[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [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 13 14 15

Network Working Group                                   C. Margaria, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                   Juniper
Intended status: Standards Track                O. Gonzalez de Dios, Ed.
Expires: April 17, 2020            Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo
                                                           F. Zhang, Ed.
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                        October 15, 2019


                       PCEP extensions for GMPLS
                draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-15

Abstract

   A Path Computation Element (PCE) provides path computation functions
   for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
   networks.  Additional requirements for GMPLS are identified in
   RFC7025.

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

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 https://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 17, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of



Margaria, et al.         Expires April 17, 2020                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2019


   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
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  PCEP Requirements for GMPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     1.3.  Requirements Applicability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       1.3.1.  Requirements on Path Computation Request  . . . . . .   6
       1.3.2.  Requirements on Path Computation Response . . . . . .   7
     1.4.  Existing Support for GMPLS in Base PCEP Objects and its
           Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   2.  PCEP Objects and Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     2.1.  GMPLS Capability Advertisement  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       2.1.1.  GMPLS Computation TLV in the Existing PCE Discovery
               Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       2.1.2.  OPEN Object Extension GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV  . . . . .  10
     2.2.  RP Object Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     2.3.  BANDWIDTH Object Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     2.4.  LOAD-BALANCING Object Extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     2.5.  END-POINTS Object Extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       2.5.1.  Generalized Endpoint Object Type  . . . . . . . . . .  17
       2.5.2.  END-POINTS TLV Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     2.6.  IRO Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     2.7.  XRO Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     2.8.  LSPA Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     2.9.  NO-PATH Object Extension  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
       2.9.1.  Extensions to NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV  . . . . . . . . . .  27
   3.  Additional Error-Types and Error-Values Defined . . . . . . .  27
   4.  Manageability Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
     4.1.  Control of Function through Configuration and Policy  . .  29
     4.2.  Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
     4.3.  Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
     4.4.  Verifying Correct Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
     4.5.  Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components  30
     4.6.  Impact on Network Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
     5.1.  PCEP Objects  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
     5.2.  Endpoint type field in Generalized END-POINTS Object  . .  31
     5.3.  New PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
     5.4.  RP Object Flag Field  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
     5.5.  New PCEP Error Codes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
     5.6.  New NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33



Margaria, et al.         Expires April 17, 2020                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2019


     5.7.  New Subobject for the Include Route Object  . . . . . . .  34
     5.8.  New Subobject for the Exclude Route Object  . . . . . . .  34
     5.9.  New GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV Flag Field . . . . . . . . . . .  35
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
   7.  Contributing Authors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
   8.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  42
   Appendix A.  LOAD-BALANCING Usage for SDH Virtual Concatenation .  43
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  43

1.  Introduction

   Although [RFC4655] defines the PCE architecture and framework for
   both MPLS and GMPLS networks, most preexisting PCEP RFCs [RFC5440],
   [RFC5521], [RFC5541], [RFC5520] are focused on MPLS networks, and do
   not cover the wide range of GMPLS networks.  This document
   complements these RFCs by addressing the extensions required for
   GMPLS applications and routing requests, for example for Optical
   Transport Network (OTN) and Wavelength Switched Optical Network
   (WSON) networks.

   The functional requirements to be addressed by the PCEP extensions to
   support these applications are fully described in [RFC7025] and
   [RFC7449].

1.1.  Terminology

   This document uses terminologies from the PCE architecture document
   [RFC4655], the PCEP documents including [RFC5440], [RFC5521],
   [RFC5541], [RFC5520], [RFC7025] and [RFC7449], and the GMPLS
   documents such as [RFC3471], [RFC3473] and so on.  Note that it is
   expected the reader is familiar with these documents.  The following
   abbreviations are used in this document

   ODU   ODU Optical Channel Data Unit [G.709-v3]

   OTN   Optical Transport Network [G.709-v3]

   L2SC  Layer-2 Switch Capable [RFC3471]

   TDM   Time-Division Multiplex Capable [RFC3471]

   LSC   Lambda Switch Capable [RFC3471]

   SONET Synchronous Optical Networking




Margaria, et al.         Expires April 17, 2020                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2019


   SDH   Synchronous Digital Hierarchy

   PCC   Path Computation Client

   RSVP-TE  Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering

   LSP   Label Switched Path

   TE-LSP  Traffic Engineering LSP

   IRO   Include Route Object

   ERO   Explicit Route Object

   XRO   eXclude Route Object

   RRO   Record Route Object

   LSPA  LSP Attribute

   SRLG  Shared Risk Link Group

   NVC   Number of Virtual Components [RFC4328][RFC4606]

   NCC   Number of Contiguous Components [RFC4328][RFC4606]

   MT    Multiplier [RFC4328][RFC4606]

   RCC   Requested Contiguous Concatenation [RFC4606]

   PCReq Path Computation Request [RFC5440]

   PCRep Path Computation Reply [RFC5440]

   MEF   Metro Ethernet Forum

   SSON  Spectrum-Switched Optical Network

   P2MP  Point to Multi-Point

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.






Margaria, et al.         Expires April 17, 2020                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2019


1.2.  PCEP Requirements for GMPLS

   The document [RFC7025] describes the set of PCEP requirements to
   support GMPLS TE-LSPs.  This document assumes a significant
   familiarity with [RFC7025] and existing PCEP extensions.  As a short
   overview, those requirements can be broken down into the following
   categories.

   o  Which data flow is switched by the LSP: a combination of Switching
      type (for instance L2SC or TDM ), LSP Encoding type (e.g.,
      Ethernet, SONET/SDH) and sometimes the Signal Type (e.g., in case
      of TDM/LSC switching capability).

   o  Data flow specific traffic parameters, which are technology
      specific.  For instance, in SDH/SONET and [G.709-v3] OTN networks
      the Concatenation Type and the Concatenation Number have an
      influence on the switched data and on which link it can be
      supported

   o  Support for asymmetric bandwidth requests.

   o  Support for unnumbered interface identifiers, as defined in
      [RFC3477]

   o  Label information and technology specific label(s) such as
      wavelength labels as defined in [RFC6205].  A PCC should also be
      able to specify a label restriction similar to the one supported
      by RSVP-TE in [RFC3473].

   o  Ability to indicate the requested granularity for the path ERO:
      node, link or label.  This is to allow the use of the explicit
      label control feature of RSVP-TE.

   The requirements of [RFC7025] apply to several objects conveyed by
   PCEP, this is described in Section 1.3.  Some of the requirements of
   [RFC7025] are already supported in existing documents, as described
   in Section 1.4.

   This document describes a set of PCEP extensions, including new
   object types, TLVs, encodings, error codes and procedures, in order
   to fulfill the aforementioned requirements not covered in existing
   RFCs.

1.3.  Requirements Applicability

   This section follows the organization of [RFC7025] Section 3 and
   indicates, for each requirement, the affected piece of information
   carried by PCEP and its scope.



Margaria, et al.         Expires April 17, 2020                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2019


1.3.1.  Requirements on Path Computation Request

   (1)   Switching capability/type: as described in [RFC3471] this piece
         of information is used with the Encoding Type and Signal Type
         to fully describe the switching technology and data carried by
         the TE-LSP.  This is applicable to the TE-LSP itself and also
         to the TE-LSP endpoint (Carried in the END-POINTS object for
         MPLS networks in [RFC5440]) when considering multiple network
         layers.  Inter-layer path computation requirements are
         addressed in in [RFC8282] which addressing the TE-LSP itself,
         but the TE-LSP endpoints are not addressed.

   (2)   Encoding type: see (1).

   (3)   Signal type: see (1).

   (4)   Concatenation type: this parameter and the Concatenation Number
         (5) are specific to some TDM (SDH and ODU) switching
         technology.  They MUST be described together and are used to
         derive the requested resource allocation for the TE-LSP.  It is
         scoped to the TE-LSP and is related to the [RFC5440] BANDWIDTH
         object in MPLS networks.  See [RFC4606] and [RFC4328] about
         concatenation information.

   (5)   Concatenation number: see (4).

   (6)   Technology-specific label(s): as described in [RFC3471] the
         GMPLS Labels are specific to each switching technology.  They
         can be specified on each link and also on the TE-LSP endpoints
         , in WSON networks for instance, as described in [RFC6163].
         The label restriction can apply to endpoints and on each hop,
         the related PCEP objects are END-POINTS, IRO, XRO and RRO.

   (7)   End-to-End (E2E) path protection type: as defined in [RFC4872],
         this is applicable to the TE-LSP.  In MPLS networks the related
         PCEP object is LSPA (carrying local protection information).

   (8)   Administrative group: as defined in [RFC3630], this information
         is already carried in the LSPA object.

   (9)   Link protection type: as defined in [RFC4872], this is
         applicable to the TE-LSP and is carried in association with the
         E2E path protection type.

   (10)  Support for unnumbered interfaces: as defined in [RFC3477].
         Its scope and related objects are the same as labels





Margaria, et al.         Expires April 17, 2020                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2019


   (11)  Support for asymmetric bandwidth requests: as defined
         [RFC6387], the scope is similar to (4)

   (12)  Support for explicit label control during the path computation.
         This affects the TE-LSP and amount of information returned in
         the ERO.

   (13)  Support of label restrictions in the requests/responses: This
         is described in (6).

1.3.2.  Requirements on Path Computation Response

   (1)  Path computation with concatenation: This is related to Path
        Computation request requirement (4).  In addition there is a
        specific type of concatenation called virtual concatenation that
        allows different routes to be used between the endpoints.  It is
        similar to the semantic and scope of the LOAD-BALANCING in MPLS
        networks.

   (2)  Label constraint: The PCE should be able to include Labels in
        the path returned to the PCC, the related object is the ERO
        object.

   (3)  Roles of the routes: as defined in [RFC4872], this is applicable
        to the TE-LSP and is carried in association with the E2E path
        protection type.

1.4.  Existing Support for GMPLS in Base PCEP Objects and its
      Limitations

   The support provided by specifications in [RFC8282] and [RFC5440] for
   the requirements listed in [RFC7025] is summarized in Table 1 and
   Table 2.  In some cases the support may not be complete, as noted,
   and additional support need to be provided in this specification.

















Margaria, et al.         Expires April 17, 2020                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2019


    Req. Name                                           Support
    1    Switching capability/type                      SWITCH-LAYER
                                                        (RFC8282)
    2    Encoding type                                  SWITCH-LAYER
                                                        (RFC8282)
    3    Signal type                                    SWITCH-LAYER
                                                        (RFC8282)
    4    Concatenation type                             No
    5    Concatenation number                           No
    6    Technology-specific label                      (Partial) ERO
                                                        (RFC5440)
    7    End-to-End (E2E) path protection type          No
    8    Administrative group                           LSPA (RFC5440)
    9    Link protection type                           No
    10   Support for unnumbered interfaces              (Partial) ERO
                                                        (RFC5440)
    11   Support for asymmetric bandwidth requests      No
    12   Support for explicit label control during the  No
         path computation
    13   Support of label restrictions in the           No
         requests/responses

             Table 1: RFC7025 Section 3.1 requirements support



            Req.  Name                                 Support
            1     Path computation with concatenation  No
            2     Label constraint                     No
            3     Roles of the routes                  No

             Table 2: RFC7025 Section 3.2 requirements support

   As described in Section 1.3 PCEP as of [RFC5440], [RFC5521] and
   [RFC8282], supports the following objects, included in requests and
   responses, related to the described requirements.

   From [RFC5440]:

   o  END-POINTS: related to requirements (1, 2, 3, 6, 10 and 13).  The
      object only supports numbered endpoints.  The context specifies
      whether they are node identifiers or numbered interfaces.

   o  BANDWIDTH: related to requirements (4, 5 and 11).  The data rate
      is encoded in the bandwidth object (as IEEE 32 bit float).
      [RFC5440] does not include the ability to convey an encoding
      proper to all GMPLS-controlled networks.




Margaria, et al.         Expires April 17, 2020                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2019


   o  ERO: related to requirements (6, 10, 12 and 13).  The ERO content
      is defined in RSVP in [RFC3209][RFC3473][RFC3477][RFC7570] and
      supports all the requirements already.

   o  LSPA: related to requirements (7, 8 and 9).  The requirement 8
      (setup and holding priorities) is already supported.

   From [RFC5521]:

   o  XRO:

      *  This object allows excluding (strict or not) resources and is
         related to requirements (6, 10 and 13).  It also includes the
         requested diversity (node, link or SRLG).

      *  When the F bit is set, the request indicates that the existing
         path has failed and the resources present in the RRO can be
         reused.

   From [RFC8282]:

   o  SWITCH-LAYER: addresses requirements (1, 2 and 3) for the TE-LSP
      and indicates which layer(s) should be considered.  The object can
      be used to represent the RSVP-TE generalized label request.  It
      does not address the endpoints case of requirements (1, 2 and 3).

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

   The gaps in functional coverage of the base PCEP objects are:

      The BANDWIDTH and LOAD-BALANCING objects do not describe the
      details of the traffic request (requirements 4 and 5, 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 potential label restrictions on the interface
      (requirements 6, 10 and 13).  Those parameters are of interest in
      case of switching constraints.

      The Include/eXclude Route Objects (IRO/XRO) do not allow the
      inclusion/exclusion of labels (requirements 6, 10 and 13).

      Base attributes do not allow expressing the requested link
      protection level and/or the end-to-end protection attributes.





Margaria, et al.         Expires April 17, 2020                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2019


   The PCEP extensions defined later in this document to cover the gaps
   are:

      Two new object types are defined for the BANDWIDTH object
      (Generalized bandwidth, Generalized bandwidth of existing TE-LSP
      for which a reoptimization is requested).

      A new object type is defined for the LOAD-BALANCING object
      (Generalized Load Balancing).

      A new object type is defined for the END-POINTS object
      (Generalized Endpoint).

      A new TLV is added to the Open message for capability negotiation.

      A new TLV is added to the LSPA object.

      The Label TLV is now allowed in the IRO and XRO objects.

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

2.  PCEP Objects and Extensions

   This section describes the necessary PCEP objects and extensions.
   The PCReq and PCRep messages are defined in [RFC5440].  This document
   does not change the existing grammars.

2.1.  GMPLS Capability Advertisement

2.1.1.  GMPLS Computation TLV in the Existing PCE Discovery Protocol

   IGP-based PCE Discovery (PCED) is defined in [RFC5088] and [RFC5089]
   for the OSPF and IS-IS protocols.  Those documents have defined bit 0
   in PCE-CAP-FLAGS Sub-TLV of the PCED TLV as "Path computation with
   GMPLS link constraints".  This capability is optional and can be used
   to detect GMPLS-capable PCEs.  PCEs that set the bit to indicate
   support of GMPLS path computation MUST follow the procedures in
   Section 2.1.2 to further qualify the level of support during PCEP
   session establishment.

2.1.2.  OPEN Object Extension GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV

   In addition to the IGP advertisement, a PCEP speaker MUST be able to
   discover the other peer GMPLS capabilities during the Open message
   exchange.  This capability is also useful to avoid misconfigurations.
   This document defines a GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV for use in the OPEN
   object to negotiate the GMPLS capability.  The inclusion of this TLV



Margaria, et al.         Expires April 17, 2020                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2019


   in the Open message indicates that the PCEP speaker support the PCEP
   extensions defined in the document.  A PCEP speaker that is able to
   support the GMPLS extensions defined in this document MUST include
   the GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV on the Open message.  If one of the PCEP
   peers does not include the GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV in the Open message,
   the peers MUST NOT make use of the objects and TLVs defined in this
   document.

   If the PCEP speaker supports the extensions of this specification but
   did not advertise the GMPLS-CAPABILITY capability, upon receipt of a
   message from the PCE including an extension defined in this document,
   it MUST generate a PCEP Error (PCErr) with Error-Type=10 (Reception
   of an invalid object) and Error-value=TBA-42 (Missing GMPLS-
   CAPABILITY TLV), and it SHOULD terminate the PCEP session.

   IANA has allocated value TBA-1 from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators"
   sub-registry, as documented in Section 5.3 ("New PCEP TLVs").  The
   description is "GMPLS-CAPABILITY".  Its format is shown in the
   following figure.

     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=TBA-1      |           Length              |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                             Flags                             |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   No Flags are defined in this document, they are reserved for future
   use.

2.2.  RP Object Extension

   Explicit label control (ELC) is a procedure supported by RSVP-TE,
   where the outgoing labels are encoded in the ERO.  As a consequence,
   the PCE can provide such labels directly in the path ERO.  Depending
   on policies or switching layer, it can be necessary for the PCC to
   use explicit label control or explicit link ids, thus it needs to
   indicate in the PCReq which granularity it is expecting in the ERO.
   This corresponds to requirement 12 of [RFC7025].  The possible
   granularities can be node, link or label.  The granularities are
   inter-dependent, in the sense that link granularity implies the
   presence of node information in the ERO; similarly, a label
   granularity implies that the ERO contains node, link and label
   information.

   A new 2-bit routing granularity (RG) flag (Bits TBA-13) is defined in
   the RP object.  The values are defined as follows



Margaria, et al.         Expires April 17, 2020                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2019


                                0: reserved
                                1: node
                                2: link
                                3: label

                             Table 3: RG flag

   The flag in the RP object indicates the requested route granularity.
   The PCE SHOULD follow this granularity and MAY return a NO-PATH if
   the requested granularity cannot be provided.  The PCE MAY return any
   granularity on the route based on its policy.  The PCC can decide if
   the ERO is acceptable based on its content.

   If a PCE honored the requested routing granularity for a request, it
   MUST indicate the selected routing granularity in the RP object
   included in the response.  Otherwise, the PCE MUST use the reserved
   RG to leave the check of the ERO to the PCC.  The RG flag is
   backward-compatible with [RFC5440]: the value sent by an
   implementation (PCC or PCE) not supporting it will indicate a
   reserved value.

2.3.  BANDWIDTH Object Extensions

   From [RFC5440] the object carrying the requested size for the TE-LSP
   is the BANDWIDTH object.  The object types 1 and 2 defined in
   [RFC5440] do not describe enough information to describe the TE-LSP
   bandwidth in GMPLS networks.  The BANDWIDTH object encoding has to be
   extended to allow the object to express the bandwidth as described in
   [RFC7025].  RSVP-TE extensions for GMPLS provide a set of encodings
   allowing such representation in an unambiguous way, this is encoded
   in the RSVP-TE TSpec and FlowSpec objects.  This document extends the
   BANDWIDTH object with new object types reusing the RSVP-TE encoding.

   The following possibilities are supported by the extended encoding:

   o  Asymmetric bandwidth (different bandwidth in forward and reverse
      direction), as described in [RFC6387]

   o  GMPLS (SDH/SONET, G.709, ATM, MEF, etc.) parameters.

   This corresponds to requirements 3, 4, 5 and 11 of [RFC7025]
   Section 3.1.

   This document defines two Object Types for the BANDWIDTH object:

   TBA-2  Generalized bandwidth





Margaria, et al.         Expires April 17, 2020                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2019


   TBA-3  Generalized bandwidth of an existing TE-LSP for which a
      reoptimization is requested

   The definitions below apply for Object Type TBA-2 and TBA-3.  The
   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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |    Bandwidth Spec Length      | Rev. Bandwidth Spec Length    |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | Bw Spec Type  |   Reserved                                    |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      ~                     Generalized Bandwidth                     ~
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      ~          Optional:  Reverse Generalized Bandwidth             ~
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      ~                       Optional TLVs                           ~
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The BANDWIDTH object type TBA-2 and TBA-3 have a variable length.
   The 16-bit Bandwidth Spec Length field indicates the length of the
   Generalized Bandwidth field.  The Bandwidth Spec Length MUST be
   strictly greater than 0.  The 16-bit Reverse Bandwidth Spec Length
   field indicates the length of the Reverse Generalized Bandwidth
   field.  The Reverse Bandwidth Spec Length MAY be equal to 0.

   The Bw Spec Type field determines which type of bandwidth is
   represented by the object.

   The Bw Spec Type corresponds to the RSVP-TE SENDER_TSPEC (Object
   Class 12) C-Types

   The encoding of the fields Generalized Bandwidth and Reverse
   Generalized Bandwidth is the same as the Traffic Parameters carried
   in RSVP-TE, it can be found in the following references.  It is to be
   noted that the RSVP-TE traffic specification MAY also include TLVs
   (e.g., [RFC6003] different from the PCEP TLVs).







Margaria, et al.         Expires April 17, 2020                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2019


                     Bw Spec Type Name      Reference

                     2            Intserv   [RFC2210]
                     4            SONET/SDH [RFC4606]
                     5            G.709     [RFC4328]
                     6            Ethernet  [RFC6003]
                     7            OTN-TDM   [RFC7139]
                     8            SSON      [RFC7792]

     Table 4: Generalized Bandwidth and Reverse Generalized Bandwidth
                              field encoding

   When a PCC requests a bi-directional path with symmetric bandwidth,
   it SHOULD only specify the Generalized Bandwidth field, and set the
   Reverse Bandwidth Spec Length to 0.  When a PCC needs to request a
   bi-directional path with asymmetric bandwidth, it SHOULD specify the
   different bandwidth in the forward and reverse directions with a
   Generalized Bandwidth and Reverse Generalized Bandwidth fields.

   The procedure described in [RFC5440] for the PCRep is unchanged: a
   PCE MAY include the BANDWIDTH objects in the response to indicate the
   BANDWIDTH of the path.

   As specified in [RFC5440] in the case of the reoptimization of a TE-
   LSP, the bandwidth of the existing TE-LSP MUST also be included in
   addition to the requested bandwidth if and only if the two values
   differ.  The Object Type TBA-3 MAY be used instead of the previously
   specified object type 2 to indicate the existing TE-LSP bandwidth
   originally specified with object type TBA-2.  A PCC that requested a
   path with a BANDWIDTH object of object type 1 MUST use object type 2
   to represent the existing TE-LSP BANDWIDTH.

   OPTIONAL TLVs MAY be included within the object body to specify more
   specific bandwidth requirements.  No TLVs for the Object Type TBA-2
   and TBA-3 are defined by this document.

2.4.  LOAD-BALANCING Object Extensions

   The LOAD-BALANCING object [RFC5440] is used to request a set of at
   most Max-LSP TE-LSP having in total the bandwidth specified in
   BANDWIDTH, with each TE-LSP having at least a specified minimum
   bandwidth.  The LOAD-BALANCING follows the bandwidth encoding of the
   BANDWIDTH object, and thus the existing definition from [RFC5440]
   does not describe enough details for the bandwidth specification
   expected by GMPLS.






Margaria, et al.         Expires April 17, 2020                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2019


   Similarly to the BANDWIDTH object, a new object type is defined to
   allow a PCC to represent the bandwidth types supported by GMPLS
   networks.

   This document defines the Generalized Load Balancing object type
   TBA-4 for the LOAD-BALANCING object.  The Generalized Load Balancing
   object type has a variable length.

   The format of the Generalized Load Balancing object type 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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |    Bandwidth Spec Length      | Reverse Bandwidth Spec Length |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | Bw Spec Type  |  Max-LSP      | Reserved                      |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |        Min Bandwidth Spec                                     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |        Min Reverse Bandwidth Spec (optional)                  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      ~                Optional   TLVs                                ~
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Bandwidth Spec Length (16 bits): the total length of the Min
   Bandwidth Spec field.  The length MUST be strictly greater than 0.

   Reverse Bandwidth Spec Length (16 bits): the total length of the Min
   Reverse Bandwidth Spec field.  It MAY be equal to 0.

   Bw Spec Type (8 bits): the bandwidth specification type, it
   corresponds to the RSVP-TE SENDER_TSPEC (Object Class 12) C-Types.

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

   Min Bandwidth Spec (variable): specifies the minimum bandwidth
   specification of each element of the TE-LSP set.

   Min Reverse Bandwidth Spec (variable): specifies the minimum reverse
   bandwidth specification of each element of the TE-LSP set.

   The encoding of the fields Min Bandwidth Spec and Min Reverse
   Bandwidth Spec is the same as in RSVP-TE SENDER_TSPEC object, it can
   be found in Table 4 from Section 2.3 from this document.




Margaria, et al.         Expires April 17, 2020                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2019


   When a PCC requests a bi-directional path with symmetric bandwidth
   while specifying load balancing constraints it SHOULD specify the Min
   Bandwidth Spec field, and set the Reverse Bandwidth Spec Length to 0.
   When a PCC needs to request a bi-directional path with asymmetric
   bandwidth while specifying load balancing constraints, it MUST
   specify the different bandwidth in forward and reverse directions
   through a Min Bandwidth Spec and Min Reverse Bandwidth Spec fields.

   OPTIONAL TLVs MAY be included within the object body to specify more
   specific bandwidth requirements.  No TLVs for the Generalized Load
   Balancing object type are defined by this document.

   The semantic of the LOAD-BALANCING object is not changed.  If a PCC
   requests the computation of a set of TE-LSPs with at most N TE-LSPs
   so that it can carry generalized bandwidth X , each TE-LSP must at
   least transport bandwidth B, it inserts a BANDWIDTH object specifying
   X as the required bandwidth and a LOAD-BALANCING object with the Max-
   LSP and Min Bandwidth Spec fields set to N and B, respectively.  When
   the BANDWIDTH and Min Bandwidth Spec can be summarized as scalars,
   the sum of all TE-LSPs bandwith in the set is greater than X.  The
   mapping of X over N path with (at least) bandwidth B is technology
   and possibly node specific.  Each standard definition of the
   transport technology is defining those mappings and are not repeated
   in this document.  A simplified example for SDH is described in
   Appendix A

   In all other cases, including for technologies based on statistical
   multiplexing (e.g., InterServ, Ethernet), the exact bandwidth
   management (e.g., Ethernet's Excessive Rate) is left to the PCE's
   policies, according to the operator's configuration.  If required,
   further documents may introduce a new mechanism to finely express
   complex load balancing policies within PCEP.

   The BANDWITH and LOAD-BALANCING Bw Spec Type can be different
   depending on the endpoint nodes architecture.  When the PCE is not
   able to handle those two Bw Spec Type, it MUST return a NO-PATH with
   the bit "LOAD-BALANCING could not be performed with the bandwidth
   constraits " set in the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV.

2.5.  END-POINTS Object Extensions

   The END-POINTS object is used in a PCEP request message to specify
   the source and the destination of the path for which a path
   computation is requested.  From [RFC5440], 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 source and destination endpoint types.



Margaria, et al.         Expires April 17, 2020                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2019


   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.

   In path computation within a GMPLS context the endpoints can:

   o  Be unnumbered as described in [RFC3477].

   o  Have labels associated to them, specifying a set of constraints on
      the allocation of labels.

   o  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
   numbered Link) is not explicitly stated.  It is also possible to
   request a Path between a numbered link and an unnumbered link, or a
   P2MP path between different type of endpoints.

   This document defines the Generalized Endpoint object type TBA-5 for
   the END-POINTS object.  This new type also supports the specification
   of constraints on the endpoint label to be used.  The PCE might know
   the interface restrictions but this is not a requirement.  This
   corresponds to requirements 6 and 10 of [RFC7025].

2.5.1.  Generalized Endpoint Object Type

   The Generalized Endpoint object type format consists of a body and a
   list of TLVs scoped to this object.  The TLVs give the details of the
   endpoints and are described in Section 2.5.2.  For each Endpoint
   Type, a different grammar is defined.  The TLVs defined to describe
   an endpoint are:

   1.  IPv4 address endpoint.

   2.  IPv6 address endpoint.

   3.  Unnumbered endpoint.

   4.  Label request.

   5.  Label set.

   The Label set TLV is used to restrict or suggest the label allocation
   in the PCE.  This TLV expresses the set of restrictions which may



Margaria, et al.         Expires April 17, 2020                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2019


   apply to signaling.  Label restriction support can be an explicit or
   a suggested value (Label set describing one label, with the L bit
   respectively cleared or set), mandatory range restrictions (Label set
   with L bit cleared) and optional range restriction (Label set with L
   bit set).  Endpoints label restriction may not be part of the RRO or
   IRO.  They can be included when following [RFC4003] in signaling for
   egress endpoint, but ingress endpoint properties can be local to the
   PCC and not signaled.  To support this case the label set allows
   indication which label are used in case of reoptimization.  The label
   range restrictions are valid in GMPLS-controlled networks, either by
   PCC policy or depending on the switching technology used, for
   instance on given Ethernet or ODU equipment having limited hardware
   capabilities restricting the label range.  Label set restriction also
   applies to WSON networks where the optical senders and receivers are
   limited in their frequency tunability ranges, consequently
   restricting the possible label ranges on the interface in GMPLS.  The
   END-POINTS Object with Generalized Endpoint object type 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:

        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 has to be
                                    left unchanged
        5-244   Reserved
        245-255 Experimental range

               Table 5: Generalized Endpoint endpoint types



Margaria, et al.         Expires April 17, 2020                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2019


   The Endpoint Type is used to cover both point-to-point and different
   point-to-multipoint endpoints.  A PCE may accept only Endpoint Type
   0: Endpoint Types 1-4 apply if the PCE implementation supports P2MP
   path calculation.  A PCE not supporting a given Endpoint Type SHOULD
   respond with a PCErr with Error-Type=4 (Not supported object), Error-
   value=TBA-15 (Unsupported endpoint type in END-POINTS Generalized
   Endpoint object type).  As per [RFC5440], a PCE unable to process
   Generalized Endpoints may respond with Error-Type=3 (Unknown Object),
   Error-value=2 (Unrecognized object Type) or Error-Type=4 (Not
   supported object), Error-value=2 (Not supported object Type).  The
   TLVs present in the request object body MUST follow the following
   [RFC5511] grammar:

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

     <p2p-endpoints> ::=
       <endpoint> [<endpoint-restriction-list>]
       <endpoint> [<endpoint-restriction-list>]

     <p2mp-endpoints> ::=
       <endpoint> [<endpoint-restriction-list>]
       <endpoint> [<endpoint-restriction-list>]
       [<endpoint> [<endpoint-restriction-list>]]...


   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
   destination.

   For endpoint type Point-to-Multipoint, several END-POINT objects MAY
   be present in the message and the exact meaning depending on the
   endpoint type defined for the object.  The first endpoint TLV is the
   root and other endpoints TLVs are the leaves.  The root endpoint MUST
   be the same for all END-POINTS objects.  If the root endpoint is not
   the same for all END-POINTS, a PCErr with Error-Type=17 (P2MP END-
   POINTS Error), Error-value=4 (The PCE cannot satisfy the request due
   to inconsistent END-POINTS) MUST be returned.  The procedure defined
   in [RFC8306] Section 3.10 also apply to the Generalized Endpoint with
   Point-to-Multipoint endpoint types.

   An endpoint is defined as follows:









Margaria, et al.         Expires April 17, 2020                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2019


    <endpoint>::=<IPV4-ADDRESS>|<IPV6-ADDRESS>|<UNNUMBERED-ENDPOINT>
    <endpoint-restriction-list> ::=               <endpoint-restriction>
                 [<endpoint-restriction-list>]

    <endpoint-restriction> ::=
                     [<LABEL-REQUEST>][<label-restriction-list>]

    <label-restriction-list> ::= <label-restriction>
                                 [<label-restriction-list>]
    <label-restriction> ::= <LABEL-SET>

   The different TLVs are described in the following sections.  A PCE
   MAY support any or all of IPV4-ADDRESS, IPV6-ADDRESS, and UNNUMBERED-
   ENDPOINT TLVs.  When receiving a PCReq, a PCE unable to resolve the
   identifier in one of those TLVs MUST respond using a PCRep with NO-
   PATH and set the bit "Unknown destination" or "Unknown source" in the
   NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV.  The response SHOULD include the END-POINTS
   object with only the unsupported TLV(s).

   A PCE MAY support either or both of the LABEL-REQUEST and LABEL-SET
   TLVs.  If a PCE finds a non-supported TLV in the END-POINTS the PCE
   MUST respond with a PCErr message with Error-Type=4 (Not supported
   object) and Error-value=TBA-15 (Unsupported TLV present in END-POINTS
   Generalized Endpoint object type) and the message SHOULD include the
   END-POINTS object in the response with only the endpoint and endpoint
   restriction TLV it did not understand.  A PCE supporting those TLVs
   but not being able to fulfil the label restriction MUST send a
   response with a NO-PATH object which has the bit "No endpoint label
   resource" or "No endpoint label resource in range" set in the NO-
   PATH-VECTOR TLV.  The response SHOULD include an END-POINTS object
   containing only the TLV(s) related to the constraints the PCE could
   not meet.

2.5.2.  END-POINTS TLV Extensions

   All endpoint TLVs have the standard PCEP TLV header as defined in
   [RFC5440] Section 7.1.  For the Generalized Endpoint Object Type the
   TLVs MUST follow the ordering defined in Section 2.5.1.

2.5.2.1.  IPV4-ADDRESS TLV

   This TLV represents a numbered endpoint using IPv4 numbering, the
   format of the IPv4-ADDRESS TLV value (TLV-Type=TBA-6) is as follows:








Margaria, et al.         Expires April 17, 2020                [Page 20]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2019


      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                          IPv4 address                         |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   This TLV MAY be ignored, in which case a PCRep with NO-PATH SHOULD be
   returned, as described in Section 2.5.1.

2.5.2.2.  IPV6-ADDRESS TLV

   This TLV represents a numbered endpoint using IPV6 numbering, the
   format of the IPv6-ADDRESS TLV value (TLV-Type=TBA-7) 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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |              IPv6 address (16 bytes)                          |
     |                                                               |
     |                                                               |
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   This TLV MAY be ignored, in which case a PCRep with NO-PATH SHOULD be
   returned, as described in Section 2.5.1.

2.5.2.3.  UNNUMBERED-ENDPOINT TLV

   This TLV represents an unnumbered interface.  This TLV has the same
   semantic as in [RFC3477].  The TLV value is encoded as follows (TLV-
   Type=TBA-8)

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

   This TLV MAY be ignored, in which case a PCRep with NO-PATH SHOULD be
   returned, as described in Section 2.5.1.

2.5.2.4.  LABEL-REQUEST TLV

   The LABEL-REQUEST TLV indicates the switching capability and encoding
   type of the following label restriction list for the endpoint.  The
   value format and encoding is the same as described in [RFC3471]



Margaria, et al.         Expires April 17, 2020                [Page 21]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2019


   Section 3.1 Generalized label request.  The LABEL-REQUEST TLV uses
   TLV-Type=TBA-9.  The Encoding Type indicates the encoding type, e.g.,
   SONET/SDH/GigE etc., of the LSP with which the data is associated.
   The Switching type indicates the type of switching that is being
   requested on the endpoint.  G-PID identifies the payload.  This TLV
   and the following one are defined to satisfy requirement 13 of
   [RFC7025] for the endpoint.  It is not directly related to the TE-LSP
   label request, which is expressed by the SWITCH-LAYER object.

   On the path calculation request only the GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH and
   SWITCH-LAYER need to be coherent, the endpoint labels could be
   different (supporting a different LABEL-REQUEST).  Hence the label
   restrictions include a Generalized label request in order to
   interpret the labels.  This TLV MAY be ignored, in which case a PCRep
   with NO-PATH SHOULD be returned, as described in Section 2.5.1.

2.5.2.5.  LABEL-SET TLV

   Label or label range restrictions can be specified for the TE-LSP
   endpoints.  Those are encoded using the LABEL-SET TLV.  The label
   value need to be interpreted with a description on the Encoding and
   switching type.  The REQ-ADAP-CAP object from [RFC8282] can be used
   in case of mono-layer request, however in case of multilayer it is
   possible to have more than one object, so it is better to have a
   dedicated TLV for the label and label request.  These TLVs MAY be
   ignored, in which case a response with NO-PATH SHOULD be returned, as
   described in Section 2.5.1.  TLVs are encoded as follows (following
   [RFC5440]):

   o  LABEL-SET TLV, Type=TBA-10.  The TLV Length is variable, Encoding
      follows [RFC3471] Section 3.5 "Label set" with the addition of a U
      bit, O bit and L bit.  The L bit is used to represent a suggested
      set of labels, following the semantic of SUGGESTED_LABEL defined
      by [RFC3471].

















Margaria, et al.         Expires April 17, 2020                [Page 22]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2019


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


   A LABEL-SET TLV represents a set of possible labels that can be used
   on an interface.  If the L bit is cleared, the label allocated on the
   first endpoint MUST be within the label set range.  The action
   parameter in the Label set indicates the type of list provided.
   These parameters are described by [RFC3471] Section 3.5.1.

   The U, O and L bits have the following meaning:

   U: Upstream direction: The U bit is set for upstream (revers)
      direction in case of bidirectional LSP.
   O: Old Label: set when the TLV represent the old (previously
      allocated) label in case of re-optimization.  The R bit of the RP
      object MUST be set to 1. If the L bit is set, this bit SHOULD be
      set to 0 and ignored on receipt.  When this bit is set, the Action
      field MUST be set to 0 (Inclusive List) and the Label Set MUST
      contain one subchannel.
   L: Loose Label: set when the TLV indicates to the PCE a set of
      preferred (ordered) labels to be used. The PCE MAY use those
      labels for label allocation.

                              Labels TLV bits

   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
   with L bit cleared.  At most 2 LABEL_SET TLVs MAY be present with the
   O bit set, with at most one of these having the U bit set and at most
   one of these having the U bit cleared.  For a given U bit value, if
   more than one LABEL_SET TLV with the O bit set is present, the first
   TLV MUST be processed and the following TLVs with the same U and O
   bit MUST be ignored.





Margaria, et al.         Expires April 17, 2020                [Page 23]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2019


   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-
   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
   (Inclusive list) or containing more than one subchannel MUST trigger
   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
   format).

   If a LABEL-SET TLV is present with O bit set, the R bit of the RP
   object MUST be set, otherwise a PCErr message MUST be sent with
   Error-Type=10 (Reception of an invalid object) Error-value=TBA-24
   (LABEL-SET TLV present with O bit set but without R bit set in RP).

2.6.  IRO Extension

   The IRO as defined in [RFC5440] is used to include specific objects
   in the path.  RSVP-TE allows the inclusion of a label definition.  In
   order to fulfill requirement 13 of [RFC7025] the IRO needs to support
   the new subobject type as defined in [RFC3473]:

                             Type   Sub-object
                             TBA-38 LABEL

   The Label subobject MUST follow a subobject identifying a link,
   currently an IP address subobject (Type 1 or 2) or an interface ID
   (type 4) subobject.  If an IP address subobject is used, then the
   given IP address MUST be associated with a link.  More than one label
   subobject MAY follow each link subobject.  The procedure associated
   with this subobject is as follows.

   If the PCE is able to allocate labels (e.g., via explicit label
   control) the PCE MUST allocate one label from within the set of label
   values for the given link.  If the PCE does not assign labels, then
   it sends a response with a NO-PATH object, containing a NO-PATH-
   VECTOR TLV with the bit 'No label resource in range' set.

2.7.  XRO Extension

   The XRO as defined in [RFC5521] is used to exclude specific objects
   in the path.  RSVP-TE allows the exclusion of certain labels
   ([RFC6001]).  In order to fulfill requirement 13 of [RFC7025]
   Section 3.1, the PCEP's XRO needs to support a new subobject to
   enable label exclusion.

   The encoding of the XRO Label subobject follows the encoding of the
   Label ERO subobject defined in [RFC3473] and XRO subobject defined in



Margaria, et al.         Expires April 17, 2020                [Page 24]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2019


   [RFC5521].  The XRO Label subobject represent one Label and is
   defined as follows:

   XRO Subobject Type TBA-39: Label Subobject.

   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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |X| Type=TBA-39 |    Length     |U|   Reserved  |   C-Type      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                             Label                             |
   |                              ...                              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      X (1 bit): as per [RFC5521].  The X-bit indicates whether the
      exclusion is mandatory or desired.  0 indicates that the resource
      specified MUST be excluded from the path computed by the PCE. 1
      indicates that the resource specified SHOULD be excluded from the
      path computed by the PCE, but MAY be included subject to PCE
      policy and the absence of a viable path that meets the other
      constraints and excludes the resource.

      Type (7 bits): The Type of the XRO Label subobject is TBA-39.

      Length (8 bits): see [RFC5521], the total length of the subobject
      in bytes (including the Type and Length fields).  The Length is
      always divisible by 4.

      U (1 bit): see [RFC3471] Section 6.1.

      C-Type (8 bits): the C-Type of the included Label Object as
      defined in [RFC3473].

      Label: see [RFC3471].

   The Label subobject MUST follow a subobject identifying a link,
   currently an IP address subobject (Type 1 or 2) or an interface ID
   (type 4) subobject.  If an IP address subobject is used, then the
   given IP address MUST be associated with a link.  More than one label
   subobject MAY follow each link subobject.

                              Type Sub-object
                              3    LABEL








Margaria, et al.         Expires April 17, 2020                [Page 25]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2019


2.8.  LSPA Extensions

   The LSPA carries the LSP attributes.  In the end-to-end recovery
   context, this also includes the protection state information.  A new
   TLV is defined to fulfil requirement 7 of [RFC7025] Section 3.1 and
   requirement 3 of [RFC7025] Section 3.2.  This TLV contains the
   information of the PROTECTION object defined by [RFC4872] and can be
   used as a policy input.  The LSPA object MAY carry a PROTECTION-
   ATTRIBUTE TLV defined as: Type TBA-12: 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] Section 14, [RFC4873]
   Section 6.1.

   LSP (protection) Flags or Link flags field can be used by a PCE
   implementation for routing policy input.  The other attributes are
   only meaningful for a stateful PCE.

   This TLV is OPTIONAL and MAY be ignored by the PCE.  If ignored by
   the PCE, it MUST NOT include the TLV in the LSPA of the response.
   When the TLV is used by the PCE, a LSPA object and the PROTECTION-
   ATTRIBUTE TLV MUST be included in the response.  Fields that were not
   considered MUST be set to 0.

2.9.  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
   satisfying the set of constraints).  In this scenario, PCE MUST
   include a NO-PATH object in the PCRep message.  The NO-PATH object
   MAY carry the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV that specifies more information on
   the reasons that led to a negative reply.  In case of GMPLS networks
   there could be some additional constraints that led to the failure
   such as protection mismatch, lack of resources, and so on.  Several
   new flags have been defined in the 32-bit flag field of the NO-PATH-
   VECTOR TLV but no modifications have been made in the NO-PATH object.






Margaria, et al.         Expires April 17, 2020                [Page 26]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2019


2.9.1.  Extensions to NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV

   The modified NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV carrying the additional information
   is as follows:

      Bit number TBA-32 - Protection Mismatch (1-bit).  Specifies the
      mismatch of the protection type in the PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV in
      the request.

      Bit number TBA-33 - No Resource (1-bit).  Specifies that the
      resources are not currently sufficient to provide the path.

      Bit number TBA-34 - Granularity not supported (1-bit).  Specifies
      that the PCE is not able to provide a path with the requested
      granularity.

      Bit number TBA-35 - No endpoint label resource (1-bit).  Specifies
      that the PCE is not able to provide a path because of the endpoint
      label restriction.

      Bit number TBA-36 - No endpoint label resource in range (1-bit).
      Specifies that the PCE is not able to provide a path because of
      the endpoint label set restriction.

      Bit number TBA-37 - No label resource in range (1-bit).  Specifies
      that the PCE is not able to provide a path because of the label
      set restriction.

3.  Additional Error-Types 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 while
   Error-value that provides additional information about the error.  An
   additional error type and several error values are defined to
   represent some of the errors related to the newly identified objects
   related to GMPLS 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-Types 4 and
   10.  A new Error-Type is defined (value TBA-27).

   The Error-Type TBA-27 (path computation failure) is used to reflect
   constraints not understood by the PCE, for instance when the PCE is
   not able to understand the generalized bandwidth.  If the constraints
   are understood, but the PCE is unable to find with those constraints,
   the NO-PATH is to be used.






Margaria, et al.         Expires April 17, 2020                [Page 27]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2019


   Error-Type Error-value

       4      Not supported
              object
              value=TBA-14: Bandwidth Object type TBA-2 or TBA-3 not
                            supported
              value=TBA-15: Unsupported endpoint type in
                            END-POINTS Generalized Endpoint
                            object type
              value=TBA-16: Unsupported TLV present in END-POINTS
                            Generalized Endpoint object type
              value=TBA-17: Unsupported granularity in the RP object
                            flags
       10     Reception of
              an invalid
              object
              value=TBA-18: Bad Bandwidth Object type TBA-2(Generalized
                            bandwidth) or TBA-3( Generalized bandwidth
                            of existing TE-LSP for which a
                            reoptimization is requested)
              value=TBA-20: Unsupported LSP Protection Flags in
                            PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV
              value=TBA-21: Unsupported Secondary LSP Protection Flags
                            in PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV
              value=TBA-22: Unsupported Link Protection Type in
                            PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV
              value=TBA-24: LABEL-SET TLV present with 0 bit set but
                            without R bit set in RP
              value=TBA-25: Wrong LABEL-SET
                            TLV present with
                            0 and L bit set
              value=TBA-26: Wrong LABEL-SET with O bit set and wrong
                            format
              value=TBA-42: Missing GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV
     TBA-27   Path
              computation
              failure
              value=0:      Unassigned
              value=TBA-28: Unacceptable request message
              value=TBA-29: Generalized bandwidth value not supported
              value=TBA-30: Label Set constraint could not be
                            met
              value=TBA-31: Label constraint could not be
                            met







Margaria, et al.         Expires April 17, 2020                [Page 28]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2019


4.  Manageability Considerations

   This section follows the guidance of [RFC6123].

4.1.  Control of Function through Configuration and Policy

   This document makes no change to the basic operation of PCEP and so
   the requirements described in [RFC5440] Section 8.1. also apply to
   this document.  In addition to those requirements a PCEP
   implementation may allow the configuration of the following
   parameters:

      Accepted RG in the RP object.

      Default RG to use (overriding the one present in the PCReq)

      Accepted BANDWIDTH object type TBA-2 and TBA-3 parameters in
      request, default mapping to use when not specified in the request

      Accepted LOAD-BALANCING object type TBA-4 parameters in request.

      Accepted endpoint type and allowed TLVs in object END-POINTS with
      object type Generalized Endpoint.

      Accepted range for label restrictions in label restriction in END-
      POINTS, or IRO or XRO objects

      PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV acceptance and suppression.

   The configuration of the above parameters is applicable to the
   different sessions as described in [RFC5440] Section 8.1 (by default,
   per PCEP peer, etc.).

4.2.  Information and Data Models

   This document makes no change to the basic operation of PCEP and so
   the requirements described in [RFC5440] Section 8.2. also apply to
   this document.  This document does not introduce any new ERO sub
   objects, so that the, ERO information model is already covered in
   [RFC4802].

4.3.  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] Section 8.3.





Margaria, et al.         Expires April 17, 2020                [Page 29]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2019


4.4.  Verifying Correct Operation

   This document makes no change to the basic operations of PCEP and
   considerations described in [RFC5440] Section 8.4.  New errors
   defined by this document should satisfy the requirement to log error
   events.

4.5.  Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components

   No new Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components are
   made by this document.  This document does not require ERO object
   extensions.  Any new ERO subobject defined in the TEAS or CCAMP
   working group can be adopted without modifying the operations defined
   in this document.

4.6.  Impact on Network Operation

   This document makes no change to the basic operations of PCEP and
   considerations described in [RFC5440] Section 8.6.  In addition to
   the limit on the rate of messages sent by a PCEP speaker, a limit MAY
   be placed on the size of the PCEP messages.

5.  IANA Considerations

   IANA assigns values to the PCEP objects and TLVs.  IANA is requested
   to make some allocations for the newly defined objects and TLVs
   defined 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 2.3, Section 2.4 and Section 2.5.1 new
   Objects types are defined.  IANA is requested to make the following
   Object-Type allocations from the "PCEP Objects" sub-registry.

















Margaria, et al.         Expires April 17, 2020                [Page 30]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2019


    Object      5
    Class
    Name        BANDWIDTH
    Object-Type TBA-2: Generalized bandwidth
                TBA-3: Generalized bandwidth of an existing TE-LSP for
                which a reoptimization is requested
    Reference   This document (Section 2.3)

    Object      14
    Class
    Name        LOAD-BALANCING
    Object-Type TBA-4: Generalized Load Balancing

    Reference   This document (Section 2.4)
    Object      4
    Class
    Name        END-POINTS
    Object-Type TBA-5: Generalized Endpoint
    Reference   This document (Section 2.5)

5.2.  Endpoint type field in Generalized END-POINTS Object

   IANA is requested to create a registry to manage the Endpoint Type
   field of the END-POINTS object, Object Type Generalized Endpoint and
   manage the code space.

   New endpoint type in the Reserved range are assigned by Standards
   Action [RFC8126].  Each endpoint type should be tracked with the
   following attributes:

   o  Endpoint type

   o  Description

   o  Defining RFC

   New endpoint type in the Experimental range are for experimental use;
   these will not be registered with IANA and MUST NOT be mentioned by
   RFCs.

   The following values have been defined by this document.
   (Section 2.5.1, Table 5):









Margaria, et al.         Expires April 17, 2020                [Page 31]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2019


        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 has to be
                                    left unchanged
        5-244   Unassigned
        245-255 Experimental range

5.3.  New PCEP TLVs

   IANA manages the PCEP TLV code point registry (see [RFC5440]).  This
   is maintained as the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" sub-registry of the
   "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry.  IANA is
   requested to do the following allocation.  Note: TBA-11 is not used

        Value  Meaning              Reference

        TBA-6  IPV4-ADDRESS         This document (Section 2.5.2.1)
        TBA-7  IPV6-ADDRESS         This document (Section 2.5.2.2)
        TBA-8  UNNUMBERED-ENDPOINT  This document (Section 2.5.2.3)
        TBA-9  LABEL-REQUEST        This document (Section 2.5.2.4)
        TBA-10 LABEL-SET            This document (Section 2.5.2.5)
        TBA-12 PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE This document (Section 2.8)
        TBA-1  GMPLS-CAPABILITY     This document (Section 2.1.2)

5.4.  RP Object Flag Field

   As described in Section 2.2 new flag are defined in the RP Object
   Flag IANA is requested to make the following Object-Type allocations
   from the "RP Object Flag Field" sub-registry.

       Bit   Description                  Reference

      TBA-13 routing granularity (2 bits) This document, Section 2.2
             (RG)

5.5.  New PCEP Error Codes

   As described in Section 3, new PCEP Error-Types and Error-values are
   defined.  IANA is requested to make the following allocation in the
   "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" registry.






Margaria, et al.         Expires April 17, 2020                [Page 32]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2019


   Error         name                                      Reference

   Type=4        Not supported object                      [RFC5440]
   Value=TBA-14: Bandwidth Object type TBA-2 or TBA-3 not  This Document
                 supported
   Value=TBA-15: Unsupported endpoint type in END-POINTS   This Document
                 Generalized Endpoint object type
   Value=TBA-16: Unsupported TLV present in END-POINTS     This Document
                 Generalized Endpoint object type
   Value=TBA-17: Unsupported granularity in the RP object  This Document
                 flags
   Type=10       Reception of an invalid object            [RFC5440]
   Value=TBA-18: Bad Bandwidth Object type                 This Document
                 TBA-2(Generalized bandwidth) or
                 TBA-3(Generalized bandwidth of existing
                 TE-LSP for which a reoptimization is
                 requested)
   Value=TBA-20: Unsupported LSP Protection Flags in       This Document
                 PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV
   Value=TBA-21: Unsupported Secondary LSP Protection      This Document
                 Flags in PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV
   Value=TBA-22: Unsupported Link Protection Type in       This Document
                 PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV
   Value=TBA-24: LABEL-SET TLV present with 0 bit set but  This Document
                 without R bit set in RP
   Value=TBA-25: Wrong LABEL-SET TLV present with 0 and L  This Document
                 bit set
   Value=TBA-26: Wrong LABEL-SET with O bit set and wrong  This Document
                 format
   Value=TBA-42: Missing GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV              This Document
   Type=TBA-27   Path computation failure                  This Document
   Value=0       Unassigned                                This Document
   Value=TBA-28: Unacceptable request message              This Document
   Value=TBA-29: Generalized bandwidth value not supported This Document
   Value=TBA-30: Label Set constraint could not be met     This Document
   Value=TBA-31: Label constraint could not be met         This Document

5.6.  New NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Fields

   As described in Section 2.9.1, new NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Flag Fields
   have been defined.  IANA is requested to do the following allocations
   in the "NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Flag Field" sub-registry.

      Bit number TBA-32 - Protection Mismatch (1-bit).  Specifies the
      mismatch of the protection type of the PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV in
      the request.





Margaria, et al.         Expires April 17, 2020                [Page 33]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2019


      Bit number TBA-33 - No Resource (1-bit).  Specifies that the
      resources are not currently sufficient to provide the path.

      Bit number TBA-34 - Granularity not supported (1-bit).  Specifies
      that the PCE is not able to provide a path with the requested
      granularity.

      Bit number TBA-35 - No endpoint label resource (1-bit).  Specifies
      that the PCE is not able to provide a path because of the endpoint
      label restriction.

      Bit number TBA-36 - No endpoint label resource in range (1-bit).
      Specifies that the PCE is not able to provide a path because of
      the endpoint label set restriction.

      Bit number TBA-37 - No label resource in range (1-bit).  Specifies
      that the PCE is not able to provide a path because of the label
      set restriction.

      Bit number TBA-40 - LOAD-BALANCING could not be performed with the
      bandwidth constraits (1 bit).  Specifies that the PCE is not able
      to provide a path because it could not map the BANDWIDTH into the
      parameters specified by the LOAD-BALANCING.

5.7.  New Subobject for the Include Route Object

   The "PCEP Parameters" registry contains a subregistry "IRO
   Subobjects" with an entry for the Include Route Object (IRO).

   IANA is requested to add a further subobject that can be carried in
   the IRO as follows:

                  Subobject type            Reference

                  TBA-38    Label subobject This Document

5.8.  New Subobject for the Exclude Route Object

   The "PCEP Parameters" registry contains a subregistry "XRO
   Subobjects" with an entry for the XRO object (Exclude Route Object).

   IANA is requested to add a further subobject that can be carried in
   the XRO as follows:

                  Subobject type            Reference

                  TBA-39    Label subobject This Document




Margaria, et al.         Expires April 17, 2020                [Page 34]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2019


5.9.  New GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV Flag Field

   IANA is requested to create a sub-registry to manage the Flag field
   of the GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV within the "Path Computation Element
   Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry.

   New bit numbers are to be assigned by Standards Action [RFC8126].
   Each bit should be tracked with the following qualities:

   o  Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit)

   o  Capability description

   o  Defining RFC

   The initial contents of the sub-registry are empty, with all bits
   marked unassigned

6.  Security Considerations

   GMPLS controls multiple technologies and types of network elements.
   The LSPs that are established using GMPLS, whose paths can be
   computed using the PCEP extensions to support GMPLS described in this
   document, can carry a high volume of traffic and can be a critical
   part of a network infrastructure.  The PCE can then play a key role
   in the use of the resources and in determining the physical paths of
   the LSPs and thus it is important to ensure the identity of PCE and
   PCC, as well as the communication channel.  In many deployments there
   will be a completely isolated network where an external attack is of
   very low probability.  However, there are other deployment cases in
   which the PCC-PCE communication can be more exposed and there could
   be more security considerations.  Three main situations in case of an
   attack in the GMPLS PCE context could happen:

   o  PCE Identity theft: A legitimate PCC could request a path for a
      GMPLS LSP to a malicious PCE, which poses as a legitimate PCE.
      The answer can make that the LSP traverses some geographical place
      known to the attacker where confidentiality (sniffing), integrity
      (traffic modification) or availability (traffic drop) attacks
      could be performed by use of an attacker-controlled middlebox
      device.  Also, the resulting LSP can omit constraints given in the
      requests (e.g., excluding certain fibers, avoiding some SRLGs)
      which could make that the LSP which will be later set-up can look
      perfectly fine, but will be in a risky situation.  Also, the
      result can lead to the creation of an LSP that does not provide
      the desired quality and gives less resources than necessary.





Margaria, et al.         Expires April 17, 2020                [Page 35]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2019


   o  PCC Identity theft: A malicious PCC, acting as a legitimate PCC,
      requesting LSP paths to a legitimate PCE can obtain a good
      knowledge of the physical topology of a critical infrastructure.
      It could get to know enough details to plan a later physical
      attack.

   o  Message inspection: As in the previous case, knowledge of an
      infrastructure can be obtained by sniffing PCEP messages.

   The security mechanisms can provide authentication and
   confidentiality for those scenarios where the PCC-PCE communication
   cannot be completely trusted.  [RFC8253] provides origin
   verification, message integrity and replay protection, and ensures
   that a third party cannot decipher the contents of a message.

   In order to protect against the malicious PCE case the PCC SHOULD
   have policies in place to accept or not the path provided by the PCE.
   Those policies can verify if the path follows the provided
   constraints.  In addition, technology specific data plane mechanism
   can be used (following [RFC5920] Section 5.8) to verify the data
   plane connectivity and deviation from constraints.

   The document [RFC8253] describes the usage of Transport Layer
   Security (TLS) to enhance PCEP security.  The document describes the
   initiation of the TLS procedures, the TLS handshake mechanisms, the
   TLS methods for peer authentication, the applicable TLS ciphersuites
   for data exchange, and the handling of errors in the security checks.
   PCE and PCC SHOULD use [RFC8253] mechanism to protect against
   malicious PCC and PCE.

   Finally, as mentioned by [RFC7025] the PCEP extensions to support
   GMPLS should be considered under the same security as current PCE
   work and this extension will not change the underlying security
   issues.  However, given the critical nature of the network
   infrastructures under control by GMPLS, the security issues described
   above should be seriously considered when deploying a GMPLS-PCE based
   control plane for such networks.  For more information on the
   security considerations on a GMPLS control plane, not only related to
   PCE/PCEP, [RFC5920] provides an overview of security vulnerabilities
   of a GMPLS control plane.

7.  Contributing Authors

   Elie Sfeir
   Coriant
   St Martin Strasse 76
   Munich, 81541
   Germany



Margaria, et al.         Expires April 17, 2020                [Page 36]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2019


   Email: elie.sfeir@coriant.com

   Franz Rambach
   Nockherstrasse 2-4,
   Munich 81541
   Germany

   Phone: +49 178 8855738
   Email: franz.rambach@cgi.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


      Jun Sun
      Shenzhen
      China
      Email: johnsun@huawei.com





Margaria, et al.         Expires April 17, 2020                [Page 37]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2019


   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


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 Program FP7/2007-2013 under grant agreement no 247674 and
   no 317999.

   The authors would like to thank Julien Meuric, Lyndon Ong, Giada
   Lander, Jonathan Hardwick, Diego Lopez, David Sinicrope, Vincent Roca
   and Tianran Zhou for their review and useful comments to the
   document.

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [G.709-v3]
              ITU-T, "Interfaces for the optical transport network,
              Recommendation G.709/Y.1331", June 2016,
              <https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.709-201606-I/en>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC2210]  Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated
              Services", RFC 2210, DOI 10.17487/RFC2210, September 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2210>.

   [RFC3209]  Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
              and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
              Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.






Margaria, et al.         Expires April 17, 2020                [Page 38]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2019


   [RFC3471]  Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
              Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description",
              RFC 3471, DOI 10.17487/RFC3471, January 2003,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3471>.

   [RFC3473]  Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
              Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-
              Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3473, January 2003,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3473>.

   [RFC3477]  Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered Links
              in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering
              (RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, DOI 10.17487/RFC3477, January 2003,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3477>.

   [RFC3630]  Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
              (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3630>.

   [RFC4003]  Berger, L., "GMPLS Signaling Procedure for Egress
              Control", RFC 4003, DOI 10.17487/RFC4003, February 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4003>.

   [RFC4328]  Papadimitriou, D., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
              Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical
              Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4328, January 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4328>.

   [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,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4606, August 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4606>.

   [RFC4802]  Nadeau, T., Ed. and A. Farrel, Ed., "Generalized
              Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering
              Management Information Base", RFC 4802,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4802, February 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4802>.








Margaria, et al.         Expires April 17, 2020                [Page 39]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2019


   [RFC4872]  Lang, J., Ed., Rekhter, Y., Ed., and D. Papadimitriou,
              Ed., "RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End
              Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
              Recovery", RFC 4872, DOI 10.17487/RFC4872, May 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4872>.

   [RFC4873]  Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., and A. Farrel,
              "GMPLS Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, DOI 10.17487/RFC4873,
              May 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4873>.

   [RFC5088]  Le Roux, JL., Ed., Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R.
              Zhang, "OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path Computation
              Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5088, DOI 10.17487/RFC5088,
              January 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5088>.

   [RFC5089]  Le Roux, JL., Ed., Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R.
              Zhang, "IS-IS Protocol Extensions for Path Computation
              Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5089, DOI 10.17487/RFC5089,
              January 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5089>.

   [RFC5440]  Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
              Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.

   [RFC5511]  Farrel, A., "Routing Backus-Naur Form (RBNF): A Syntax
              Used to Form Encoding Rules in Various Routing Protocol
              Specifications", RFC 5511, DOI 10.17487/RFC5511, April
              2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5511>.

   [RFC5520]  Bradford, R., Ed., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel,
              "Preserving Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path
              Computation Using a Path-Key-Based Mechanism", RFC 5520,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5520, April 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5520>.

   [RFC5521]  Oki, E., Takeda, T., and A. Farrel, "Extensions to the
              Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for
              Route Exclusions", RFC 5521, DOI 10.17487/RFC5521, April
              2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5521>.

   [RFC5541]  Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., and Y. Lee, "Encoding of
              Objective Functions in the Path Computation Element
              Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5541,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5541, June 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5541>.





Margaria, et al.         Expires April 17, 2020                [Page 40]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2019


   [RFC6001]  Papadimitriou, D., Vigoureux, M., Shiomoto, K., Brungard,
              D., and JL. Le Roux, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Protocol
              Extensions for Multi-Layer and Multi-Region Networks (MLN/
              MRN)", RFC 6001, DOI 10.17487/RFC6001, October 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6001>.

   [RFC6003]  Papadimitriou, D., "Ethernet Traffic Parameters",
              RFC 6003, DOI 10.17487/RFC6003, October 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6003>.

   [RFC6205]  Otani, T., Ed. and D. Li, Ed., "Generalized Labels for
              Lambda-Switch-Capable (LSC) Label Switching Routers",
              RFC 6205, DOI 10.17487/RFC6205, March 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6205>.

   [RFC6387]  Takacs, A., Berger, L., Caviglia, D., Fedyk, D., and J.
              Meuric, "GMPLS Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional Label
              Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 6387, DOI 10.17487/RFC6387,
              September 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6387>.

   [RFC7139]  Zhang, F., Ed., Zhang, G., Belotti, S., Ceccarelli, D.,
              and K. Pithewan, "GMPLS Signaling Extensions for Control
              of Evolving G.709 Optical Transport Networks", RFC 7139,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7139, March 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7139>.

   [RFC7570]  Margaria, C., Ed., Martinelli, G., Balls, S., and B.
              Wright, "Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in the
              Explicit Route Object (ERO)", RFC 7570,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7570, July 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7570>.

   [RFC7792]  Zhang, F., Zhang, X., Farrel, A., Gonzalez de Dios, O.,
              and D. Ceccarelli, "RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions in
              Support of Flexi-Grid Dense Wavelength Division
              Multiplexing (DWDM) Networks", RFC 7792,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7792, March 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7792>.

   [RFC8126]  Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
              Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
              RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.




Margaria, et al.         Expires April 17, 2020                [Page 41]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2019


   [RFC8253]  Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody,
              "PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the
              Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)",
              RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253>.

   [RFC8282]  Oki, E., Takeda, T., Farrel, A., and F. Zhang, "Extensions
              to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
              (PCEP) for Inter-Layer MPLS and GMPLS Traffic
              Engineering", RFC 8282, DOI 10.17487/RFC8282, December
              2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8282>.

   [RFC8306]  Zhao, Q., Dhody, D., Ed., Palleti, R., and D. King,
              "Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication
              Protocol (PCEP) for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic
              Engineering Label Switched Paths", RFC 8306,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8306, November 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8306>.

9.2.  Informative References

   [RFC4655]  Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
              Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.

   [RFC4657]  Ash, J., Ed. and J. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
              Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic
              Requirements", RFC 4657, DOI 10.17487/RFC4657, September
              2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4657>.

   [RFC5920]  Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
              Networks", RFC 5920, DOI 10.17487/RFC5920, July 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5920>.

   [RFC6123]  Farrel, A., "Inclusion of Manageability Sections in Path
              Computation Element (PCE) Working Group Drafts", RFC 6123,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6123, February 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6123>.

   [RFC6163]  Lee, Y., Ed., Bernstein, G., Ed., and W. Imajuku,
              "Framework for GMPLS and Path Computation Element (PCE)
              Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs)",
              RFC 6163, DOI 10.17487/RFC6163, April 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6163>.






Margaria, et al.         Expires April 17, 2020                [Page 42]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2019


   [RFC7025]  Otani, T., Ogaki, K., Caviglia, D., Zhang, F., and C.
              Margaria, "Requirements for GMPLS Applications of PCE",
              RFC 7025, DOI 10.17487/RFC7025, September 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7025>.

   [RFC7449]  Lee, Y., Ed., Bernstein, G., Ed., Martensson, J., Takeda,
              T., Tsuritani, T., and O. Gonzalez de Dios, "Path
              Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
              Requirements for Wavelength Switched Optical Network
              (WSON) Routing and Wavelength Assignment", RFC 7449,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7449, February 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7449>.

Appendix A.  LOAD-BALANCING Usage for SDH Virtual Concatenation

   For example a request for one co-signaled n x VC-4 TE-LSP will not
   use the LOAD-BALANCING.  In case the VC-4 components can use
   different paths, the BANDWIDTH with object type TBA-2 will contain a
   traffic specification indicating the complete n x VC-4 traffic
   specification and the LOAD-BALANCING the minimum co-signaled VC-4.
   For an SDH network, a request to have a TE-LSP group with 10 VC-4
   containers, each path using at minimum 2 x VC-4 containers, can be
   represented with a BANDWIDTH object with OT=TBA-2, Bw Spec Type set
   to 4, the content of the Generalized Bandwidth is ST=6, RCC=0, NCC=0,
   NVC=10, MT=1.  The LOAD-BALANCING, OT=TBA-4 with Bw Spec Type set to
   4, Max-LSP=5, Min Bandwidth Spec is (ST=6, RCC=0, NCC=0, NVC=2,
   MT=1).  The PCE can respond with a response with maximum 5 paths,
   each of them having a BANDWIDTH OT=TBA-2 and Generalized Bandwidth
   matching the Min Bandwidth Spec from the LOAD-BALANCING object of the
   corresponding request.

Authors' Addresses

   Cyril Margaria (editor)
   Juniper

   Email: cmargaria@juniper.net


   Oscar Gonzalez de Dios (editor)
   Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo
   C/ Ronda de la Comunicacion
   Madrid  28050
   Spain

   Phone: +34 91 4833441
   Email: oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com




Margaria, et al.         Expires April 17, 2020                [Page 43]


Internet-Draft             PCEP Ext for GMPLS               October 2019


   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 17, 2020                [Page 44]


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