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

Versions: (draft-wu-pce-pcep-link-bw-utilization) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 RFC 8233

PCE Working Group                                               D. Dhody
Internet-Draft                                                     Q. Wu
Intended status: Standards Track                                  Huawei
Expires: March 26, 2017                                        V. Manral
                                                           Ionos Network
                                                                  Z. Ali
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                               K. Kumaki
                                                        KDDI Corporation
                                                      September 22, 2016


Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
          to compute service aware Label Switched Path (LSP).
                  draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-13

Abstract

   In certain networks, such as, but not limited to, financial
   information networks (e.g. stock market data providers), network
   performance criteria (e.g. latency) are becoming as critical to data
   path selection as other metrics and constraints.  These metrics are
   associated with the Service Level Agreement (SLA) between customers
   and service providers.  The link bandwidth utilization (the total
   bandwidth of a link in actual use for the forwarding) is another
   important factor to consider during path computation.

   IGP Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric extensions describe mechanisms
   with which network performance information is distributed via OSPF
   and IS-IS respectively.  The Path Computation Element Communication
   Protocol (PCEP) provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements
   (PCEs) to perform path computations in response to Path Computation
   Clients (PCCs) requests.  This document describes the extension to
   PCEP to carry latency, delay variation, packet loss and link
   bandwidth utilization as constraints for end to end path computation.

Status of This Memo

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

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

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any



Dhody, et al.            Expires March 26, 2017                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                SERVICE-AWARE               September 2016


   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 March 26, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

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

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  PCEP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Extensions to METRIC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       3.1.1.  Path Delay Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
         3.1.1.1.  Path Delay Metric Value . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       3.1.2.  Path Delay Variation Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
         3.1.2.1.  Path Delay Variation Metric Value . . . . . . . .   8
       3.1.3.  Path Loss Metric  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
         3.1.3.1.  Path Loss Metric Value  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       3.1.4.  Non-Understanding / Non-Support of Service Aware Path
               Computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       3.1.5.  Mode of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
         3.1.5.1.  Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       3.1.6.  Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP)  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
         3.1.6.1.  P2MP Path Delay Metric  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
         3.1.6.2.  P2MP Path Delay Variation Metric  . . . . . . . .  11
         3.1.6.3.  P2MP Path Loss Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     3.2.  Bandwidth Utilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       3.2.1.  Link Bandwidth Utilization (LBU)  . . . . . . . . . .  12
       3.2.2.  Link Reserved Bandwidth Utilization (LRBU)  . . . . .  12
       3.2.3.  Bandwidth Utilization (BU) Object . . . . . . . . . .  13
         3.2.3.1.  Elements of Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     3.3.  Objective Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   4.  Stateful PCE and PCE Initiated LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16



Dhody, et al.            Expires March 26, 2017                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                SERVICE-AWARE               September 2016


   5.  PCEP Message Extension  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     5.1.  The PCReq message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     5.2.  The PCRep message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     5.3.  The PCRpt message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   6.  Other Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     6.1.  Inter-domain Path Computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
       6.1.1.  Inter-AS Links  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
       6.1.2.  Inter-Layer Path Computation  . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     6.2.  Reoptimizing Paths  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     7.1.  METRIC types  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     7.2.  New PCEP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     7.3.  BU Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     7.4.  OF Codes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     7.5.  New Error-Values  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   9.  Manageability Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     9.1.  Control of Function and Policy  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     9.2.  Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     9.3.  Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     9.4.  Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     9.5.  Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     9.6.  Impact On Network Operations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   Appendix A.  PCEP Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
   Appendix B.  Contributor Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29

1.  Introduction

   Real time network performance information is becoming critical in the
   path computation in some networks.  Mechanisms to measure latency,
   delay variation, and packet loss in an MPLS network are described in
   [RFC6374].  It is important that latency, delay variation, and packet
   loss are considered during the path selection process, even before
   the LSP is set up.

   Link bandwidth utilization based on real time traffic along the path
   is also becoming critical during path computation in some networks.
   Thus it is important that the link bandwidth utilization is factored
   in during the path computation.

   The Traffic Engineering Database (TED) is populated with network
   performance information like link latency, delay variation, packet
   loss, as well as parameters related to bandwidth (residual bandwidth,



Dhody, et al.            Expires March 26, 2017                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                SERVICE-AWARE               September 2016


   available bandwidth and utilized bandwidth) via TE Metric Extensions
   in OSPF [RFC7471] or IS-IS [RFC7810] or via a management system.
   [RFC7823] describes how a Path Computation Element (PCE) [RFC4655],
   can use that information for path selection for explicitly routed
   LSPs.

   A Path Computation Client (PCC) can request a PCE to provide a path
   meeting end to end network performance criteria.  This document
   extends Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
   [RFC5440] to handle network performance constraints which include any
   combination of latency, delay variation, packet loss and bandwidth
   utilization constraints.

   [RFC7471] and [RFC7810] describe various considerations regarding -

   o  Announcement thresholds and filters

   o  Announcement suppression

   o  Announcement periodicity and network stability

   The first two provide configurable mechanisms to bound the number of
   re-advertisements in IGP.  The third provides a way to throttle
   announcements.  Section 1.2 of [RFC7823] also describes the
   oscillation and stability considerations while advertising and
   considering service aware information.

1.1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

2.  Terminology

   The following terminology is used in this document.

   IGP:  Interior Gateway Protocol; Either of the two routing protocols,
      Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) or Intermediate System to
      Intermediate System (IS-IS).

   IS-IS:  Intermediate System to Intermediate System

   LBU:  Link Bandwidth Utilization (See Section 3.2.1.)

   LRBU:  Link Reserved Bandwidth Utilization (See Section 3.2.2.)

   MPLP:  Minimum Packet Loss Path (See Section 3.3.)



Dhody, et al.            Expires March 26, 2017                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                SERVICE-AWARE               September 2016


   MRUP:  Maximum Reserved Under-Utilized Path (See Section 3.3.)

   MUP:  Maximum Under-Utilized Path (See Section 3.3.)

   OF:  Objective Function; A set of one or more optimization criteria
      used for the computation of a single path (e.g., path cost
      minimization) or for the synchronized computation of a set of
      paths (e.g., aggregate bandwidth consumption minimization, etc).
      (See [RFC5541].)

   OSPF:  Open Shortest Path First

   PCC:  Path Computation Client; any client application requesting a
      path computation to be performed by a Path Computation Element.

   PCE:  Path Computation Element; An entity (component, application, or
      network node) that is capable of computing a network path or route
      based on a network graph and applying computational constraints.

   RSVP:  Resource Reservation Protocol

   TE:  Traffic Engineering

   TED:  Traffic Engineering Database

3.  PCEP Extensions

   This section defines PCEP extensions (see [RFC5440]) for requirements
   outlined in Appendix A.  The proposed solution is used to support
   network performance and service aware path computation.

3.1.  Extensions to METRIC Object

   The METRIC object is defined in section 7.8 of [RFC5440], comprising
   metric-value, metric-type (T field) and a flags field comprising a
   number of bit-flags (B bit, P bit).  This document defines the
   following types for the METRIC object.

   o  T=TBD1: Path Delay metric (Section 3.1.1)

   o  T=TBD2: Path Delay Variation metric (Section 3.1.2)

   o  T=TBD3: Path Loss metric (Section 3.1.3)

   o  T=TBD8: P2MP Path Delay metric (Section 3.1.6.1)

   o  T=TBD9: P2MP Path Delay Variation metric (Section 3.1.6.2)




Dhody, et al.            Expires March 26, 2017                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                SERVICE-AWARE               September 2016


   o  T=TBD10: P2MP Path Loss metric (Section 3.1.6.3)

   The following terminology is used and expanded along the way.

   o  A network comprises of a set of N links {Li, (i=1...N)}.

   o  A path P of a point to point (P2P) LSP is a list of K links
      {Lpi,(i=1...K)}.

3.1.1.  Path Delay Metric

   The link delay metric is defined in [RFC7471] and [RFC7810] as
   "Unidirectional Link Delay".  The path delay metric type of the
   METRIC object in PCEP represents the sum of the link delay metric of
   all links along a P2P path.  Specifically, extending on the above
   mentioned terminology:

   o  A link delay metric of link L is denoted D(L).

   o  A path delay metric for the P2P path P = Sum {D(Lpi), (i=1...K)}.

   This is as per the sum of means composition function (section 4.2.5
   of [RFC6049]).  The section 1.2 of [RFC7823] describes oscillation
   and stability considerations, and section 2.1 of [RFC7823] describes
   the calculation of end to end path delay metric.  Further section
   4.2.9 of [RFC6049] states when this composition function may fail.

   Metric Type T=TBD1: Path Delay metric

   A PCC MAY use the path delay metric in a PCReq message to request a
   path meeting the end to end latency requirement.  In this case, the B
   bit MUST be set to suggest a bound (a maximum) for the path delay
   metric that must not be exceeded for the PCC to consider the computed
   path as acceptable.  The path delay metric must be less than or equal
   to the value specified in the metric-value field.

   A PCC can also use this metric to ask PCE to optimize the path delay
   during path computation.  In this case, the B bit MUST be cleared.

   A PCE MAY use the path delay metric in a PCRep message along with a
   NO-PATH object in the case where the PCE cannot compute a path
   meeting this constraint.  A PCE can also use this metric to send the
   computed path delay metric to the PCC.








Dhody, et al.            Expires March 26, 2017                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                SERVICE-AWARE               September 2016


3.1.1.1.  Path Delay Metric Value

   [RFC7471] and [RFC7810] define the "Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-
   TLV" to advertise the link delay in microseconds in a 24-bit field.
   [RFC5440] defines the METRIC object with a 32-bit metric value
   encoded in IEEE floating point format (see [IEEE.754.1985]).
   Consequently, the encoding for the path delay metric value is
   quantified in units of microseconds and encoded in IEEE floating
   point format.  The conversion from 24 bit integer to 32 bit IEEE
   floating point could introduce some loss of precision.

3.1.2.  Path Delay Variation Metric

   The link delay variation metric is defined in [RFC7471] and [RFC7810]
   as "Unidirectional Delay Variation".  The path delay variation metric
   type of the METRIC object in PCEP encodes the sum of the link delay
   variation metric of all links along the path.  Specifically,
   extending on the above mentioned terminology:

   o  A delay variation of link L is denoted DV(L) (average delay
      variation for link L).

   o  A path delay variation metric for the P2P path P = Sum {DV(Lpi),
      (i=1...K)}.

   The section 1.2 of [RFC7823] describes oscillation and stability
   considerations, and section 2.1 of [RFC7823] describes the
   calculation of end to end path delay variation metric.  Further
   section 4.2.9 of [RFC6049] states when this composition function may
   fail.

   Note that the IGP advertisement for link attributes includes the
   average delay variation over a period of time.  An implementation,
   therefore, MAY use the sum of the average delay variation of links
   along a path to derive the delay variation of the path.  An end-to-
   end bound on delay variation is typically used as constraint in the
   path computation.  An implementation MAY also use some enhanced
   composition function for computing the delay variation of a path with
   better accuracy.

   Metric Type T=TBD2: Path Delay Variation metric

   A PCC MAY use the path delay variation metric in a PCReq message to
   request a path meeting the path delay variation requirement.  In this
   case, the B bit MUST be set to suggest a bound (a maximum) for the
   path delay variation metric that must not be exceeded for the PCC to
   consider the computed path as acceptable.  The path delay variation




Dhody, et al.            Expires March 26, 2017                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                SERVICE-AWARE               September 2016


   must be less than or equal to the value specified in the metric-value
   field.

   A PCC can also use this metric to ask the PCE to optimize the path
   delay variation during path computation.  In this case, the B flag
   MUST be cleared.

   A PCE MAY use the path delay variation metric in PCRep message along
   with a NO-PATH object in the case where the PCE cannot compute a path
   meeting this constraint.  A PCE can also use this metric to send the
   computed end to end path delay variation metric to the PCC.

3.1.2.1.  Path Delay Variation Metric Value

   [RFC7471] and [RFC7810] define "Unidirectional Delay Variation Sub-
   TLV" to advertise the link delay variation in microseconds in a
   24-bit field.  [RFC5440] defines the METRIC object with a 32-bit
   metric value encoded in IEEE floating point format (see
   [IEEE.754.1985]).  Consequently, the encoding for the path delay
   variation metric value is quantified in units of microseconds and
   encoded in IEEE floating point format.  The conversion from 24 bit
   integer to 32 bit IEEE floating point could introduce some loss of
   precision.

3.1.3.  Path Loss Metric

   [RFC7471] and [RFC7810] define "Unidirectional Link Loss".  The path
   loss (as a packet percentage) metric type of the METRIC object in
   PCEP encodes a function of the unidirectional loss metrics of all
   links along a P2P path.  The end to end packet loss for the path is
   represented by this metric.  Specifically, extending on the above
   mentioned terminology:

   o  The percentage link loss of link L is denoted PL(L).

   o  The fractional link loss of link L is denoted FL(L) = PL(L)/100.

   o  The percentage path loss metric for the P2P path P = (1 -
      ((1-FL(Lp1)) * (1-FL(Lp2)) * .. * (1-FL(LpK)))) * 100 for a path P
      with links Lp1 to LpK.

   This is as per the composition function described in section 5.1.5 of
   [RFC6049].

   Metric Type T=TBD3: Path Loss metric

   A PCC MAY use the path loss metric in a PCReq message to request a
   path meeting the end to end packet loss requirement.  In this case,



Dhody, et al.            Expires March 26, 2017                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                SERVICE-AWARE               September 2016


   the B bit MUST be set to suggest a bound (a maximum) for the path
   loss metric that must not be exceeded for the PCC to consider the
   computed path as acceptable.  The path loss metric must be less than
   or equal to the value specified in the metric-value field.

   A PCC can also use this metric to ask the PCE to optimize the path
   loss during path computation.  In this case, the B flag MUST be
   cleared.

   A PCE MAY use the path loss metric in a PCRep message along with a
   NO-PATH object in the case where the PCE cannot compute a path
   meeting this constraint.  A PCE can also use this metric to send the
   computed end to end path loss metric to the PCC.

3.1.3.1.  Path Loss Metric Value

   [RFC7471] and [RFC7810] define "Unidirectional Link Loss Sub-TLV" to
   advertise the link loss in percentage in a 24-bit field.  [RFC5440]
   defines the METRIC object with 32-bit metric value encoded in IEEE
   floating point format (see [IEEE.754.1985]).  Consequently, the
   encoding for the path loss metric value is quantified as a percentage
   and encoded in IEEE floating point format.

3.1.4.  Non-Understanding / Non-Support of Service Aware Path
        Computation

   If a PCE receives a PCReq message containing a METRIC object with a
   type defined in this document, and the PCE does not understand or
   support that metric type, and the P bit is clear in the METRIC object
   header then the PCE SHOULD simply ignore the METRIC object as per the
   processing specified in [RFC5440].

   If the PCE does not understand the new METRIC type, and the P bit is
   set in the METRIC object header, then the PCE MUST send a PCErr
   message containing a PCEP-ERROR Object with Error-Type = 4 (Not
   supported object) and Error-value = 4 (Unsupported parameter)
   [RFC5440][RFC5441].

   If the PCE understands but does not support the new METRIC type, and
   the P bit is set in the METRIC object header, then the PCE MUST send
   a PCErr message containing a PCEP-ERROR Object with Error-Type = 4
   (Not supported object) with Error-value = TBD11 (Unsupported network
   performance constraint).  The path computation request MUST then be
   cancelled.

   If the PCE understands the new METRIC type, but the local policy has
   been configured on the PCE to not allow network performance
   constraint, and the P bit is set in the METRIC object header, then



Dhody, et al.            Expires March 26, 2017                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                SERVICE-AWARE               September 2016


   the PCE MUST send a PCErr message containing a PCEP-ERROR Object with
   Error-Type = 5 (Policy violation) with Error-value = TBD12 (Not
   allowed network performance constraint).  The path computation
   request MUST then be cancelled.

3.1.5.  Mode of Operation

   As explained in [RFC5440], the METRIC object is optional and can be
   used for several purposes.  In a PCReq message, a PCC MAY insert one
   or more METRIC objects:

   o  To indicate the metric that MUST be optimized by the path
      computation algorithm (path delay, path delay variation or path
      loss).

   o  To indicate a bound on the METRIC (path delay, path delay
      variation or path loss) that MUST NOT be exceeded for the path to
      be considered as acceptable by the PCC.

   In a PCRep message, the PCE MAY insert the METRIC object with an
   Explicit Route Object (ERO) so as to provide the METRIC (path delay,
   path delay variation or path loss) for the computed path.  The PCE
   MAY also insert the METRIC object with a NO-PATH object to indicate
   that the metric constraint could not be satisfied.

   The path computation algorithmic aspects used by the PCE to optimize
   a path with respect to a specific metric are outside the scope of
   this document.

   All the rules of processing the METRIC object as explained in
   [RFC5440] are applicable to the new metric types as well.

3.1.5.1.  Examples

   If a PCC sends a path computation request to a PCE where the metric
   to optimize is the path delay and the path loss must not exceed the
   value of M, then two METRIC objects are inserted in the PCReq
   message:

   o  First METRIC object with B=0, T=TBD1, C=1, metric-value=0x0000

   o  Second METRIC object with B=1, T=TBD3, metric-value=M

   As per [RFC5440], if a path satisfying the set of constraints can be
   found by the PCE and there is no policy that prevents the return of
   the computed metric, then the PCE inserts one METRIC object with B=0,
   T=TBD1, metric-value= computed path delay.  Additionally, the PCE MAY




Dhody, et al.            Expires March 26, 2017                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                SERVICE-AWARE               September 2016


   insert a second METRIC object with B=1, T=TBD3, metric-value=computed
   path loss.

3.1.6.  Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP)

   This section defines the following types for the METRIC object to be
   used for the P2MP TE LSPs.

3.1.6.1.  P2MP Path Delay Metric

   The P2MP path delay metric type of the METRIC object in PCEP encodes
   the path delay metric for the destination that observes the worst
   delay metric among all destinations of the P2MP tree.  Specifically,
   extending on the above mentioned terminology:

   o  A P2MP tree T comprises a set of M destinations {Dest_j,
      (j=1...M)}.

   o  The P2P path delay metric of the path to destination Dest_j is
      denoted by PDM(Dest_j).

   o  The P2MP path delay metric for the P2MP tree T = Maximum
      {PDM(Dest_j), (j=1...M)}.

   The value for the P2MP path delay metric type (T) = TBD8.

3.1.6.2.  P2MP Path Delay Variation Metric

   The P2MP path delay variation metric type of the METRIC object in
   PCEP encodes the path delay variation metric for the destination that
   observes the worst delay variation metric among all destinations of
   the P2MP tree.  Specifically, extending on the above mentioned
   terminology:

   o  A P2MP tree T comprises a set of M destinations {Dest_j,
      (j=1...M)}.

   o  The P2P path delay variation metric of the path to the destination
      Dest_j is denoted by PDVM(Dest_j).

   o  The P2MP path delay variation metric for the P2MP tree T = Maximum
      {PDVM(Dest_j), (j=1...M)}.

   The value for the P2MP path delay variation metric type (T) = TBD9.







Dhody, et al.            Expires March 26, 2017                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                SERVICE-AWARE               September 2016


3.1.6.3.  P2MP Path Loss Metric

   The P2MP path loss metric type of the METRIC object in PCEP encodes
   the path packet loss metric for the destination that observes the
   worst packet loss metric among all destinations of the P2MP tree.
   Specifically, extending on the above mentioned terminology:

   o  A P2MP tree T comprises of a set of M destinations {Dest_j,
      (j=1...M)}.

   o  The P2P path loss metric of the path to destination Dest_j is
      denoted by PLM(Dest_j).

   o  The P2MP path loss metric for the P2MP tree T = Maximum
      {PLM(Dest_j), (j=1...M)}.

   The value for the P2MP path loss metric type (T) = TBD10.

3.2.  Bandwidth Utilization

3.2.1.  Link Bandwidth Utilization (LBU)

   The Link Bandwidth Utilization (LBU) on a link, forwarding adjacency,
   or bundled link is populated in the TED ("Unidirectional Utilized
   Bandwidth" in [RFC7471] and [RFC7810]).  For a link or forwarding
   adjacency, the bandwidth utilization represents the actual
   utilization of the link (i.e., as measured in the router).  For a
   bundled link, the bandwidth utilization is defined to be the sum of
   the component link bandwidth utilization.  This includes traffic for
   both RSVP-TE and non-RSVP-TE label switched path packets.

   The LBU in percentage is described as the (utilized bandwidth /
   maximum bandwidth) * 100.

   Where "maximum bandwidth" is defined in [RFC3630] and [RFC5305] and
   "utilized bandwidth" in [RFC7471] and [RFC7810].

3.2.2.  Link Reserved Bandwidth Utilization (LRBU)

   The Link Reserved Bandwidth Utilization (LRBU) on a link, forwarding
   adjacency, or bundled link can be calculated from the TED.  The
   utilized bandwidth includes traffic for both RSVP-TE and non-RSVP-TE
   LSPs, the reserved bandwidth utilization considers only the RSVP-TE
   LSPs.

   The reserved bandwidth utilization can be calculated by using the
   residual bandwidth, the available bandwidth and utilized bandwidth
   described in [RFC7471] and [RFC7810].  The actual bandwidth by non-



Dhody, et al.            Expires March 26, 2017                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                SERVICE-AWARE               September 2016


   RSVP-TE traffic can be calculated by subtracting the available
   bandwidth from the residual bandwidth ([RFC7471] and [RFC7810]).
   Which is further deducted from utilized bandwidth to get the reserved
   bandwidth utilization.  Thus,

   reserved bandwidth utilization = utilized bandwidth - (residual
   bandwidth - available bandwidth)

   The LRBU in percentage is described as the (reserved bandwidth
   utilization / maximum reservable bandwidth) * 100.

   Where the "maximum reservable bandwidth" is defined in [RFC3630] and
   [RFC5305].  The "utilized bandwidth", "residual bandwidth", and
   "available bandwidth" are defined in [RFC7471] and [RFC7810].

3.2.3.  Bandwidth Utilization (BU) Object

   The BU object is used to indicate the upper limit of the acceptable
   link bandwidth utilization percentage.

   The BU object MAY be carried within the PCReq message and PCRep
   messages.

   BU Object-Class is TBD4.

   BU Object-Type is 1.

   The format of the BU object body is as follows:

       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |              Reserved                         |    Type       |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                      Bandwidth Utilization                    |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


                           BU Object Body Format

   Reserved (24 bits):  This field MUST be set to zero on transmission
      and MUST be ignored on receipt.

   Type (8 bits):  Represents the bandwidth utilization type.  Two
      values are currently defined.

      *  Type 1 is Link Bandwidth Utilization (LBU)




Dhody, et al.            Expires March 26, 2017                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                SERVICE-AWARE               September 2016


      *  Type 2 is Link Reserved Bandwidth Utilization (LRBU)

   Bandwidth Utilization (32 bits):  Represents the bandwidth
      utilization quantified as a percentage (as described in
      Section 3.2.1 and Section 3.2.2) and encoded in IEEE floating
      point format (see [IEEE.754.1985]).

   The BU object body has a fixed length of 8 bytes.

3.2.3.1.  Elements of Procedure

   A PCC that wants the PCE to factor in the bandwidth utilization
   during path computation includes a BU object in the PCReq message.  A
   PCE that supports this object MUST ensure that no link on the
   computed path has the LBU or LRBU percentage exceeding the given
   value.

   A PCReq or PCRep message MAY contain multiple BU objects so long as
   each is for a different bandwidth utilization type.  If a message
   contains more than one BU object with the same bandwidth utilization
   type, the first MUST be processed by the receiver and subsequent
   instances MUST be ignored.

   If the BU object is unknown/unsupported, the PCE is expected to
   follow procedures defined in [RFC5440].  That is, if the P bit is
   set, the PCE sends a PCErr message with error type 3 or 4 (Unknown /
   Not supported object) and error value 1 or 2 (unknown / unsupported
   object class / object type), and the related path computation request
   will be discarded.  If the P bit is cleared, the PCE is free to
   ignore the object.

   If the PCE understands but does not support path computation requests
   using the BU object, and the P bit is set in the BU object header,
   then the PCE MUST send a PCErr message with a PCEP-ERROR Object
   Error-Type = 4 (Not supported object) with Error-value = TBD11
   (Unsupported network performance constraint) and the related path
   computation request MUST be discarded.

   If the PCE understands the BU object but the local policy has been
   configured on the PCE to not allow network performance constraint,
   and the P bit is set in the BU object header, then the PCE MUST send
   a PCErr message with a PCEP-ERROR Object Error-Type = 5 (Policy
   Violation) with Error-value = TBD12 (Not allowed network performance
   constraint).  The path computation request MUST then be cancelled.

   If path computation is unsuccessful, then a PCE MAY insert a BU
   object (along with a NO-PATH object) into a PCRep message to indicate
   the constraints that could not be satisfied.



Dhody, et al.            Expires March 26, 2017                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                SERVICE-AWARE               September 2016


   Usage of the BU object for P2MP LSPs is outside the scope of this
   document.

3.3.  Objective Functions

   [RFC5541] defines a mechanism to specify an objective function that
   is used by a PCE when it computes a path.  The new metric types for
   path delay and path delay variation can continue to use the existing
   objective function - Minimum Cost Path (MCP) [RFC5541].  For path
   loss, the following new OF is defined.

   o  A network comprises a set of N links {Li, (i=1...N)}.

   o  A path P is a list of K links {Lpi,(i=1...K)}.

   o  The percentage link loss of link L is denoted PL(L).

   o  The fractional link loss of link L is denoted FL(L) = PL(L) / 100.

   o  The percentage path loss of a path P is denoted PL(P), where PL(P)
      = (1 - ((1-FL(Lp1)) * (1-FL(Lp2)) * .. * (1-FL(LpK)))) * 100.

   Objective Function Code:  TBD5
   Name: Minimum Packet Loss Path (MPLP)
   Description: Find a path P such that PL(P) is minimized.

   Two additional objective functions -- namely, MUP (the Maximum Under-
   Utilized Path) and MRUP (the Maximum Reserved Under-Utilized Path)
   are needed to optimize bandwidth utilization.  These two new
   objective function codes are defined below.

   These objective functions are formulated using the following
   additional terminology:

   o  The bandwidth utilization on link L is denoted u(L).

   o  The reserved bandwidth utilization on link L is denoted ru(L).

   o  The maximum bandwidth on link L is denoted M(L).

   o  The maximum reservable bandwidth on link L is denoted R(L).

   The description of the two new objective functions is as follows.








Dhody, et al.            Expires March 26, 2017                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft                SERVICE-AWARE               September 2016


   Objective Function Code:  TBD6
   Name: Maximum Under-Utilized Path (MUP)
   Description: Find a path P such that (Min {(M(Lpi)- u(Lpi))
   / M(Lpi), i=1...K } ) is maximized.

   Objective Function Code:  TBD7
   Name: Maximum Reserved Under-Utilized Path (MRUP)
   Description: Find a path P such that (Min {(R(Lpi)- ru(Lpi))
   / R(Lpi), i=1...K } ) is maximized.

   These new objective functions are used to optimize paths based on the
   bandwidth utilization as the optimization criteria.

   If the objective functions defined in this document are unknown/
   unsupported by a PCE, then the procedure as defined in section 3.1.1
   of [RFC5541] is followed.

4.  Stateful PCE and PCE Initiated LSPs

   [STATEFUL-PCE] specifies a set of extensions to PCEP to enable
   stateful control of MPLS-TE and GMPLS LSPs via PCEP and maintaining
   of these LSPs at the stateful PCE.  It further distinguishes between
   an active and a passive stateful PCE.  A passive stateful PCE uses
   LSP state information learned from PCCs to optimize path computations
   but does not actively update LSP state.  In contrast, an active
   stateful PCE utilizes the LSP delegation mechanism to update LSP
   parameters in those PCCs that delegated control over their LSPs to
   the PCE.  [PCE-INITIATED] describes the setup, maintenance and
   teardown of PCE-initiated LSPs under the stateful PCE model.  The
   document defines the PCInitiate message that is used by a PCE to
   request a PCC to set up a new LSP.

   The new metric type and objective functions defined in this document
   can also be used with the stateful PCE extensions.  The format of
   PCEP messages described in [STATEFUL-PCE] and [PCE-INITIATED] uses
   <attribute-list> (which is extended in Section 5.2) for the purpose
   of including the service aware parameters.

   The stateful PCE implementation MAY use the extension of PCReq and
   PCRep messages as defined in Section 5.1 and Section 5.2 to enable
   the use of service aware parameters during passive stateful
   operations.

5.  PCEP Message Extension

   Message formats in this document are expressed using Reduced BNF as
   used in [RFC5440] and defined in [RFC5511].




Dhody, et al.            Expires March 26, 2017                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft                SERVICE-AWARE               September 2016


5.1.  The PCReq message

   The extensions to PCReq message are -

   o  new metric types using existing METRIC object

   o  a new optional BU object

   o  new objective functions using existing OF object ([RFC5541])

   The format of the PCReq message (with [RFC5541] and [STATEFUL-PCE] as
   a base) is updated as follows:

      <PCReq Message> ::= <Common Header>
                           [<svec-list>]
                           <request-list>
      where:
           <svec-list> ::= <SVEC>
                           [<OF>]
                           [<metric-list>]
                           [<svec-list>]

           <request-list> ::= <request> [<request-list>]

           <request> ::= <RP>
                         <END-POINTS>
                         [<LSP>]
                         [<LSPA>]
                         [<BANDWIDTH>]
                         [<bu-list>]
                         [<metric-list>]
                         [<OF>]
                         [<RRO>[<BANDWIDTH>]]
                         [<IRO>]
                         [<LOAD-BALANCING>]

      and where:
           <bu-list>::=<BU>[<bu-list>]
           <metric-list> ::= <METRIC>[<metric-list>]

5.2.  The PCRep message

   The extensions to PCRep message are -

   o  new metric types using existing METRIC object

   o  a new optional BU object (during unsuccessful path computation, to
      indicate the bandwidth utilization as a reason for failure)



Dhody, et al.            Expires March 26, 2017                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft                SERVICE-AWARE               September 2016


   o  new objective functions using existing OF object ([RFC5541])

   The format of the PCRep message (with [RFC5541] and [STATEFUL-PCE] as
   a base) is updated as follows:

      <PCRep Message> ::= <Common Header>
                          [<svec-list>]
                          <response-list>

      where:

            <svec-list> ::= <SVEC>
                            [<OF>]
                            [<metric-list>]
                            [<svec-list>]

           <response-list> ::= <response> [<response-list>]

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

           <path-list> ::= <path> [<path-list>]

           <path> ::= <ERO>
                      <attribute-list>

      and where:

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

           <bu-list>::=<BU>[<bu-list>]
           <metric-list> ::= <METRIC> [<metric-list>]

5.3.  The PCRpt message

   A Path Computation LSP State Report message (also referred to as
   PCRpt message) is a PCEP message sent by a PCC to a PCE to report the
   current state or delegate control of an LSP.  The BU object in a
   PCRpt message specifies the upper limit set at the PCC at the time of
   LSP delegation to an active stateful PCE.



Dhody, et al.            Expires March 26, 2017                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft                SERVICE-AWARE               September 2016


   The format of the PCRpt message is described in [STATEFUL-PCE] which
   uses the <attribute-list> as defined in [RFC5440] and extended by
   PCEP extensions.

   The PCRpt message can use the updated <attribute-list> (as extended
   in Section 5.2) for the purpose of including the BU object.

6.  Other Considerations

6.1.  Inter-domain Path Computation

   [RFC5441] describes the Backward Recursive PCE-Based Computation
   (BRPC) procedure to compute end to end optimized inter-domain path by
   cooperating PCEs.  The new metric types defined in this document can
   be applied to end to end path computation, in a similar manner to the
   existing IGP or TE metrics.  The new BU object defined in this
   document can be applied to end to end path computation, in a similar
   manner to a METRIC object with its B bit set to 1.

   All domains should have the same understanding of the METRIC (path
   delay variation etc.) and the BU object for end-to-end inter-domain
   path computation to make sense.  Otherwise, some form of metric
   normalization as described in [RFC5441] MUST be applied.

6.1.1.  Inter-AS Links

   The IGP in each neighbour domain can advertise its inter-domain TE
   link capabilities.  This has been described in [RFC5316] (IS-IS) and
   [RFC5392] (OSPF).  The network performance link properties are
   described in [RFC7471] and [RFC7810].  The same properties must be
   advertised using the mechanism described in [RFC5392] (OSPF) and
   [RFC5316] (IS-IS).

6.1.2.  Inter-Layer Path Computation

   [RFC5623] provides a framework for PCE-Based inter-layer MPLS and
   GMPLS Traffic Engineering.  Lower-layer LSPs that are advertised as
   TE links into the higher-layer network form a Virtual Network
   Topology (VNT).  The advertisement into the higher-layer network
   should include network performance link properties based on the end
   to end metric of the lower-layer LSP.  Note that the new metrics
   defined in this document are applied to end to end path computation,
   even though the path may cross multiple layers.








Dhody, et al.            Expires March 26, 2017                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft                SERVICE-AWARE               September 2016


6.2.  Reoptimizing Paths

   [RFC6374] defines the measurement of loss, delay, and related metrics
   over LSPs.  A PCC can utilize these measurement techniques.  In case
   it detects a degradation of network performance parameters relative
   to the value of the constraint it gave when the path was set up, or
   relative to an implementation-specific threshold, it MAY ask the PCE
   to reoptimize the path by sending a PCReq with the R bit set in the
   RP object, as per [RFC5440].

   A PCC may also detect the degradation of an LSP without making any
   direct measurements, by monitoring the TED (as populated by the IGP)
   for changes in the network performance parameters of the links that
   carry its LSPs.  The PCC can issue a reoptimization request for any
   impacted LSPs.  For example, a PCC can monitor the link bandwidth
   utilization along the path by monitoring changes in the bandwidth
   utilization parameters of one or more links on the path in the TED.
   If the bandwidth utilization percentage of any of the links in the
   path changes to a value less than that required when the path was set
   up, or otherwise less than an implementation-specific threshold, then
   the PCC can issue an reoptimization request to a PCE.

   A stateful PCE can also determine which LSPs should be re-optimized
   based on network events or triggers from external monitoring systems.
   For example, when a particular link deteriorates and its loss
   increases, this can trigger the stateful PCE to automatically
   determine which LSP are impacted and should be reoptimized.

7.  IANA Considerations

7.1.  METRIC types

   IANA maintains the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers"
   at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep>.  Within this registry IANA
   maintains one sub-registry for "METRIC object T field".  Six new
   metric types are defined in this document for the METRIC object
   (specified in [RFC5440]).

   IANA is requested to make the following allocations:












Dhody, et al.            Expires March 26, 2017                [Page 20]


Internet-Draft                SERVICE-AWARE               September 2016


        Value       Description                        Reference
        ----------------------------------------------------------
        TBD1        Path Delay metric                  [This I.D.]
        TBD2        Path Delay Variation metric        [This I.D.]
        TBD3        Path Loss metric                   [This I.D.]
        TBD8        P2MP Path Delay metric             [This I.D.]
        TBD9        P2MP Path Delay variation metric   [This I.D.]
        TBD10       P2MP Path Loss metric              [This I.D.]


7.2.  New PCEP Object

   IANA maintains object class in the registry of PCEP Objects at the
   sub-registry "PCEP Objects".  One new allocation is requested as
   follows.

            Object Object     Name                  Reference
            Class  Type
            ---------------------------------------------------
            TBD4   1          BU                    [This I.D.]

7.3.  BU Object

   This document requests that a new sub-registry, named "BU Object Type
   Field", is created within the "Path Computation Element Protocol
   (PCEP) Numbers" registry to manage the Type field of the BU object.
   New values are to be assigned by Standards Action [RFC5226].  Each
   value should be tracked with the following qualities:

   o  Type

   o  Name

   o  Defining RFC

   The following values are defined in this document:

            Type     Name                           Reference
            --------------------------------------------------
            1        LBU (Link Bandwidth            [This I.D.]
                     Utilization
            2        LRBU (Link Residual            [This I.D.]
                     Bandwidth Utilization








Dhody, et al.            Expires March 26, 2017                [Page 21]


Internet-Draft                SERVICE-AWARE               September 2016


7.4.  OF Codes

   IANA maintains registry of Objective Function (described in
   [RFC5541]) at the sub-registry "Objective Function".  Three new
   Objective Functions have been defined in this document.

   IANA is requested to make the following allocations:

            Code     Name                           Reference
            Point
            --------------------------------------------------
            TBD5     Minimum Packet Loss Path       [This I.D.]
                     (MPLP)
            TBD6     Maximum Under-Utilized         [This I.D.]
                     Path (MUP)
            TBD7     Maximum Reserved               [This I.D.]
                     Under-Utilized Path (MRUP)


7.5.  New Error-Values

   IANA maintains a registry of Error-Types and Error-values for use in
   PCEP messages.  This is maintained as the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error
   Types and Values" sub-registry of the "Path Computation Element
   Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry.

   IANA is requested to make the following allocations -

   Two new Error-values are defined for the Error-Type "Not supported
   object" (type 4) and "Policy violation" (type 5).

       Error-Type     Meaning and error values           Reference
          4           Not supported object

                      Error-value=TBD11 Unsupported      [This I.D.]
                      network performance constraint

          5           Policy violation

                      Error-value=TBD12 Not allowed      [This I.D.]
                      network performance constraint

8.  Security Considerations

   This document defines new METRIC types, a new BU object, and new OF
   codes which does not add any new security concerns beyond those
   discussed in [RFC5440] and [RFC5541] in itself.  Some deployments may
   find the service aware information like delay and packet loss to be



Dhody, et al.            Expires March 26, 2017                [Page 22]


Internet-Draft                SERVICE-AWARE               September 2016


   extra sensitive and could be used to influence path computation and
   setup with adverse effect.  Additionally snooping of PCEP messages
   with such data or using PCEP messages for network reconnaissance, may
   give an attacker sensitive information about the operations of the
   network.  Thus, such deployment should employ suitable PCEP security
   mechanisms like TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO) [RFC5925] or
   [PCEPS].  The Transport Layer Security (TLS) based procedure in
   [PCEPS] is considered as a security enhancement and thus much better
   suited for the sensitive service aware information.

9.  Manageability Considerations

9.1.  Control of Function and Policy

   The only configurable item is the support of the new constraints on a
   PCE which MAY be controlled by a policy module on individual basis.
   If the new constraint is not supported/allowed on a PCE, it MUST send
   a PCErr message accordingly.

9.2.  Information and Data Models

   [RFC7420] describes the PCEP MIB.  There are no new MIB Objects for
   this document.

9.3.  Liveness Detection and Monitoring

   The mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness
   detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already
   listed in [RFC5440].

9.4.  Verify Correct Operations

   The mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new
   operation verification requirements in addition to those already
   listed in [RFC5440].

9.5.  Requirements On Other Protocols

   The PCE requires the TED to be populated with network performance
   information like link latency, delay variation, packet loss, and
   utilized bandwidth.  This mechanism is described in [RFC7471] and
   [RFC7810].

9.6.  Impact On Network Operations

   The mechanisms defined in this document do not have any impact on
   network operations in addition to those already listed in [RFC5440].




Dhody, et al.            Expires March 26, 2017                [Page 23]


Internet-Draft                SERVICE-AWARE               September 2016


10.  Acknowledgments

   We would like to thank Alia Atlas, John E Drake, David Ward, Young
   Lee, Venugopal Reddy, Reeja Paul, Sandeep Kumar Boina, Suresh Babu,
   Quintin Zhao, Chen Huaimo, Avantika, and Adrian Farrel for their
   useful comments and suggestions.

   Also the authors gratefully acknowledge reviews and feedback provided
   by Qin Wu, Alfred Morton and Paul Aitken during performance
   directorate review.

   Thanks to Jonathan Hardwick for shepherding this document and
   providing valuable comments.  His help in fixing the editorial and
   grammatical issues is also appreciated.

   Thanks to Christian Hopps for the routing directorate review.

   Thanks to Jouni Korhonen and Alfred Morton for the operational
   directorate review.

   Thanks to Christian Huitema for the security directorate review.

   Thanks to Deborah Brungard for being the responsible AD.

   Thanks to Ben Campbell, Joel Jaeggli, Stephen Farrell, Kathleen
   Moriarty, Spencer Dawkins, Mirja Kuehlewind, Jari Arkko and Alia
   Atlas for the IESG reviews.

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

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

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

   [RFC5305]  Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
              Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October
              2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5305>.






Dhody, et al.            Expires March 26, 2017                [Page 24]


Internet-Draft                SERVICE-AWARE               September 2016


   [RFC5440]  Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
              Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
              <http://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, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5511>.

   [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,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5541>.

   [RFC7471]  Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., Atlas, A., and S.
              Previdi, "OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
              Extensions", RFC 7471, DOI 10.17487/RFC7471, March 2015,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7471>.

   [RFC7810]  Previdi, S., Ed., Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., and
              Q. Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions",
              RFC 7810, DOI 10.17487/RFC7810, May 2016,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7810>.

   [STATEFUL-PCE]
              Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "PCEP
              Extensions for Stateful PCE", draft-ietf-pce-stateful-
              pce-16 (work in progress), September 2016.

11.2.  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,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.

   [RFC5316]  Chen, M., Zhang, R., and X. Duan, "ISIS Extensions in
              Support of Inter-Autonomous System (AS) MPLS and GMPLS
              Traffic Engineering", RFC 5316, DOI 10.17487/RFC5316,
              December 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5316>.




Dhody, et al.            Expires March 26, 2017                [Page 25]


Internet-Draft                SERVICE-AWARE               September 2016


   [RFC5392]  Chen, M., Zhang, R., and X. Duan, "OSPF Extensions in
              Support of Inter-Autonomous System (AS) MPLS and GMPLS
              Traffic Engineering", RFC 5392, DOI 10.17487/RFC5392,
              January 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5392>.

   [RFC5441]  Vasseur, JP., Ed., Zhang, R., Bitar, N., and JL. Le Roux,
              "A Backward-Recursive PCE-Based Computation (BRPC)
              Procedure to Compute Shortest Constrained Inter-Domain
              Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths", RFC 5441,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5441, April 2009,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5441>.

   [RFC5623]  Oki, E., Takeda, T., Le Roux, JL., and A. Farrel,
              "Framework for PCE-Based Inter-Layer MPLS and GMPLS
              Traffic Engineering", RFC 5623, DOI 10.17487/RFC5623,
              September 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5623>.

   [RFC5925]  Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP
              Authentication Option", RFC 5925, DOI 10.17487/RFC5925,
              June 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5925>.

   [RFC6049]  Morton, A. and E. Stephan, "Spatial Composition of
              Metrics", RFC 6049, DOI 10.17487/RFC6049, January 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6049>.

   [RFC6374]  Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay
              Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6374, September 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6374>.

   [RFC7420]  Koushik, A., Stephan, E., Zhao, Q., King, D., and J.
              Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
              (PCEP) Management Information Base (MIB) Module",
              RFC 7420, DOI 10.17487/RFC7420, December 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7420>.

   [RFC7823]  Atlas, A., Drake, J., Giacalone, S., and S. Previdi,
              "Performance-Based Path Selection for Explicitly Routed
              Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using TE Metric Extensions",
              RFC 7823, DOI 10.17487/RFC7823, May 2016,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7823>.

   [PCE-INITIATED]
              Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "PCEP
              Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
              Model", draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-07 (work in
              progress), July 2016.




Dhody, et al.            Expires March 26, 2017                [Page 26]


Internet-Draft                SERVICE-AWARE               September 2016


   [PCEPS]    Lopez, D., Dios, O., Wu, W., and D. Dhody, "Secure
              Transport for PCEP", draft-ietf-pce-pceps-10 (work in
              progress), July 2016.

   [IEEE.754.1985]
              IEEE, "Standard for Binary Floating-Point Arithmetic",
              IEEE 754, August 1985.












































Dhody, et al.            Expires March 26, 2017                [Page 27]


Internet-Draft                SERVICE-AWARE               September 2016


Appendix A.  PCEP Requirements

   End-to-end service optimization based on latency, delay variation,
   packet loss, and link bandwidth utilization are key requirements for
   service providers.  The following associated key requirements are
   identified for PCEP:

   1.  A PCE supporting this draft MUST have the capability to compute
       end-to-end (E2E) paths with latency, delay variation, packet
       loss, and bandwidth utilization constraints.  It MUST also
       support the combination of network performance constraints
       (latency, delay variation, loss...) with existing constraints
       (cost, hop-limit...).

   2.  A PCC MUST be able to specify any network performance constraint
       in a Path Computation Request (PCReq) message to be applied
       during the path computation.

   3.  A PCC MUST be able to request that a PCE optimizes a path using
       any network performance criteria.

   4.  A PCE that supports this specification is not required to provide
       service aware path computation to any PCC at any time.
       Therefore, it MUST be possible for a PCE to reject a PCReq
       message with a reason code that indicates service-aware path
       computation is not supported.  Furthermore, a PCE that does not
       support this specification will either ignore or reject such
       requests using pre-existing mechanisms, therefore the requests
       MUST be identifiable to legacy PCEs and rejections by legacy PCEs
       MUST be acceptable within this specification.

   5.  A PCE SHOULD be able to return end to end network performance
       information of the computed path in a Path Computation Reply
       (PCRep) message.

   6.  A PCE SHOULD be able to compute multi-domain (e.g., Inter-AS,
       Inter-Area or Multi-Layer) service aware paths.

   Such constraints are only meaningful if used consistently: for
   instance, if the delay of a computed path segment is exchanged
   between two PCEs residing in different domains, a consistent way of
   defining the delay must be used.

Appendix B.  Contributor Addresses







Dhody, et al.            Expires March 26, 2017                [Page 28]


Internet-Draft                SERVICE-AWARE               September 2016


   Clarence Filsfils
   Cisco Systems
   Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com

   Siva Sivabalan
   Cisco Systems
   Email: msiva@cisco.com

   George Swallow
   Cisco Systems
   Email: swallow@cisco.com

   Stefano Previdi
   Cisco Systems, Inc
   Via Del Serafico 200
   Rome  00191
   Italy
   Email: sprevidi@cisco.com

   Udayasree Palle
   Huawei Technologies
   Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
   Bangalore, Karnataka  560066
   India
   Email: udayasree.palle@huawei.com

   Avantika
   Huawei Technologies
   Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
   Bangalore, Karnataka  560066
   India
   Email: avantika.sushilkumar@huawei.com

   Xian Zhang
   Huawei Technologies
   F3-1-B R&D Center, Huawei Base Bantian, Longgang District
   Shenzhen, Guangdong  518129
   P.R.China
   Email: zhang.xian@huawei.com


Authors' Addresses









Dhody, et al.            Expires March 26, 2017                [Page 29]


Internet-Draft                SERVICE-AWARE               September 2016


   Dhruv Dhody
   Huawei Technologies
   Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
   Bangalore, Karnataka  560066
   India

   EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com


   Qin Wu
   Huawei Technologies
   101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
   Nanjing, Jiangsu  210012
   China

   EMail: bill.wu@huawei.com


   Vishwas Manral
   Ionos Network
   4100 Moorpark Av
   San Jose, CA
   USA

   EMail: vishwas.ietf@gmail.com


   Zafar Ali
   Cisco Systems

   EMail: zali@cisco.com


   Kenji Kumaki
   KDDI Corporation

   EMail: ke-kumaki@kddi.com














Dhody, et al.            Expires March 26, 2017                [Page 30]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.127, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/