Page 27]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2010


   Error-Type Error-value

       10     Reception of an
              invalid object

              Error-value=1:    Bad Generalized Bandwidth Object value.

              Error-value=2:    Unsupported LSP Protection Type in
                                protection attribute TLV.

              Error-value=3:    Unsupported LSP Protection Flags in
                                protection attribute TLV.

              Error-value=4:    Unsupported Secondary LSP Protection
                                Flags in protection attribute TLV.

              Error-value=5:    Unsupported Link Protection Type in
                                protection attribute TLV.

              Error-value=6:    Unsupported Link Protection Type in
                                protection attribute TLV.

       14     Path computation
              failure

              Error-value=1:    Unacceptable request message.

              Error-value=2:    Generalized bandwidth object not
                                supported.

              Error-value=3:    Label Set constraint could not be met.

              Error-value=4:    Label constraint could not be met.

              Error-value=5:    Unsupported endpoint type in END-POINTS
                                GENERALIZED-ENDPOINTS object type

              Error-value=6:    Unsupported TLV present in END-POINTS
                                GENERALIZED-ENDPOINTS object type

              Error-value=7:    Unsupported granularity in the RP object
                                flags









Margaria, et al.         Expires April 27, 2011                [Page 28]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2010


6.  Security Considerations

   None.
















































Margaria, et al.         Expires April 27, 2011                [Page 29]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2010


7.  Contributing Authors

   Nokia Siemens Networks:

      Elie Sfeir
      St Martin Strasse 76
      Munich, 81541
      Germany

      Phone: +49 89 5159 16159
      Email: elie.sfeir@nsn.com

      Franz Rambach
      St Martin Strasse 76
      Munich, 81541
      Germany

      Phone: +49 89 5159 31188
      Email: franz.rambach@nsn.com

   Francisco Javier Jimenez Chico
   Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo
   C/ Emilio Vargas 6
   Madrid, 28043
   Spain

   Phone: +34 91 3379037
   Email: fjjc@tid.es

   Huawei Technologies

      Suresh BR
      Shenzhen
      China
      Email: sureshbr@huawei.com

      Young Lee
      1700 Alma Drive, Suite 100
      Plano, TX 75075
      USA

      Phone: (972) 509-5599 (x2240)
      Email: ylee@huawei.com

      SenthilKumar S
      Shenzhen
      China
      Email: senthilkumars@huawei.com



Margaria, et al.         Expires April 27, 2011                [Page 30]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2010


      Jun Sun
      Shenzhen
      China
      Email: johnsun@huawei.com

   CTTC - Centre Tecnologic de Telecomunicacions de Catalunya

      Ramon Casellas
      PMT Ed B4 Av.  Carl Friedrich Gauss 7
      08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona)
      Spain
      Phone: (34) 936452916
      Email: ramon.casellas@cttc.es






































Margaria, et al.         Expires April 27, 2011                [Page 31]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2010


8.  Acknowledgments

   The research of Ramon Casellas, Francisco Javier Jimenez Chico, Oscar
   Gonzalez de Dios, Cyril Margaria, and Franz Rambach leading to these
   results has received funding from the European Community's Seventh
   Framework Programme FP7/2007-2013 under grant agreement n. 247674.













































Margaria, et al.         Expires April 27, 2011                [Page 32]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2010


9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2210]  Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated
              Services", RFC 2210, September 1997.

   [RFC3471]  Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
              (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471,
              January 2003.

   [RFC3473]  Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
              (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
              Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.

   [RFC3477]  Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered Links
              in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering
              (RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, January 2003.

   [RFC4202]  Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Routing Extensions in
              Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
              (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005.

   [RFC4203]  Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "OSPF Extensions in Support
              of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)",
              RFC 4203, October 2005.

   [RFC4328]  Papadimitriou, D., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
              Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical
              Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328, January 2006.

   [RFC4606]  Mannie, E. and D. Papadimitriou, "Generalized Multi-
              Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for
              Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous
              Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control", RFC 4606, August 2006.

   [RFC4872]  Lang, J., Rekhter, Y., and D. Papadimitriou, "RSVP-TE
              Extensions in Support of End-to-End Generalized Multi-
              Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery", RFC 4872,
              May 2007.

   [RFC4873]  Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., and A. Farrel,
              "GMPLS Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, May 2007.

   [RFC5088]  Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., Ikejiri, Y., and R. Zhang,



Margaria, et al.         Expires April 27, 2011                [Page 33]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2010


              "OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element
              (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5088, January 2008.

   [RFC5089]  Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., Ikejiri, Y., and R. Zhang,
              "IS-IS Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element
              (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5089, January 2008.

   [RFC5440]  Vasseur, JP. and JL. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element
              (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
              March 2009.

   [RFC5520]  Bradford, R., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel, "Preserving
              Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path Computation
              Using a Path-Key-Based Mechanism", RFC 5520, April 2009.

   [RFC5521]  Oki, E., Takeda, T., and A. Farrel, "Extensions to the
              Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for
              Route Exclusions", RFC 5521, April 2009.

   [RFC5541]  Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., and Y. Lee, "Encoding of
              Objective Functions in the Path Computation Element
              Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5541, June 2009.

   [RFC5557]  Lee, Y., Le Roux, JL., King, D., and E. Oki, "Path
              Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
              Requirements and Protocol Extensions in Support of Global
              Concurrent Optimization", RFC 5557, July 2009.

   [RFC6003]  Papadimitriou, D., "Ethernet Traffic Parameters",
              RFC 6003, October 2010.

9.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ceccarelli-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709]
              Ceccarelli, D., Caviglia, D., Zhang, F., Li, D., Xu, Y.,
              Belotti, S., Grandi, P., and J. Drake, "Traffic
              Engineering Extensions to OSPF for Generalized MPLS
              (GMPLS) Control of Evolving G.709 OTN Networks",
              draft-ceccarelli-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709-04 (work in
              progress), October 2010.

   [I-D.ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels]
              Otani, T., Rabbat, R., Shiba, S., Guo, H., Miyazaki, K.,
              Caviglia, D., Li, D., and T. Tsuritani, "Generalized
              Labels for Lambda-Switching Capable Label Switching
              Routers", draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels-07
              (work in progress), April 2010.




Margaria, et al.         Expires April 27, 2011                [Page 34]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2010


   [I-D.ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req]
              Otani, T., Ogaki, K., Caviglia, D., and F. Zhang,
              "Document: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-03.txt",
              draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-03 (work in progress),
              October 2010.

   [I-D.ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext]
              Oki, E., Takeda, T., Roux, J., and A. Farrel, "Extensions
              to the Path Computation Element communication Protocol
              (PCEP) for Inter-Layer MPLS and GMPLS Traffic
              Engineering", draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext-04 (work in
              progress), July 2010.

   [I-D.ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength]
              Lee, Y., Bernstein, G., Martensson, J., Takeda, T., and T.
              Tsuritani, "PCEP Requirements for WSON Routing and
              Wavelength Assignment",
              draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-02 (work in
              progress), August 2010.

   [I-D.zhang-ccamp-gmpls-evolving-g709]
              Zhang, F., Zhang, G., Belotti, S., Ceccarelli, D., Lin,
              Y., Xu, Y., Grandi, P., and D. Caviglia, "Generalized
              Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling
              Extensions for the evolving G.709 Optical Transport
              Networks Control",
              draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-evolving-g709-06 (work in
              progress), October 2010.

   [RFC4655]  Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
              Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006.

   [RFC4657]  Ash, J. and J. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element (PCE)
              Communication Protocol Generic Requirements", RFC 4657,
              September 2006.

   [RFC5467]  Berger, L., Takacs, A., Caviglia, D., Fedyk, D., and J.
              Meuric, "GMPLS Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional Label
              Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 5467, March 2009.












Margaria, et al.         Expires April 27, 2011                [Page 35]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2010


Authors' Addresses

   Cyril Margaria (editor)
   Nokia Siemens Networks
   St Martin Strasse 76
   Munich,   81541
   Germany

   Phone: +49 89 5159 16934
   Email: cyril.margaria@nsn.com


   Oscar Gonzalez de Dios (editor)
   Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo
   C/ Emilio Vargas 6
   Madrid,   28043
   Spain

   Phone: +34 91 3374013
   Email: ogondio@tid.es


   Fatai Zhang (editor)
   Huawei Technologies
   F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base
   Bantian, Longgang District
   Shenzhen,   518129
   P.R.China

   Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com





















Margaria, et al.         Expires April 27, 2011                [Page 36]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/