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

Versions: (draft-tang-pce-stateful-pce) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 RFC 8231

Network Working Group                                          E. Crabbe
Internet-Draft                                              Google, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track                               J. Medved
Expires: January 16, 2013                            Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                                R. Varga
                                               Pantheon Technologies SRO
                                                                I. Minei
                                                  Juniper Networks, Inc.
                                                           July 15, 2012


                    PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE
                     draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-01

Abstract

   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.

   Although PCEP explicitly makes no assumptions regarding the
   information available to the PCE, it also makes no provisions for
   synchronization or PCE control of timing and sequence of path
   computations within and across PCEP sessions.  This document
   describes a set of extensions to PCEP to enable this functionality,
   providing stateful control of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)
   Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSP) via PCEP.

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].

Status of this Memo

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

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

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



Crabbe, et al.          Expires January 16, 2013                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft      PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE           July 2012


   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 16, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 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.



































Crabbe, et al.          Expires January 16, 2013                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft      PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE           July 2012


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Motivation and Objectives  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.1.  Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       3.1.1.  Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       3.1.2.  Why a Stateful PCE?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       3.1.3.  Protocol vs. Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     3.2.  Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   4.  New Functions to Support Stateful PCEs . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   5.  Architectural Overview of Protocol Extensions  . . . . . . . . 16
     5.1.  LSP State Ownership  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     5.2.  New Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     5.3.  Capability Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     5.4.  State Synchronization  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
       5.4.1.  State Synchronization Avoidance  . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     5.5.  LSP Delegation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
       5.5.1.  Delegating an LSP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
       5.5.2.  Revoking a Delegation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
       5.5.3.  Returning a Delegation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
       5.5.4.  Redundant Stateful PCEs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
     5.6.  LSP Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
       5.6.1.  Passive Stateful PCE Path Computation
               Request/Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
       5.6.2.  Active Stateful PCE LSP Update . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
     5.7.  LSP Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
     5.8.  Transport  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
   6.  PCEP Messages  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
     6.1.  The PCRpt Message  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
     6.2.  The PCUpd Message  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
     6.3.  The PCReq Message  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
     6.4.  The PCRep Message  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
   7.  Object Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
     7.1.  OPEN Object  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
       7.1.1.  Stateful PCE Capability TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
       7.1.2.  LSP State Database Version TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
       7.1.3.  Node Identifier TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
     7.2.  LSP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
       7.2.1.  The LSP Symbolic Name TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
       7.2.2.  LSP Identifiers TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
       7.2.3.  LSP Update Error Code TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
       7.2.4.  RSVP ERROR_SPEC TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
       7.2.5.  LSP State Database Version TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
       7.2.6.  Delegation Parameters TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
   8.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
     8.1.  PCEP Messages  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
     8.2.  PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44



Crabbe, et al.          Expires January 16, 2013                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft      PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE           July 2012


     8.3.  LSP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
     8.4.  PCEP-Error Object  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
     8.5.  PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
     8.6.  STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
     8.7.  LSP-UPDATE-ERROR-CODE TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
   9.  Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
     9.1.  Control Function and Policy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
     9.2.  Information and Data Models  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
     9.3.  Liveness Detection and Monitoring  . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
     9.4.  Verifying Correct Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
     9.5.  Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional
           Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
     9.6.  Impact on Network Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
   10. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
     10.1. Vulnerability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
     10.2. LSP State Snooping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
     10.3. Malicious PCE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
     10.4. Malicious PCC  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
   11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
   12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
     12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
     12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53




























Crabbe, et al.          Expires January 16, 2013                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft      PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE           July 2012


1.  Introduction

   [RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP.
   PCEP defines the communication between a Path Computation Client
   (PCC) and a Path Control Element (PCE), or between PCE and PCE,
   enabling computation of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) for
   Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path (TE LSP) characteristics

   This document specifies a set of extensions to PCEP to enable
   stateful control of TE LSPs between and across PCEP sessions in
   compliance with [RFC4657].  It includes mechanisms to effect LSP
   state synchronization between PCCs and PCEs, delegation of control of
   LSPs to PCEs, and PCE control of timing and sequence of path
   computations within and across PCEP sessions.


2.  Terminology

   This document uses the following terms defined in [RFC5440]: PCC,
   PCE, PCEP Peer.

   This document uses the following terms defined in [RFC4090]: MPLS TE
   Fast Reroute (FRR), FRR One-to-One Backup, FRR Facility Backup.

   The following terms are defined in this document:

   Passive Stateful PCE:  uses LSP state information learned from PCCs
      to optimize path computations.  It does not actively update LSP
      state.  A PCC maintains synchronization with the PCE.

   Active Stateful PCE:  uses LSP state information learned from PCCs to
      optimize path computations.  Additionally, it actively updates LSP
      parameters in those PCCs that delegated control over their LSPs to
      the PCE.

   Delegation:  An operation to grant a PCE temporary rights to modify a
      subset of LSPs parameters on one or more PCC's LSPs.  LSPs are
      delegated from a PCC to a PCE.

   Delegation Timeout Interval:  when a PCEP session is terminated, a
      PCC waits for this time period before revoking LSP delegation to a
      PCE.

   LSP State Report:  an operation to send LSP state (Operational /
      Admin Status, LSP attributes configured and set by a PCE, etc.)
      from a PCC to a PCE.





Crabbe, et al.          Expires January 16, 2013                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft      PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE           July 2012


   LSP Update Request:  an operation where a PCE requests a PCC to
      update one or more attributes of an LSP and to re-signal the LSP
      with updated attributes.

   LSP Priority:  a specific pair of MPLS setup and hold priority
      values.

   LSP State Database:  information about and attributes of all LSPs
      that are being reported to one or more PCEs via LSP State Reports.

   Minimum Cut Set:  the minimum set of links for a specific source
      destination pair which, when removed from the network, result in a
      specific source being completely isolated from specific
      destination.  The summed capacity of these links is equivalent to
      the maximum capacity from the source to the destination by the
      max-flow min-cut theorem.

   MPLS TE Global Default Restoration:  once an LSP failure is detected
      by some downstream mode, the head-end LSP is notified by means of
      RSVP.  Upon receiving the notification, the headend Label
      Switching Router (LSR) recomputes the path and signals the LSP
      along an alternate path.  [NET-REC]

   MPLS TE Global Path Protection:  once an LSP failure is detected by
      some downstream mode, the head-end LSP is notified by means of
      RSVP.  Upon receiving the notification, the headend LSR reroutes
      traffic using a pre-signaled backup (secondary) LSP.  [NET-REC].

   Revocation:  an operation performed by a PCC on a previously
      delegated LSP.  Revocation clears the LSP's PCE specific state on
      the PCC and, if a PCEP session with the PCE the LSP was delegated
      to exists in the UP state, also generates a revocation message to
      the PCE.

   Within this document, when describing PCE-PCE communications, the
   requesting PCE fills the role of a PCC.  This provides a saving in
   documentation without loss of function.

   The message formats in this document are specified using Routing
   Backus-Naur Format (RBNF) encoding as specified in [RFC5511].


3.  Motivation and Objectives

3.1.  Motivation






Crabbe, et al.          Expires January 16, 2013                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft      PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE           July 2012


3.1.1.  Background

   Traffic engineering has been a goal of the MPLS architecture since
   its inception ([RFC3031], [RFC2702], [RFC3346]).  In the traffic
   engineering system provided by [RFC3630], [RFC5305], and [RFC3209]
   information about network resources utilization is only available as
   total reserved capacity by traffic class on a per interface basis;
   individual LSP state is available only locally on each LER for it's
   own LSPs.  In most cases, this makes good sense, as distribution and
   retention of total LSP state for all LERs within in the network would
   be prohibitively costly.

   Unfortunately, this visibility in terms of global LSP state may
   result in a number of issues for some demand patterns, particularly
   within a common setup and hold priority.  This issue affects online
   traffic engineering systems, and in particular, the widely
   implemented but seldom deployed auto-bandwidth system.

   A sufficiently over-provisioned system will by definition have no
   issues routing its demand on the shortest path.  However, lowering
   the degree to which network over-provisioning is required in order to
   run a healthy, functioning network is a clear and explicit promise of
   MPLS architecture.  In particular, it has been a goal of MPLS to
   provide mechanisms to alleviate congestion scenarios in which
   "traffic streams are inefficiently mapped onto available resources;
   causing subsets of network resources to become over-utilized while
   others remain underutilized" ([RFC2702]).

3.1.2.  Why a Stateful PCE?

   [RFC4655] defines a stateful PCE to be one in which the PCE maintains
   "strict synchronization between the PCE and not only the network
   states (in term of topology and resource information), but also the
   set of computed paths and reserved resources in use in the network."
   [RFC4655] also expressed a number of concerns with regard to a
   stateful PCE, specifically:

   o  Any reliable synchronization mechanism would result in significant
      control plane overhead

   o  Out-of-band ted synchronization would be complex and prone to race
      conditions

   o  Path calculations incorporating total network state would be
      highly complex

   In general, stress on the MPLS TE control plane will be directly
   proportional to the size of the system being controlled and the



Crabbe, et al.          Expires January 16, 2013                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft      PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE           July 2012


   tightness of the control loop, and indirectly proportional to the
   amount of over-provisioning in terms of both network capacity and
   reservation overhead.

   Despite these concerns in terms of implementation complexity and
   scalability, several TE algorithms exist today that have been
   demonstrated to be extremely effective in large TE systems, providing
   both rapid convergence and significant benefits in terms of
   optimality of resource usage [MXMN-TE].  All of these systems share
   at least two common characteristics: the requirement for both global
   visibility of a flow (or in this case, a TE LSP) state and for
   ordered control of path reservations across devices within the system
   being controlled.  While some approaches have been suggested in order
   to remove the requirements for ordered control (See [MPLS-PC]), these
   approaches are highly dependent on traffic distribution, and do not
   allow for multiple simultaneous LSP priorities representing diffserv
   classes.

   The following use cases demonstrate a need for visibility into global
   inter-PCC LSP state in PCE path computations, and for a PCE control
   of sequence and timing in altering LSP path characteristics within
   and across PCEP sessions.  Reference topologies for the use cases
   described later in this section are shown in Figures 1 and 2.

   Unless otherwise cited, use cases assume that all LSPs listed exist
   at the same LSP priority.

          +-------+
          |   A   |
          |       |
          +-------+
                    \
                      +-------+                         +-------+
                      |   C   |-------------------------|   E   |
                      |       |                         |       |
                      +-------+        +-------+        +-------+
                    /          \       |   D   |      /
          +-------+              ------|       |------
          |   B   |                    +-------+
          |       |
          +-------+

                      Figure 1: Reference topology 1








Crabbe, et al.          Expires January 16, 2013                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft      PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE           July 2012


               +-------+        +-------+        +-------+
               |   A   |        |   B   |        |   C   |
               |       |        |       |        |       |
               +---+---+        +---+---+        +---+---+
                   |                |                |
                   |                |                |
               +---+---+        +---+---+        +---+---+
               |   E   |        |   F   |        |   G   |
               |       +--------+       +--------+       |
               +-------+        +-------+        +-------+

                      Figure 2: Reference topology 2

3.1.2.1.  Throughput Maximization and Bin Packing

   Because LSP attribute changes in [RFC5440] are driven by PCReq
   messages under control of a PCC's local timers, the sequence of RSVP
   reservation arrivals occurring in the network will be randomized.
   This, coupled with a lack of global LSP state visibility on the part
   of a stateless PCE may result in suboptimal throughput in a given
   network topology.

   Reference topology 2 in Figure 2 and Tables 1 and 2 show an example
   in which throughput is at 50% of optimal as a result of lack of
   visibility and synchronized control across PCC's.  In this scenario,
   the decision must be made as to whether to route any portion of the
   E-G demand, as any demand routed for this source and destination will
   decrease system throughput.

                       +------+--------+----------+
                       | Link | Metric | Capacity |
                       +------+--------+----------+
                       |  A-E |    1   |    10    |
                       |  B-F |    1   |    10    |
                       |  C-G |    1   |    10    |
                       |  E-F |    1   |    10    |
                       |  F-G |    1   |    10    |
                       +------+--------+----------+

             Table 1: Link parameters for Throughput use case











Crabbe, et al.          Expires January 16, 2013                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft      PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE           July 2012


          +------+-----+-----+-----+--------+----------+-------+
          | Time | LSP | Src | Dst | Demand | Routable |  Path |
          +------+-----+-----+-----+--------+----------+-------+
          |   1  |  1  |  E  |  G  |   10   |    Yes   | E-F-G |
          |   2  |  2  |  A  |  B  |   10   |    No    |  ---  |
          |   3  |  1  |  F  |  C  |   10   |    No    |  ---  |
          +------+-----+-----+-----+--------+----------+-------+

              Table 2: Throughput use case demand time series

   In many cases throughput maximization becomes a bin packing problem.
   While bin packing itself is an NP-hard problem, a number of common
   heuristics which run in polynomial time can provide significant
   improvements in throughput over random reservation event
   distribution, especially when traversing links which are members of
   the minimum cut set for a large subset of source destination pairs.

   Tables 3 and 4 show a simple use case using Reference Topology 1 in
   Figure 1, where LSP state visibility and control of reservation order
   across PCCs would result in significant improvement in total
   throughput.

                       +------+--------+----------+
                       | Link | Metric | Capacity |
                       +------+--------+----------+
                       |  A-C |    1   |    10    |
                       |  B-C |    1   |    10    |
                       |  C-E |   10   |     5    |
                       |  C-D |    1   |    10    |
                       |  D-E |    1   |    10    |
                       +------+--------+----------+

             Table 3: Link parameters for Bin Packing use case

         +------+-----+-----+-----+--------+----------+---------+
         | Time | LSP | Src | Dst | Demand | Routable |   Path  |
         +------+-----+-----+-----+--------+----------+---------+
         |   1  |  1  |  A  |  E  |    5   |    Yes   | A-C-D-E |
         |   2  |  2  |  B  |  E  |   10   |    No    |   ---   |
         +------+-----+-----+-----+--------+----------+---------+

             Table 4: Bin Packing use case demand time series

3.1.2.2.  Deadlock

   Most existing RSVP-TE implementations will not tear down established
   LSPs in the event of the failure of the bandwidth increase procedure
   detailed in [RFC3209].  This behavior is directly implied to be



Crabbe, et al.          Expires January 16, 2013               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft      PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE           July 2012


   correct in [RFC3209] and is often desirable from an operator's
   perspective, because either a) the destination prefixes are not
   reachable via any means other than MPLS or b) this would result in
   significant packet loss as demand is shifted to other LSPs in the
   overlay mesh.

   In addition, there are currently few implementations offering ingress
   admission control at the LSP level.  Again, having ingress admission
   control on a per LSP basis is not necessarily desirable from an
   operational perspective, as a) one must over-provision tunnels
   significantly in order to avoid deleterious effects resulting from
   stacked transport and flow control systems and b) there is currently
   no efficient commonly available northbound interface for dynamic
   configuration of per LSP ingress admission control (such an interface
   could easily be defined using the extensions present in this spec,
   but it beyond the scope of the current document).

   Lack of ingress admission control coupled with the behavior in
   [RFC3209] effectively results in mis-signaled LSPs during periods of
   contention for network capacity between LSPs in a given LSP priority.
   This in turn causes information loss in the TED with regard to actual
   network state, resulting in LSPs sharing common network interfaces
   with mis-signaled LSPs operating in a degraded state for significant
   periods of time, even when unused network capacity may potentially be
   available.

   Reference Topology 1 in Figure 1 and Tables 5 and 6 show a use case
   that demonstrates this behavior.  Two LSPs, LSP 1 and LSP 2 are
   signaled with demand 2 and routed along paths A-C-D-E and B-C-D-E
   respectively.  At a later time, the demand of LSP 1 increases to 20.
   Under such a demand, the LSP cannot be resignaled.  However, the
   existing LSP will not be torn down.  In the absence of ingress
   policing, traffic on LSP 1 will cause degradation for traffic of LSP
   2 (due to oversubscription on the links C-D and D-E), as well as
   information loss in the TED with regard to the actual network state.

   The problem could be easily ameliorated by global visibility of LSP
   state coupled with PCC- external demand measurements and placement of
   two LSPs on disjoint links.  Note that while the demand of 20 for LSP
   1 could never be satisfied in the given topology, what could be
   achieved would be isolation from the ill-effects of the
   (unsatisfiable) increased demand.









Crabbe, et al.          Expires January 16, 2013               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft      PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE           July 2012


                       +------+--------+----------+
                       | Link | Metric | Capacity |
                       +------+--------+----------+
                       |  A-C |    1   |    10    |
                       |  B-C |    1   |    10    |
                       |  C-E |   10   |     5    |
                       |  C-D |    1   |    10    |
                       |  D-E |    1   |    10    |
                       +------+--------+----------+

            Table 5: Link parameters for the 'Deadlock' example

         +------+-----+-----+-----+--------+----------+---------+
         | Time | LSP | Src | Dst | Demand | Routable |   Path  |
         +------+-----+-----+-----+--------+----------+---------+
         |   1  |  1  |  A  |  E  |    2   |    Yes   | A-C-D-E |
         |   2  |  2  |  B  |  E  |    2   |    Yes   | B-C-D-E |
         |   3  |  1  |  A  |  E  |   20   |    No    |   ---   |
         +------+-----+-----+-----+--------+----------+---------+

               Table 6: Deadlock LSP and demand time series

3.1.2.3.  Minimum Perturbation

   As a result of both the lack of visibility into global LSP state and
   the lack of control over event ordering across PCE sessions,
   unnecessary perturbations may be introduced into the network by a
   stateless PCE.  Tables 7 and 8 show an example of an unnecessary
   network perturbation using Reference Topology 1 in Figure 1.  In this
   case an unimportant (high LSP priority value) LSP (LSP1) is first set
   up along the shortest path.  At time 2, which is assumed to be
   relatively close to time 1, a second more important (lower LSP-
   priority value) LSP is established, preempting LSP 1 and shifting it
   to the longer A-C-E path.

                       +------+--------+----------+
                       | Link | Metric | Capacity |
                       +------+--------+----------+
                       |  A-C |    1   |    10    |
                       |  B-C |    1   |    10    |
                       |  C-E |   10   |    10    |
                       |  C-D |    1   |    10    |
                       |  D-E |    1   |    10    |
                       +------+--------+----------+

      Table 7: Link parameters for the 'Minimum-Perturbation' example





Crabbe, et al.          Expires January 16, 2013               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft      PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE           July 2012


    +------+-----+-----+-----+--------+----------+----------+---------+
    | Time | LSP | Src | Dst | Demand | LSP Prio | Routable |   Path  |
    +------+-----+-----+-----+--------+----------+----------+---------+
    |   1  |  1  |  A  |  E  |    7   |     7    |    Yes   | A-C-D-E |
    |   2  |  2  |  B  |  E  |    7   |     0    |    Yes   | B-C-D-E |
    |   3  |  1  |  A  |  E  |    7   |     7    |    Yes   |  A-C-E  |
    +------+-----+-----+-----+--------+----------+----------+---------+

         Table 8: Minimum-Perturbation LSP and demand time series

3.1.2.4.  Predictability

   Randomization of reservation events caused by lack of control over
   event ordering across PCE sessions results in poor predictability in
   LSP routing.  An offline system applying a consistent optimization
   method will produce predictable results to within either the boundary
   of forecast error when reservations are over-provisioned by
   reasonable margins or to the variability of the signal and the
   forecast error when applying some hysteresis in order to minimize
   churn.

   Reference Topology 1 and Tables 9, 10 and 11 show the impact of event
   ordering and predictability of LSP routing.

                       +------+--------+----------+
                       | Link | Metric | Capacity |
                       +------+--------+----------+
                       |  A-C |    1   |    10    |
                       |  B-C |    1   |    10    |
                       |  C-E |    1   |    10    |
                       |  C-D |    1   |    10    |
                       |  D-E |    1   |    10    |
                       +------+--------+----------+

         Table 9: Link parameters for the 'Predictability' example

         +------+-----+-----+-----+--------+----------+---------+
         | Time | LSP | Src | Dst | Demand | Routable |   Path  |
         +------+-----+-----+-----+--------+----------+---------+
         |   1  |  1  |  A  |  E  |    7   |    Yes   |  A-C-E  |
         |   2  |  2  |  B  |  E  |    7   |    Yes   | B-C-D-E |
         +------+-----+-----+-----+--------+----------+---------+

           Table 10: Predictability LSP and demand time series 1







Crabbe, et al.          Expires January 16, 2013               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft      PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE           July 2012


         +------+-----+-----+-----+--------+----------+---------+
         | Time | LSP | Src | Dst | Demand | Routable |   Path  |
         +------+-----+-----+-----+--------+----------+---------+
         |   1  |  2  |  B  |  E  |    7   |    Yes   |  B-C-E  |
         |   2  |  1  |  A  |  E  |    7   |    Yes   | A-C-D-E |
         +------+-----+-----+-----+--------+----------+---------+

           Table 11: Predictability LSP and demand time series 2

3.1.2.5.  Global Concurrent Optimization

   Global Concurrent Optimization (GCO) defined in [RFC5557] is a
   network optimization mechanism that is able to simultaneously
   consider the entire topology of the network and the complete set of
   existing TE LSPs and their existing constraints, and look to optimize
   or reoptimize the entire network to satisfy all constraints for all
   TE LSPs.  It allows for bulk path computations in order to avoid
   blocking problems and to achieve more optimal network-wide solutions.

   Global control of LSP operation sequence in [RFC5557] is predicated
   on the use of what is effectively a stateful (or semi-stateful) NMS.
   The NMS can be either not local to the switch, in which case another
   northbound interface is required for LSP attribute changes, or local/
   collocated, in which case there are significant issues with
   efficiency in resource usage.  Stateful PCE adds a few features that:

   o  Roll the NMS visibility into the PCE and remove the requirement
      for an additional northbound interface

   o  Allow the PCE to determine when re-optimization is needed

   o  Allow the PCE to determine which LSPs should be re-optimized

   o  Allow a PCE to control the sequence of events across multiple
      PCCs, allowing for bulk (and truly global) optimization, LSP
      shuffling etc.

3.1.3.  Protocol vs. Configuration

   Note that existing configuration tools and protocols can be used to
   set LSP state.  However, this solution has several shortcomings:

   o  Scale & Performance: configuration operations often require
      processing of additional configuration portions beyond the state
      being directly acted upon, with corresponding cost in CPU cycles,
      negatively impacting both PCC stability LSP update rate capacity.





Crabbe, et al.          Expires January 16, 2013               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft      PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE           July 2012


   o  Scale & Performance: configuration operations often have
      transactional semantics which are typically heavyweight and
      require additional CPU cycles, negatively impacting PCC update
      rate capacity.

   o  Security: opening up a configuration channel to a PCE would allow
      a malicious PCE to take over a PCC.  The PCEP extensions described
      in this document only allow a PCE control over a very limited set
      of LSP attributes.

   o  Interoperability: each vendor has a proprietary information model
      for configuring LSP state, which prevents interoperability of a
      PCE with PCCs from different vendors.  The PCEP extensions
      described in this document allow for a common information model
      for LSP state for all vendors.

   o  Efficient State Synchronization: configuration channels may be
      heavyweight and unidirectional, therefore efficient state
      synchronization between a PCE and a PCE may be a problem.

3.2.  Objectives

   The objectives for the protocol extensions to support stateful PCE
   described in this document are as follows:

   o  Allow a single PCC to interact with a mix of stateless and
      stateful PCEs simultaneously using the same PCEP.

   o  Support efficient LSP state synchronization between the PCC and
      one or more active or passive stateful PCEs.

   o  Allow a PCC to delegate control of its LSPs to an active stateful
      PCE such that a single LSP is under the control a single PCE at
      any given time.  A PCC may revoke this delegation at any time
      during the lifetime of the LSP.  If LSP delegation is revoked
      while the PCEP session is up, the PCC MUST notify the PCE about
      the revocation.  A PCE may return an LSP delegation at any point
      during the lifetime of the PCEP session.

   o  Allow a PCE to control computation timing and update timing across
      all LSPs that have been delegated to it.

   o  Allow a PCE to specify protection / restoration settings for all
      LSPs that have been delegated to it.

   o  Enable uninterrupted operation of PCC's LSPs in the event PCE
      failure or while control of LSPs is being transferred between
      PCEs.



Crabbe, et al.          Expires January 16, 2013               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft      PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE           July 2012


4.  New Functions to Support Stateful PCEs

   Several new functions will be required in PCEP to support stateful
   PCEs.  A function can be initiated either from a PCC towards a PCE
   (C-E) or from a PCE towards a PCC (E-C).  The new functions are:

   Capability negotiation (E-C,C-E):  both the PCC and the PCE must
      announce during PCEP session establishment that they support PCEP
      Stateful PCE extensions defined in this document.

   LSP state synchronization (C-E):  after the session between the PCC
      and a stateful PCE is initialized, the PCE must learn the state of
      a PCC's LSPs before it can perform path computations or update LSP
      attributes in a PCC.

   LSP Update Request (E-C):  A PCE requests modification of attributes
      on a PCC's LSP.

   LSP State Report (C-E):  a PCC sends an LSP state report to a PCE
      whenever the state of an LSP changes.

   LSP control delegation (C-E,E-C):  a PCC grants to a PCE the right to
      update LSP attributes on one or more LSPs; the PCE becomes the
      authoritative source of the LSP's attributes as long as the
      delegation is in effect (See Section 5.5); the PCC may withdraw
      the delegation or the PCE may give up the delegation

   In addition to new PCEP functions, stateful capabilities discovery
   will be required in OSPF ([RFC5088]) and IS-IS ([RFC5089]).  Stateful
   capabilities discovery is not in scope of this document.


5.  Architectural Overview of Protocol Extensions

5.1.  LSP State Ownership

   In the PCEP protocol (defined in [RFC5440]), LSP state and operation
   are under the control of a PCC (a PCC may be an LSR or a management
   station).  Attributes received from a PCE are subject to PCC's local
   policy.  The PCEP protocol extensions described in this document do
   not change this behavior.

   An active stateful PCE may have control of a PCC's LSPs be delegated
   to it, but the LSP state ownership is retained by the PCC.  In
   particular, in addition to specifying values for LSP's attributes, an
   active stateful PCE also decides when to make LSP modifications.

   Retaining LSP state ownership on the PCC allows for:



Crabbe, et al.          Expires January 16, 2013               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft      PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE           July 2012


   o  a PCC to interact with both stateless and stateful PCEs at the
      same time

   o  a stateful PCE to only modify a small subset of LSP parameters,
      i.e. to set only a small subset of the overall LSP state; other
      parameters may be set by the operator through CLI commands

   o  a PCC to revert delegated LSP to an operator-defined default or to
      delegate the LSPs to a different PCE, if the PCC get disconnected
      from a PCE with currently delegated LSPs

5.2.  New Messages

   In this document, we define the following new PCEP messages:

   Path Computation State Report (PCRpt):  a PCEP message sent by a PCC
      to a PCE to report the status of one or more LSPs.  Each LSP
      Status Report in a PCRpt message can contain the actual LSP's
      path,bandwidth, operational and administrative status, etc.  An
      LSP Status Report carried on a PCRpt message is also used in
      delegation or revocation of control of an LSP to/from a PCE.  The
      PCRpt message is described in Section 6.1.

   Path Computation Update Request (PCUpd):  a PCEP message sent by a
      PCE to a PCC to update LSP parameters, on one or more LSPs.  Each
      LSP Update Request on a PCUpd message MUST contain all LSP
      parameters that a PCE wishes to set for a given LSP.  An LSP
      Update Request carried on a PCUpd message is also used to return
      LSP delegations if at any point PCE no longer desires control of
      an LSP.  The PCUpd message is described in Section 6.2.

   The new functions defined in Section 4 are mapped onto the new
   messages as shown in the following table.

   +----------------------------------------+--------------------------+
   | Function                               | Message                  |
   +----------------------------------------+--------------------------+
   | Capability Negotiation (E-C,C-E)       | Open                     |
   | State Synchronization (C-E)            | PCRpt                    |
   | LSP State Report (C-E)                 | PCRpt                    |
   | LSP Control Delegation (C-E,E-C)       | PCRpt, PCUpd             |
   | LSP Update Request (E-C)               | PCUpd                    |
   | ISIS stateful capability advertisement | ISIS PCE-CAP-FLAGS       |
   |                                        | sub-TLV                  |
   | OSPF stateful capability advertisement | OSPF RI LSA, PCE TLV,    |
   |                                        | PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV    |
   +----------------------------------------+--------------------------+




Crabbe, et al.          Expires January 16, 2013               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft      PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE           July 2012


                 Table 12: New Function to Message Mapping

5.3.  Capability Negotiation

   During PCEP Initialization Phase, PCEP Speakers (PCE pr PCC)
   negotiate the use of stateful PCEP extensions.  A PCEP Speaker
   includes the "Stateful PCE Capability" TLV, described in
   Section 7.1.1, in the OPEN Object to advertise its support for PCEP
   stateful extensions.  The Stateful Capability TLV includes the 'LSP
   Update' Flag that indicates whether the PCEP Speaker supports LSP
   parameter updates.

   The presence of the Stateful PCE Capability TLV in PCC's OPEN Object
   indicates that the PCC is willing to send LSP State Reports whenever
   LSP parameters or operational status changes.

   The presence of the Stateful PCE Capability TLV in PCE's OPEN message
   indicates that the PCE is interested in receiving LSP State Reports
   whenever LSP parameters or operational status changes.

   The PCEP protocol extensions for stateful PCEs MUST not be used if
   one or both PCEP Speakers have not included the Stateful PCE
   Capability TLV in their respective OPEN message, otherwise a PCErr
   with code "Stateful PCE capability not negotiated" (see Section 8.4)
   will be generated and the PCEP session will be terminated.

   LSP delegation and LSP update operations defined in this document MAY
   only be used if both PCEP Speakers set the LSP-UPDATE Flag in the
   "Stateful Capability" TLV to 'Updates Allowed (U Flag = 1)',
   otherwise a PCErr with code "Delegation not negotiated" (see
   Section 8.4) will be generated.  Note that even if the update
   capability has not been negotiated, a PCE can still receive LSP
   Status Reports from a PCC and build and maintain an up to date view
   of the state of the PCC's LSPs.

5.4.  State Synchronization

   The purpose of State Synchronization is to provide a checkpoint-in-
   time state replica of a PCC's LSP state in a PCE.  State
   Synchronization is performed immediately after the Initialization
   phase ([RFC5440]).

   During State Synchronization, a PCC first takes a snapshot of the
   state of its LSPs state, then sends the snapshot to a PCE in a
   sequence of LSP State Reports.  Each LSP State Report sent during
   State Synchronization has the SYNC Flag in the LSP Object set to 1.
   The set of LSPs for which state is synchronized with a PCE is
   determined by negotiated stateful PCEP capabilities and PCC's local



Crabbe, et al.          Expires January 16, 2013               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft      PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE           July 2012


   configuration (see more details in Section 9.1).

   A PCE SHOULD NOT send PCUpd messages to a PCC before State
   Synchronization is complete.  A PCC SHOULD NOT send PCReq messages to
   a PCE before State Synchronization is complete.  This is to allow the
   PCE to get the best possible view of the network before it starts
   computing new paths.

   If the PCC encounters a problem which prevents it from completing the
   state transfer, it MUST send a PCErr message to the PCE and terminate
   the session using the PCEP session termination procedure.

   The PCE does not send positive acknowledgements for properly received
   synchronization messages.  It MUST respond with a PCErr message
   indicating "PCRpt error" (see Section 8.4) if it encounters a problem
   with the LSP State Report it received from the PCC.  Either the PCE
   or the PCC MAY terminate the session if the PCE encounters a problem
   during the synchronization.

   The successful State Synchronization sequence is shown in Figure 3.

                     +-+-+                    +-+-+
                     |PCC|                    |PCE|
                     +-+-+                    +-+-+
                       |                        |
                       |-----PCRpt, SYNC=1----->| (Sync start)
                       |                        |
                       |-----PCRpt, SYNC=1----->|
                       |            .           |
                       |            .           |
                       |            .           |
                       |-----PCRpt, SYNC=1----->| (Sync done)
                       |            .           |
                       |            .           |
                       |            .           |
                       |                        |
                       |-----PCRpt, SYNC=0----->| (Regular
                       |                        |  LSP State Report)

                Figure 3: Successful state synchronization

   The sequence where the PCE fails during the State Synchronization
   phase is shown in Figure 4.








Crabbe, et al.          Expires January 16, 2013               [Page 19]


Internet-Draft      PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE           July 2012


                     +-+-+                    +-+-+
                     |PCC|                    |PCE|
                     +-+-+                    +-+-+
                       |                        |
                       |-----PCRpt, SYNC=1----->|
                       |                        |
                       |-----PCRpt, SYNC=1----->|
                       |            .           |
                       |            .           |
                       |            .           |
                       |-----PCRpt, SYNC=1----->|
                       |                        |
                       |-PCRpt, SYNC=1          |
                       |         \    ,-PCErr=?-|
                       |          \  /          |
                       |           \/           |
                       |           /\           |
                       |          /   `-------->| (Ignored)
                       |<--------`              |

           Figure 4: Failed state synchronization (PCE failure)

   The sequence where the PCC fails during the State Synchronization
   phase is shown in Figure 5.

                     +-+-+                    +-+-+
                     |PCC|                    |PCE|
                     +-+-+                    +-+-+
                       |                        |
                       |-----PCRpt, SYNC=1----->|
                       |                        |
                       |-----PCRpt, SYNC=1----->|
                       |            .           |
                       |            .           |
                       |            .           |
                       |-------- PCErr=? ------>|
                       |                        |

           Figure 5: Failed state synchronization (PCC failure)

5.4.1.  State Synchronization Avoidance

   State Synchronization MAY be skipped following a PCEP session restart
   if the state of both PCEP peers did not change during the period
   prior to session re-initialization.  To be able to make this
   determination, state must be exchanged and maintained by both PCE and
   PCC during normal operation.  This is accomplished by keeping track
   of the changes to the LSP State Database.  When State Synchronization



Crabbe, et al.          Expires January 16, 2013               [Page 20]


Internet-Draft      PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE           July 2012


   avoidance is enabled on a PCEP session, a PCC includes the LSP-DB-
   VERSION TLV as an optional TLV in the LSP Object on each LSP State
   Report.  The LSP-DB-VERSION TLV contains a PCC's LSP State Database
   version, which is incremented each time a change is made to the PCC's
   local LSP State Database.  The LSP State Database version is an
   unsigned 64-bit value that MUST be incremented by 1 for each
   successive change in the LSP state database.  The LSP State Database
   version MUST start at 1 and may wrap around.  Values 0 and
   0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF are reserved.

   State Synchronization Avoidance is negotiated on a PCEP session
   during session startup.  To make sure that a PCEP peer can recognize
   a previously connected peer even if its IP address changed, each PCEP
   peer includes the NODE_IDENTIFIER TLV in the OPEN message.

   If both PCEP speakers set the INCLUDE-DB-VERSION Flag in the OPEN
   object's STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV to 1, the PCC will include the
   LSP-DB-VERSION TLV in each LSP Object.  The TLV will contain the
   PCC's latest LSP State Database version.

   If a PCE's LSP State Database survived the restart of a PCEP session,
   the PCE will include the LSP-DB-VERSION TLV in its OPEN object, and
   the TLV will contain the last LSP State Database version received on
   an LSP State Update from the PCC in a previous PCEP session.  If a
   PCC's LSP State Database survived the restart, the PCC will include
   the LSP-DB-VERSION TLV in its OPEN object and the TLV will contain
   the last LSP State Database version sent on an LSP State Update from
   the PCC in the previous PCEP session.  If a PCEP Speaker's LSP State
   Database did not survive the restart of a PCEP session, the PCEP
   Speaker MUST NOT include the LSP-DB-VERSION TLV in the OPEN Object.

   If both PCEP Speakers include the LSP-DB-VERSION TLV in the OPEN
   Object and the TLV values match, the PCC MAY skip State
   Synchronization.  Otherwise, the PCE MUST purge any remaining LSP
   state and expect the PCC to perform State Synchronization; if the PCC
   attempts to skip State Synchronization (i.e. the SYNC Flag = 0 on the
   first LSP State Report from the PCC), the PCE MUST send back a
   PCError with Error-type 20 Error-value 2 'LSP Database version
   mismatch', and close the PCEP session.

   Note that a PCE MAY force State Synchronization by not including the
   LSP-DB-VERSION TLV in its OPEN object.

   Figure 6 shows an example sequence where State Synchronization is
   skipped.






Crabbe, et al.          Expires January 16, 2013               [Page 21]


Internet-Draft      PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE           July 2012


                     +-+-+                    +-+-+
                     |PCC|                    |PCE|
                     +-+-+                    +-+-+
                       |                        |
                       |--Open--,               |
                       |  DBv=42 \    ,---Open--|
                       |   IDB=1  \  /   DBv=42 |
                       |           \/     IDB=1 |
                       |           /\           |
                       |          /   `-------->| (OK to skip sync)
           (Skip sync) |<--------`              |
                       |            .           |
                       |            .           |
                       |            .           |
                       |                        |
                       |--PCRpt,DBv=43,SYNC=0-->| (Regular
                       |                        |  LSP State Update)
                       |--PCRpt,DBv=44,SYNC=0-->| (Regular
                       |                        |  LSP State Update)
                       |--PCRpt,DBv=45,SYNC=0-->|
                       |                        |

                  Figure 6: State Synchronization skipped

   Figure 7 shows an example sequence where State Synchronization is
   performed due to LSP State Database version mismatch during the PCEP
   session setup.  Note that the same State Synchronization sequence
   would happen if either the PCE or the PCE would not include the LSP-
   DB-VERSION TLV in their respective Open messages.






















Crabbe, et al.          Expires January 16, 2013               [Page 22]


Internet-Draft      PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE           July 2012


                     +-+-+                    +-+-+
                     |PCC|                    |PCE|
                     +-+-+                    +-+-+
                       |                        |
                       |--Open--,               |
                       |  DBv=46 \    ,---Open--|
                       |   IDB=1  \  /   DBv=42 |
                       |           \/     IDB=1 |
                       |           /\           |
                       |          /   `-------->| (Expect sync)
             (Do sync) |<--------`              | (Purge LSP State)
                       |                        |
                       |--PCRpt,DBv=46,SYNC=1-->| (Sync start)
                       |            .           |
                       |            .           |
                       |            .           |
                       |--PCRpt,DBv=46,SYNC=1-->| (Sync done)
                       |            .           |
                       |            .           |
                       |            .           |
                       |--PCRpt,DBv=47,SYNC=0-->| (Regular
                       |                        |  LSP State Update)
                       |--PCRpt,DBv=48,SYNC=0-->| (Regular
                       |                        |  LSP State Update)
                       |--PCRpt,DBv=49,SYNC=0-->|
                       |                        |

                 Figure 7: State Synchronization performed

   Figure 8 shows an example sequence where State Synchronization is
   skipped, but because one or both PCEP Speakers set the INCLUDE-DB-
   VERSION Flag to 0, the PCC does not send LSP-DB-VERSION TLVs to the
   PCE.  If the current PCEP session restarts, the PCEP Speakers will
   have to perform State Synchronization, since the PCE will not know
   the PCC's latest LSP State Database version.
















Crabbe, et al.          Expires January 16, 2013               [Page 23]


Internet-Draft      PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE           July 2012


                     +-+-+                    +-+-+
                     |PCC|                    |PCE|
                     +-+-+                    +-+-+
                       |                        |
                       |--Open--,               |
                       |  DBv=42 \    ,---Open--|
                       |   IDB=0  \  /   DBv=42 |
                       |           \/     IDB=0 |
                       |           /\           |
                       |          /   `-------->| (OK to skip sync)
           (Skip sync) |<--------`              |
                       |            .           |
                       |            .           |
                       |            .           |
                       |------PCRpt,SYNC=0----->| (Regular
                       |                        |  LSP State Update)
                       |------PCRpt,SYNC=0----->| (Regular
                       |                        |  LSP State Update)
                       |------PCRpt,SYNC=0----->|
                       |                        |

   Figure 8: State Synchronization skipped, no LSP-DB-VERSION TLVs sent
                                 from PCC

5.5.  LSP Delegation

   If during Capability negotiation both the PCE and the PCC have
   indicated that they support LSP Update, then the PCC may choose to
   grant the PCE a temporary right to update (a subset of) LSP
   attributes on one or more LSPs.  This is called "LSP Delegation", and
   it MAY be performed at any time after the Initialization phase.

   LSP Delegation is controlled by operator-defined policies on a PCC.
   LSPs are delegated individually - different LSPs may be delegated to
   different PCEs, and an LSP may be delegated to one or more PCEs.  The
   delegation policy, when all PCC's LSPs are delegated to a single PCE
   at any given time, SHOULD be supported by all delegation-capable
   PCCs.  Conversely, the policy revoking the delegation for all PCC's
   LSPs SHOULD also be supported

   A PCE may return LSP delegation at any time if it no longer wishes to
   update the LSP's state.  A PCC may revoke LSP delegation at any time.
   Delegation, Revocation, and Return are done individually for each
   LSP.







Crabbe, et al.          Expires January 16, 2013               [Page 24]


Internet-Draft      PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE           July 2012


5.5.1.  Delegating an LSP

   A PCC delegates an LSP to a PCE by setting the Delegate flag in LSP
   State Report to 1.  A PCE confirms the delegation when it sends the
   first LSP Update Request for the delegated LSP to the PCC by setting
   the Delegate flag to 1.  Note that a PCE does not immediately confirm
   to the PCC the acceptance of LSP Delegation; Delegation acceptance is
   confirmed when the PCC wishes to update the LSP via the LSP Update
   Request.  If a PCE does not accept the LSP Delegation, it MUST
   immediately respond with an empty LSP Update Request which has the
   Delegate flag set to 0.

   The delegation sequence is shown in Figure 9.

                     +-+-+                    +-+-+
                     |PCC|                    |PCE|
                     +-+-+                    +-+-+
                       |                        |
                       |---PCRpt, Delegate=1--->| LSP Delegated
                       |                        |
                       |---PCRpt, Delegate=1--->|
                       |            .           |
                       |            .           |
                       |            .           |
                       |<--(PCUpd,Delegate=1)---| Delegation confirmed
                       |                        |
                       |---PCRpt, Delegate=1--->|
                       |                        |

                        Figure 9: Delegating an LSP

   Note that for an LSP to remain delegated to a PCE, the PCC MUST set
   the Delegate flag to 1 on each LSP Status Report sent to the PCE.

5.5.2.  Revoking a Delegation

   When a PCC decides that a PCE is no longer permitted to modify an
   LSP, it revokes that LSP's delegation to the PCE.  A PCC may revoke
   an LSP delegation at any time during the LSP's life time.  A PCC
   revoking a LSP MAY immediately clear the LSP state provided by the
   PCE, and MUST ignore any further PCUpd messages received regarding
   the revoked LSP from the previous PCE delegate.

   If a PCEP session with the PCE to which the LSP is delegated exists
   in the UP state during the revocation, the PCC MUST notify that PCE
   by sending an LSP State Report with the Delegate flag set to 0, as
   shown in Figure 10.




Crabbe, et al.          Expires January 16, 2013               [Page 25]


Internet-Draft      PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE           July 2012


                     +-+-+                    +-+-+
                     |PCC|                    |PCE|
                     +-+-+                    +-+-+
                       |                        |
                       |---PCRpt, Delegate=1--->|
                       |                        |
                       |<--(PCUpd,Delegate=1)---| Delegation confirmed
                       |            .           |
                       |            .           |
                       |            .           |
                       |---PCRpt, Delegate=0--->| PCC revokes delegation
                       |                        |

                     Figure 10: Revoking a Delegation

   After an LSP delegation has been revoked, a PCE can no longer update
   LSP's parameters; an attempt to update parameters of a non-delegated
   LSP will result in the PCC sending a PCErr message indicating "LSP is
   not delegated" (see Section 8.4).

   When a PCC's PCEP session with a PCE terminates, the PCC SHALL wait a
   time interval specified in 'Delegation Timeout Interval' before
   revoking LSP delegations to the PCE.  If a new PCEP session with the
   PCE can be established before the 'Delegation Timeout' timer expires,
   LSP delegations to the PCE remain intact.  If, after expiry of the
   'Delegation Timeout' timer, a PCC can not delegate an LSP to another
   PCE (for example, if a PCC is not connected to any active stateful
   PCE or if no connected active stateful PCE accepts the delegation),
   the PCC SHALL flush any LSP state set by the PCE.

   If State Synchronization Avoidance is enabled, a PCC MUST increment
   its LSP State Database version when the 'Delegation Timeout' timer
   expires.

5.5.3.  Returning a Delegation

   A PCE that no longer wishes to update an LSP's parameters SHOULD
   return the LSP delegation back to the PCC by sending an empty LSP
   Update Request which has the Delegate flag set to 0.  Note that in
   order to keep a delegation, the PCE MUST set the Delegate flag to 1
   on each LSP Update Request sent to the PCC.










Crabbe, et al.          Expires January 16, 2013               [Page 26]


Internet-Draft      PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE           July 2012


                     +-+-+                    +-+-+
                     |PCC|                    |PCE|
                     +-+-+                    +-+-+
                       |                        |
                       |---PCRpt, Delegate=1--->| LSP delegated
                       |            .           |
                       |            .           |
                       |            .           |
                       |<--PCUpd, Delegate=0----| Delegation returned
                       |                        |
                       |---PCRpt, Delegate=0--->| No delegation for LSP
                       |                        |

                     Figure 11: Returning a Delegation

   If a PCC can not delegate an LSP to a PCE (for example, if a PCC is
   not connected to any active stateful PCE or if no connected active
   stateful PCE accepts the delegation), the LSP delegation on the PCC
   will time out within a configurable Delegation Timeout Interval and
   the PCC MUST flush any LSP state set by a PCE.

5.5.4.  Redundant Stateful PCEs

   Note that a PCE may not have any delegated LSPs: in a redundant
   configuration where one PCE is backing up another PCE, the backup PCE
   will not have any delegated LSPs.  The backup PCE does not update any
   LSPs, but it receives all LSP State Reports from a PCC.  When the
   primary PCE fails, a PCC will delegate to the secondary PCE all LSPs
   that had been previously delegated to the failed PCE.

5.6.  LSP Operations




















Crabbe, et al.          Expires January 16, 2013               [Page 27]


Internet-Draft      PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE           July 2012


5.6.1.  Passive Stateful PCE Path Computation Request/Response

                     +-+-+                    +-+-+
                     |PCC|                    |PCE|
                     +-+-+                    +-+-+
                       |                        |
   1) Path computation |----- PCReq message --->|
      request sent to  |                        |2) Path computation
      PCE              |                        |   request received,
                       |                        |   path computed
                       |                        |
                       |<---- PCRep message ----|3) Computed paths
                       |     (Positive reply)   |   sent to the PCC
                       |     (Negative reply)   |
   4) LSP Status change|                        |
      event            |                        |
                       |                        |
   5) LSP Status Report|----- PCRpt message --->|
      sent to all      |            .           |
      stateful PCEs    |            .           |
                       |            .           |
   6) Repeat for each  |----- PCRpt message --->|
      LSP status change|                        |
                       |                        |

     Figure 12: Passive Stateful PCE Path Computation Request/Response

   Once a PCC has successfully established a PCEP session with a passive
   stateful PCE and the PCC's LSP state is synchronized with the PCE
   (i.e. the PCE knows about all PCC's existing LSPs), if an event is
   triggered that requires the computation of a set of paths, the PCC
   sends a path computation request to the PCE ([RFC5440], Section
   4.2.3).  The PCReq message MAY contain the LSP Object to identify the
   LSP for which the path computation is requested.

   Upon receiving a path computation request from a PCC, the PCE
   triggers a path computation and returns either a positive or a
   negative reply to the PCC ([RFC5440], Section 4.2.4).

   Upon receiving a positive path computation reply, the PCC receives a
   set of computed paths and starts to setup the LSPs.  For each LSP, it
   sends an LSP State Report carried on a PCRpt message to the PCE,
   indicating that the LSP's status is 'Pending'.

   Once an LSP is up, the PCC sends an LSP State Report carried on a
   PCRpt message to the PCE, indicating that the LSP's status is 'Up'.
   If the LSP could not be set up, the PCC sends an LSP State Report
   indicating that the LSP is "Down' and stating the cause of the



Crabbe, et al.          Expires January 16, 2013               [Page 28]


Internet-Draft      PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE           July 2012


   failure.  Note that due to timing constraints, the LSP status may
   change from 'Pending' to 'Up' (or 'Down') before the PCC has had a
   chance to send an LSP State Report indicating that the status is
   'Pending'.  In such cases, the PCC may choose to only send the PCRpt
   indicating the latest status ('Up' or 'Down').

   Upon receiving a negative reply from a PCE, a PCC may decide to
   resend a modified request or take any other appropriate action.  For
   each requested LSP, it also sends an LSP State Report carried on a
   PCRpt message to the PCE, indicating that the LSP's status is 'Down'.

   There is no direct correlation between PCRep and PCRpt messages.  For
   a given LSP, multiple LSP State Reports will follow a single PC
   Reply, as a PCC notifies a PCE of the LSP's state changes.

   A PCC sends each LSP State Report to each stateful PCE that is
   connected to the PCC.

   Note that a single PCRpt message MAY contain multiple LSP State
   Reports.

   The passive stateful PCE is the model for stateful PCEs is described
   in [RFC4655], Section 6.8.

5.6.2.  Active Stateful PCE LSP Update

                     +-+-+                    +-+-+
                     |PCC|                    |PCE|
                     +-+-+                    +-+-+
                       |                        |
   1) LSP State        |-- PCRpt, Delegate=1 -->|
      Synchronization  |            .           |
      or add new LSP   |            .           |2) PCE decides to
                       |            .           |   update the LSP
                       |                        |
                       |<---- PCUpd message ----|3) PCUpd message sent
                       |                        |   to PCC
                       |                        |
                       |                        |
   4) LSP Status Report|---- PCRpt message ---->|
      sent(->Pending)  |            .           |
                       |            .           |
                       |            .           |
   5) LSP Status Report|---- PCRpt message ---->|
      sent (->Up|Down) |                        |
                       |                        |

                      Figure 13: Active Stateful PCE



Crabbe, et al.          Expires January 16, 2013               [Page 29]


Internet-Draft      PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE           July 2012


   Once a PCC has successfully established a PCEP session with an active
   stateful PCE, the PCC's LSP state is synchronized with the PCE (i.e.
   the PCE knows about all PCC's existing LSPs) and LSPs have been
   delegated to the PCE, the PCE can modify LSP parameters of delegated
   LSPs.

   A PCE sends an LSP Update Request carried on a PCUpd message to the
   PCC.  The LSP Update Request contains a variety of objects that
   specify the set of constraints and attributes for the LSP's path.
   Additionally, the PCC may specify the urgency of such request by
   assigning a request priority.  A single PCUpd message MAY contain
   multiple LSP Update Requests.

   Upon receiving a PCUpd message the PCC starts to setup LSPs specified
   in LSP Update Requests carried in the message.  For each LSP, it
   sends an LSP State Report carried on a PCRpt message to the PCE,
   indicating that the LSP's status is 'Pending'.

   Once an LSP is up, the PCC sends an LSP State Report (PCRpt message)
   to the PCE, indicating that the LSP's status is 'Up'.  If the LSP
   could not be set up, the PCC sends an LSP State Report indicating
   that the LSP is 'Down' and stating the cause of the failure.  A PCC
   may choose to compress LSP State Updates to only reflect the most up
   to date state, as discussed in the previous section.

   A PCC sends each LSP State Report to each stateful PCE that is
   connected to the PCC.

   A PCC MUST NOT send to any PCE a Path Computation Request for a
   delegated LSP.

5.7.  LSP Protection

   With a stateless PCE or a passive stateful PCE, LSP protection and
   restoration settings may be operator-configured locally at a PCC.  A
   PCE may be merely asked to compute the protected (primary) and backup
   (secondary) paths for the LSP.

   An active stateful PCE controls the LSPs that are delegated to it,
   and must therefore be able to set via PCEP the desired protection /
   restoration mechanism for each delegated LSP.  PCEP extensions for
   stateful PCEs SHOULD support, at a minimum, the following protection
   mechanisms:

   o  MPLS TE Global Default Restoration

   o  MPLS TE Global Path Protection




Crabbe, et al.          Expires January 16, 2013               [Page 30]


Internet-Draft      PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE           July 2012


   o  FRR One-to-One Backup

   o  FRR Facility Backup - link protection, node protection, or both

5.8.  Transport

   A Permanent PCEP session MUST be established between a stateful PCEs
   and the PCC.

   State cleanup after session termination, as well as session setup
   failures will be described in a later version of this document.


6.  PCEP Messages

   As defined in [RFC5440], a PCEP message consists of a common header
   followed by a variable-length body made of a set of objects that can
   be either mandatory or optional.  An object is said to be mandatory
   in a PCEP message when the object must be included for the message to
   be considered valid.  For each PCEP message type, a set of rules is
   defined that specify the set of objects that the message can carry.
   An implementation MUST form the PCEP messages using the object
   ordering specified in this document.

6.1.  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 of an LSP.  A PCRpt message can carry more than one LSP
   State Reports.  A PCC can send an LSP State Report either in response
   to an LSP Update Request from a PCE, or asynchronously when the state
   of an LSP changes.  The Message-Type field of the PCEP common header
   for the PCRpt message is set to [TBD].

   The format of the PCRpt message is as follows:
















Crabbe, et al.          Expires January 16, 2013               [Page 31]


Internet-Draft      PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE           July 2012


      <PCRpt Message> ::= <Common Header>
                          <state-report-list>
   Where:

      <state-report-list> ::= <state-report>[<state-report-list>]

      <state-report> ::= <LSP>
                         [<path-list>]

   Where:

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

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

   Where:

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

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

   The LSP object (see Section 7.2) is mandatory, and it MUST be
   included in each LSP State Report on the PCRpt message.  If the LSP
   object is missing, the receiving PCE MUST send a PCErr message with
   Error-type=6 (Mandatory Object missing) and Error-value=[TBD] (LSP
   object missing).

   The LSP State Report MAY contain a path descriptor for the primary
   path and one or more path descriptors for backup paths.  A path
   descriptor MUST contain an ERO object as it was specified by a PCE or
   an operator.  A path descriptor MUST contain the RRO object if a
   primary or secondary LSP is set up along the path in the network.  A
   path descriptor MAY contain the LSPA, BANDWIDTH, and METRIC objects.
   The ERO,LSPA, BANDWIDTH, METRIC, and RRO objects are defined
   in[RFC5440].

6.2.  The PCUpd Message

   A Path Computation LSP Update Request message (also referred to as
   PCUpd message) is a PCEP message sent by a PCE to a PCC to update
   attributes of an LSP.  A PCUpd message can carry more than one LSP
   Update Request.  The Message-Type field of the PCEP common header for
   the PCRpt message is set to [TBD].

   The format of a PCUpd message is as follows:



Crabbe, et al.          Expires January 16, 2013               [Page 32]


Internet-Draft      PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE           July 2012


      <PCUpd Message> ::= <Common Header>
                          <udpate-request-list>
   Where:

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

      <update-request> ::= <LSP>
                           [<path-list>]

   Where:

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

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

   Where:

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

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

   There is one mandatory object that MUST be included within each LSP
   Update Request in the PCUpd message: the LSP object (see
   Section 7.2).  If the LSP object is missing, the receiving PCE MUST
   send a PCErr message with Error-type=6 (Mandatory Object missing) and
   Error-value=[TBD] (LSP object missing).

   The LSP Update Request MUST contain a path descriptor for the primary
   path, and MAY contain one or more path descriptors for backup paths.
   A path descriptor MUST contain an ERO object.  A path descriptor MAY
   further contain the BANDWIDTH, IRO, and METRIC objects.  The ERO,
   LSPA, BANDWIDTH, METRIC, and IRO objects are defined in [RFC5440].

   Each LSP Update Request results in a separate LSP setup operation at
   a PCC.  An LSP Update Request MUST contain all LSP parameters that a
   PCC wishes to set for the LSP.  A PCC MAY set missing parameters from
   locally configured defaults.  If the LSP specified the Update Request
   is already up, it will be re-signaled.  The PCC will use make-before-
   break whenever possible in the re-signaling operation.

   A PCC MUST respond with an LSP State Report to each LSP Update
   Request to indicate the resulting state of the LSP in the network.  A
   PCC MAY respond with multiple LSP State Reports to report LSP setup
   progress of a single LSP.

   If the rate of PCUpd messages sent to a PCC for the same target LSP



Crabbe, et al.          Expires January 16, 2013               [Page 33]


Internet-Draft      PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE           July 2012


   exceeds the rate at which the PCC can signal LSPs into the network,
   the PCC MAY perform state compression and only re-signal the last
   modification in its queue.

   Note that a PCC MUST process all LSP Update Requests - for example,
   an LSP Update Request is sent when a PCE returns delegation or puts
   an LSP into non-operational state.  The protocol relies on TCP for
   message-level flow control.

   Note also that it's up to the PCE to handle inter-LSP dependencies;
   for example, if ordering of LSP set-ups is required, the PCE has to
   wait for an LSP State Report for a previous LSP before triggering the
   LSP setup of a next LSP.

6.3.  The PCReq Message

   A PCC MAY include the LSP object in the PCReq message (see
   Section 7.2) if stateful PCE capability has been negotiated on a PCEP
   session between the PCC and a PCE.  The definition of the PCReq
   message (see [RFC5440], Section 6.4) is then extended as follows:

      <PCReq Message>::= <Common Header>
                         [<svec-list>]
                         <request-list>

   Where:

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

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

   Where:

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








Crabbe, et al.          Expires January 16, 2013               [Page 34]


Internet-Draft      PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE           July 2012


6.4.  The PCRep Message

   A PCE MAY include the LSP object in the PCRep message (see
   (Section 7.2) if stateful PCE capability has been negotiated on a
   PCEP session between the PCC and the PCE and the LSP object was
   included in the corresponding PCReq message from the PCC.  The
   definition of the PCRep message (see [RFC5440], Section 6.5) is then
   extended as follows

      <PCRep Message> ::= <Common Header>
                          <response-list>

   Where:

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

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

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

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

   Where:

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

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


7.  Object Formats

   The PCEP objects defined in this document are compliant with the PCEP
   object format defined in [RFC5440].  The P flag and the I flag of the
   PCEP objects defined in this document MUST always be set to 0 on
   transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt since these flags are
   exclusively related to path computation requests.

7.1.  OPEN Object

   This document defines a new optional TLV for the OPEN Object to
   support stateful PCE capability negotiation.



Crabbe, et al.          Expires January 16, 2013               [Page 35]


Internet-Draft      PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE           July 2012


7.1.1.  Stateful PCE Capability TLV

   The format of the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV 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=[TBD]      |            Length=4           |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                             Flags                         |S|U|
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

               Figure 14: STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV format

   The type of the TLV is [TBD] and it has a fixed length of 4 octets.

   The value comprises a single field - Flags (16 bits):

   U (LSP-UPDATE-CAPABILITY - 1 bit):  if set to 1 by a PCC, the U Flag
      indicates that the PCC allows modification of LSP parameters; if
      set to 1 by a PCE, the U Flag indicates that the PCE wishes to
      update LSP parameters.  The LSP-UPDATE-CAPABILITY Flag must be
      advertised by both a PCC and a PCE for PCUpd messages to be
      allowed on a PCEP session.

   S (INCLUDE-DB-VERSION - 1 bit):  if set to 1 by both PCEP Speakers,
      the PCC will include the LSP-DB-VERSION TLV in each LSP Object.

   Unassigned bits are considered reserved.  They MUST be set to 0 on
   transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.

7.1.2.  LSP State Database Version TLV

   LSP-DB-VERSION is an optional TLV that MAY be included in the OPEN
   Object when a PCEP Speaker wishes to determine if State
   Synchronization can be skipped when a PCEP session is restarted.  If
   sent from a PCE, the TLV contains the local LSP State Database
   version from the last valid LSP State Report received from a PCC.  If
   sent from a PCC, the TLV contains the PCC's local LSP State Database
   version, which is incremented each time the LSP State Database is
   updated.

   The format of the LSP-DB-VERSION TLV is shown in the following
   figure:






Crabbe, et al.          Expires January 16, 2013               [Page 36]


Internet-Draft      PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE           July 2012


      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=[TBD]          |            Length=8           |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                      LSP State DB Version                     |
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                   Figure 15: LSP-DB-VERSION TLV format

   The type of the TLV is [TBD] and it has a fixed length of 8 octets.
   The value contains a 64-bit unsigned integer.

7.1.3.  Node Identifier TLV

   NODE-IDENTIFIER is an optional TLV that MAY be included in the OPEN
   Object when a PCEP Speaker wishes to determine if State
   Synchronization can be skipped when a PCEP session is restarted.  It
   contains a unique identifier for the node that does not change during
   the life time of the PCEP Speaker.  It identifies the PCEP Speaker to
   its peers if the Speaker's IP address changed.

   The format of the NODE-IDENTIFIER TLV 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=[TBD]          |       Length (variable)       |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                                               |
     //                 PCEP Speaker Node Identifier                //
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                   Figure 16: NODE-IDENTIFIER TLV format

   The type of the TLV is [TBD] and it has a a variable length, which
   MUST be greater than 0.  The value contains a node identifier that
   MUST be unique in the network.  The node identifier MAY be configured
   by an operator.  If the node identifier is not configured by the
   operator, it can be derived from a PCC's MAC address or serial
   number.







Crabbe, et al.          Expires January 16, 2013               [Page 37]


Internet-Draft      PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE           July 2012


7.2.  LSP Object

   The LSP object MUST be present within PCRpt and PCUpd messages.  The
   LSP object MAY be carried within PCReq and PCRep messages if the
   stateful PCE capability has been negotiated on the session.  The LSP
   object contains a set of fields used to specify the target LSP, the
   operation to be performed on the LSP, and LSP Delegation.  It also
   contains a flag indicating to a PCE that the LSP state
   synchronization is in progress.

   LSP Object-Class is [TBD].

   LSP Object-Type is 1.

   The format of the LSP object body is shown in Figure 17:

      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                LSP-ID                 |     Flags     |R|O|S|D|
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                                               |
     //                        Optional TLVs                        //
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                     Figure 17: The LSP Object format

   The LSP object body has a variable length and may contain additional
   TLVs.

   LSP-ID (20 bits): An identifier for the LSP.  A PCC creates a unique
   LSP-ID for each LSP that is constant for the life time of a PCEP
   session.  The mapping of the LSP Symbolic Name to LSP-ID is
   communicated to the PCE by sending a PCRpt message containing the
   'LSP Symbolic Name' TLV.  All subsequent PCEP messages then address
   the LSP by the LSP-ID.

   Flags (12 bits):

   D (Delegate - 1 bit):  on a PCRpt message, the D Flag set to 1
      indicates that the PCC is delegating the LSP to the PCE.  On a
      PCUpd message, the D flag set to 1 indicates that the PCE is
      confirming the LSP Delegation.  To keep an LSP delegated to the
      PCE, the PCC must set the D flag to 1 on each PCRpt message for
      the duration of the delegation - the first PCRpt with the D flag
      set to 0 revokes the delegation.  To keep the delegation, the PCE
      must set the D flag to 1 on each PCUpd message for the duration of



Crabbe, et al.          Expires January 16, 2013               [Page 38]


Internet-Draft      PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE           July 2012


      the delegation - the first PCUpd with the D flag set to 0 returns
      the delegation.

   S (SYNC - 1 bit):  the S Flag MUST be set to 1 on each LSP State
      Report sent from a PCC during State Synchronization.  The S Flag
      MUST be set to 0 otherwise.

   O (Operational - 1 bit):  On PCRpt messages the O Flag indicates the
      LSP status.  Value of '1' means that the LSP is operational, i.e.
      it is either being signaled or it is active.  Value of '0' means
      that the LSP is not operational, i.e it is de-routed and the PCC
      is not attempting to set it up.  On PCUpd messages the flag
      indicates the desired status for the LSP.  Value of '1' means that
      the desired LSP state is operational, value of '0' means that the
      target LSP should be non-operational.  Setting the LSP status from
      the PCE SHALL NOT override the operator: if a pce-controlled LSP
      has been configured to be non-operational, setting the LSP's
      status to '1' from an PCE will not make it operational.

   R (Remove - 1 bit):  On PCRpt messages the R Flag indicates that the
      LSP has been removed from the PCC.  Upon receiving an LSP State
      Update with the R Flag set to 1, the PCE SHOULD remove all state
      related to the LSP from its database.

   Unassigned bits are considered reserved.  They MUST be set to 0 on
   transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.

   TLVs that are currently defined for the LSP Object are described in
   the following sections.

7.2.1.  The LSP Symbolic Name TLV

   Each LSP MUST have a symbolic name that is unique in the PCC.  The
   LSP Symbolic Name MUST remain constant throughout an LSP's lifetime,
   which may span across multiple consecutive PCEP sessions and/or PCC
   restarts.  The LSP Symbolic Name MAY be specified by an operator in a
   PCC's CLI configuration.  If the operator does not specify a Symbolic
   Name for an LSP, the PCC MUST auto-generate one.

   The LSP-SYMBOLIC-NAME TLV MUST be included in the LSP State Report
   when during a given PCEP session an LSP is first reported to a PCE.
   A PCC sends to a PCE the first LSP State Report either during State
   Synchronization, or when a new LSP is configured at the PCC.  LSP
   State Report MAY be included in subsequent LSP State Reports for the
   LSP.

   The format of the LSP-SYMBOLIC-NAME TLV is shown in the following
   figure:



Crabbe, et al.          Expires January 16, 2013               [Page 39]


Internet-Draft      PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE           July 2012


      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=[TBD]          |       Length (variable)       |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                                               |
     //                      Symbolic LSP Name                      //
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                  Figure 18: LSP-SYMBOLIC-NAME TLV format

   The type of the TLV is [TBD] and it has a variable length, which MUST
   be greater than 0.

7.2.2.  LSP Identifiers TLVs

   Whenever the value of an LSP identifier changes, a PCC MUST send out
   an LSP State Report, where the LSP Object carries the LSP Identifiers
   TLV that contains the new value.  The LSP Identifiers TLV MUST also
   be included in the LSP object during state synchronization.  There
   are two LSP Identifiers TLVs, one for IPv4 and one for IPv6.

   The format of the IPV4-LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV 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=[TBD]          |           Length=12           |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                   IPv4 Tunnel Sender Address                  |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |             LSP ID            |           Tunnel ID           |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                        Extended Tunnel ID                     |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                Figure 19: IPV4-LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV format

   The type of the TLV is [TBD] and it has a fixed length of 12 octets.
   The value contains the following fields:

   IPv4 Tunnel Sender Address:  contains the sender node's IPv4 address,
      as defined in [RFC3209], Section 4.6.2.1 for the LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4
      Sender Template Object.





Crabbe, et al.          Expires January 16, 2013               [Page 40]


Internet-Draft      PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE           July 2012


   LSP ID:  contains the 16-bit 'LSP ID' identifier defined in
      [RFC3209], Section 4.6.2.1 for the LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4 Sender Template
      Object.

   Tunnel ID:  contains the 16-bit 'Tunnel ID' identifier defined in
      [RFC3209], Section 4.6.1.1 for the LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4 Session Object.
      Tunnel ID remains constant over the life time of a tunnel.
      However, when Global Path Protection or Global Default Restoration
      is used, both the primary and secondary LSPs have their own Tunnel
      IDs.  A PCC will report a change in Tunnel ID when traffic
      switches over from primary LSP to secondary LSP (or vice versa).

   Extended Tunnel ID:  contains the 32-bit 'Extended Tunnel ID'
      identifier defined in [RFC3209], Section 4.6.1.1 for the
      LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4 Session Object.

   The format of the IPV6-LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV 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=[TBD]          |           Length=36           |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                                               |
     +                                                               +
     |                  IPv6 tunnel sender address                   |
     +                          (16 octets)                          +
     |                                                               |
     +                                                               +
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |             LSP ID            |           Tunnel ID           |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                                               |
     +                                                               +
     |                       Extended Tunnel ID                      |
     +                          (16 octets)                          +
     |                                                               |
     +                                                               +
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                Figure 20: IPV6-LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV format

   The type of the TLV is [TBD] and it has a fixed length of 36 octets.
   The value contains the following fields:




Crabbe, et al.          Expires January 16, 2013               [Page 41]


Internet-Draft      PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE           July 2012


   IPv6 Tunnel Sender Address:  contains the sender node's IPv6 address,
      as defined in [RFC3209], Section 4.6.2.2 for the LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6
      Sender Template Object.

   LSP ID:  contains the 16-bit 'LSP ID' identifier defined in
      [RFC3209], Section 4.6.2.2 for the LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 Sender Template
      Object.

   Tunnel ID:  contains the 16-bit 'Tunnel ID' identifier defined in
      [RFC3209], Section 4.6.1.2 for the LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 Session Object.
      Tunnel ID remains constant over the life time of a tunnel.
      However, when Global Path Protection or Global Default Restoration
      is used, both the primary and secondary LSPs have their own Tunnel
      IDs.  A PCC will report a change in Tunnel ID when traffic
      switches over from primary LSP to secondary LSP (or vice versa).

   Extended Tunnel ID:  contains the 128-bit 'Extended Tunnel ID'
      identifier defined in [RFC3209], Section 4.6.1.2 for the
      LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 Session Object.

7.2.3.  LSP Update Error Code TLV

   If an LSP Update Request failed, an LSP State Report MUST be sent to
   all connected stateful PCEs.  LSP State Report MUST contain the LSP
   Update Error Code TLV, indicating the cause of the failure.

   The format of the LSP-UPDATE-ERROR-CODE TLV 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=[TBD]          |            Length=4           |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                          Error Code                           |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                Figure 21: LSP-UPDATE-ERROR-CODE TLV format

   The type of the TLV is [TBD] and it has a fixed length of 4 octets.
   The value contains the error code that indicates the cause of the LSP
   setup failure.  Error codes will be defined in a later revision of
   this document.

7.2.4.  RSVP ERROR_SPEC TLVs

   If the set up of an LSP failed at a downstream node which returned an
   ERROR_SPEC to the PCC, the ERROR_SPEC MUST be included in the LSP



Crabbe, et al.          Expires January 16, 2013               [Page 42]


Internet-Draft      PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE           July 2012


   State Report.  Depending on whether RSVP signaling was performed over
   IPv4 or IPv6, the LSP Object will contain an IPV4-ERROR_SPEC TLV or
   an IPV6-ERROR_SPEC TLV.

   The format of the IPV4-RSVP-ERROR-SPEC TLV 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=[TBD]          |            Length=8           |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                                               |
     +                IPv4 ERROR_SPEC object (rfc2205)               +
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                Figure 22: IPV4-RSVP-ERROR-SPEC TLV format

   The type of the TLV is [TBD] and it has a fixed length of 8 octets.
   The value contains the RSVP IPv4 ERROR_SPEC object defined in
   [RFC2205].  Error codes allowed in the ERROR_SPEC object are defined
   in [RFC2205] and [RFC3209].

   The format of the IPV6-RSVP-ERROR-SPEC TLV 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=[TBD]          |            Length=20          |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                                               |
     //               IPv6 ERROR_SPEC object (rfc2205)              //
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                Figure 23: IPV6-RSVP-ERROR-SPEC TLV format

   The type of the TLV is [TBD] and it has a fixed length of 20 octets.
   The value contains the RSVP IPv6 ERROR_SPEC object defined in
   [RFC2205].  Error codes allowed in the ERROR_SPEC object are defined
   in [RFC2205] and [RFC3209].

7.2.5.  LSP State Database Version TLV

   The LSP-DB-VERSION TLV can be included as an optional TLV in the LSP
   object.  The LSP-DB-VERSION TLV is discussed in Section 5.4.1 which



Crabbe, et al.          Expires January 16, 2013               [Page 43]


Internet-Draft      PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE           July 2012


   covers state synchronization avoidance.  The format of the TLV is
   described in Section 7.1.2, where the details of its use in the OPEN
   message are listed.

   If State Synchronization Avoidance has been enabled on a PCEP session
   (as described in Section 5.4.1) , a PCC MUST include the LSP-DB-
   VERSION TLV in each LSP Object sent out on the session.  If the TLV
   is missing, the PCE will generate an error with error-type 6
   (mandatory object missing) and Error Value 12 (LSP-DB-VERSION TLV
   missing) and close the session.  If State Synchronization Avoidance
   has not been enabled on a PCEP session, the PCC SHOULD NOT include
   the LSP-DB-VERSION TLV in the LSP Object and the PCE SHOULD ignore it
   were it to receive one.

   Since a PCE does not send LSP updates to a PCC, a PCC should never
   encounter this TLV.  A PCC SHOULD ignore the LSP-DB-VERSION TLV, were
   it to receive one from a PCE.

7.2.6.  Delegation Parameters TLVs

   Multiple delegation parameters, such as sub-delegation permissions,
   authentication parameters, etc. need to be communicated from a PCC to
   a PCE during the delegation operation.  Delegation parameters will be
   carried in multiple delegation parameter TLVs, which will be defined
   in future revisions of this document.


8.  IANA Considerations

   This document requests IANA actions to allocate code points for the
   protocol elements defined in this document.  Values shown here are
   suggested for use by IANA.

8.1.  PCEP Messages

   This document defines the following new PCEP messages:

       Value     Meaning               Reference
         10       Report               This document
         11       Update               This document

8.2.  PCEP Objects

   This document defines the following new PCEP Object-classes and
   Object-values:






Crabbe, et al.          Expires January 16, 2013               [Page 44]


Internet-Draft      PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE           July 2012


   Object-Class Value   Name                               Reference

            32          LSP                                This document
                        Object-Type
                            1

8.3.  LSP Object

   This document requests that a registry is created to manage the Flags
   field of the LSP object.  New values are to be assigned by Standards
   Action [RFC5226].  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 following values are defined in this document:

       Bit    Description           Reference

       28     Remove                This document
       29     Operational           This document
       30     SYNC                  This document
       31     Delegate              This document

8.4.  PCEP-Error Object

   This document defines new Error-Type and Error-Value for the
   following new error conditions:

    Error-Type  Meaning
       6        Mandatory Object missing
                 Error-value=8:  LSP Object missing
                 Error-value=9:  ERO Object missing for a path in an LSP
                                 Update Request where TE-LSP setup is
                                 requested
                 Error-value=10: BANDWIDTH Object missing for a path in
                                 an LSP Update Request where TE-LSP
                                 setup is requested
                 Error-value=11: LSPA Object missing for a path in an
                                 LSP Update Request where TE-LSP setup
                                 is requested






Crabbe, et al.          Expires January 16, 2013               [Page 45]


Internet-Draft      PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE           July 2012


                 Error-value=12: LSP-DB-VERSION TLV missing
       19       Invalid Operation
                 Error-value=1:  Attempted LSP Update Request for a non-
                                 delegated LSP.  The PCEP-ERROR Object
                                 is followed by the LSP Object that
                                 identifies the LSP.
                 Error-value=2:  Attempted LSP Update Request if active
                                 stateful PCE capability was not
                                 negotiated active PCE.
       20       LSP State synchronization error.
                 Error-value=1:  A PCE indicates to a PCC that it can
                                 not process (an otherwise valid) LSP
                                 State Report.  The PCEP-ERROR Object is
                                 followed by the LSP Object that
                                 identifies the LSP.
                 Error-value=2:  LSP Database version mismatch.
                 Error-value=3:  The LSP-DB-VERSION TLV Missing when
                                 State Synchronization Avoidance
                                 enabled.

8.5.  PCEP TLV Type Indicators

   This document defines the following new PCEP TLVs:

       Value     Meaning                     Reference
         16       STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY    This document
         17       LSP-SYMBOLIC-NAME          This document
         18       IPV4-LSP-IDENTIFIERS       This document
         19       IPV6-LSP-IDENTIFIERS       This document
         20       LSP-UPDATE-ERROR-CODE      This document
         21       IPV4-RSVP-ERROR-SPEC       This document
         22       IPV6-RSVP-ERROR-SPEC       This document
         23       LSP-DB-VERSION             This document

8.6.  STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV

   This document requests that a registry is created to manage the Flags
   field in the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV in the OPEN object.  New
   values are to be assigned by Standards Action [RFC5226].  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 following values are defined in this document:



Crabbe, et al.          Expires January 16, 2013               [Page 46]


Internet-Draft      PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE           July 2012


       Bit    Description           Reference

       30     INCLUDE-DB-VERSION    This document
       31     LSP-UPDATE-CAPABILITY This document

8.7.  LSP-UPDATE-ERROR-CODE TLV

   This document requests that a registry is created to manage the Error
   Codes in the LSP-UPDATE-ERROR-CODE TLV.  New values are to be
   assigned by Standards Action [RFC5226].

   The following Error Codes are defined in this document:

      Value   Meaning                                     Reference

        1     LSP Setup failed outside of the node.  Must This document
              be followed by the RSVP-ERROR-SPEC TLV,
              which indicates the failure cause.

        2     LSP not operational                         This document


9.  Manageability Considerations

   All manageability requirements and considerations listed in [RFC5440]
   apply to PCEP protocol extensions defined in this document.  In
   addition, requirements and considerations listed in this section
   apply.

9.1.  Control Function and Policy

   In addition to configuring specific PCEP session parameters, as
   specified in [RFC5440], Section 8.1, a PCE or PCC implementation MUST
   allow configuring the stateful PCEP capability and the LSP Update
   capability.  A PCC implementation SHOULD allow the operator to
   specify multiple candidate PCEs for and a delegation preference for
   each candidate PCE.  A PCC SHOULD allow the operator to specify an
   LSP delegation policy where LSPs are delegated to the most-preferred
   online PCE.  A PCC MAY allow the operator to specify different LSP
   delegation policies.

   A PCE or PCC implementation SHOULD allow the operator to configure a
   Node Identifier (Section 7.1.3).

   A PCC implementation which allows concurrent connections to multiple
   PCEs SHOULD allow the operator to group the PCEs by administrative
   domains and it MUST NOT advertise LSP existence and state to a PCE if
   the LSP is delegated to a PCE in a different group.



Crabbe, et al.          Expires January 16, 2013               [Page 47]


Internet-Draft      PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE           July 2012


   A PCC implementation SHOULD allow the operator to specify whether the
   PCC will advertise LSP existence and state for LSPs that are not
   controlled by any PCE (for example, LSPs that are statically
   configured at the PCC).

   A PCC implementation SHOULD allow the operator to specify the
   Delegation Timeout Interval.  The default value of the Delegation
   Timeout Interval SHOULD be set to 30 seconds.

   When an LSP can no longer be delegated to a PCE, after the expiration
   of the Delegation Timeout Interval, the LSP MAY either: 1) retain its
   current parameters or 2) revert to operator-defined default LSP
   parameters.  This behavior SHOULD be configurable and in the case
   when (2) is supported, a PCC implementation MUST allow the operator
   to specify the default LSP parameters.

   A PCC implementation SHOULD allow the operator to specify delegation
   priority for PCEs.  This effectively defines the primary PCE and one
   or more backup PCEs to which primary PCE's LSPs can be delegated when
   the primary PCE fails.

   Policies defined for stateful PCEs and PCCs should eventually fit in
   the Policy-Enabled Path Computation Framework defined in [RFC5394],
   and the framework should be extended to support Stateful PCEs.

9.2.  Information and Data Models

   PCEP session configuration and information in the PCEP MIB module
   SHOULD be extended to include negotiated stateful capabilities,
   synchronization status, and delegation status (at the PCC list PCEs
   with delegated LSPs).

9.3.  Liveness Detection and Monitoring

   PCEP protocol extensions defined in this document do not require any
   new mechanisms beyond those already defined in [RFC5440], Section
   8.3.

9.4.  Verifying Correct Operation

   Mechanisms defined in [RFC5440], Section 8.4 also apply to PCEP
   protocol extensions defined in this document.  In addition to
   monitoring parameters defined in [RFC5440], a stateful PCC-side PCEP
   implementation SHOULD provide the following parameters:

   o  Total number of LSP updates





Crabbe, et al.          Expires January 16, 2013               [Page 48]


Internet-Draft      PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE           July 2012


   o  Number of successful LSP updates

   o  Number of dropped LSP updates

   o  Number of LSP updates where LSP setup failed

   A PCC implementation SHOULD provide a command to show to which PCEs
   LSPs are delegated.

   A PCC implementation SHOULD allow the operator to manually revoke LSP
   delegation.

9.5.  Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components

   PCEP protocol extensions defined in this document do not put new
   requirements on other protocols.

9.6.  Impact on Network Operation

   Mechanisms defined in [RFC5440], Section 8.6 also apply to PCEP
   protocol extensions defined in this document.

   Additionally, a PCEP implementation SHOULD allow a limit to be placed
   on the rate PCUpd and PCRpt messages sent by a PCEP speaker and
   processed from a peer.  It SHOULD also allow sending a notification
   when a rate threshold is reached.

   A PCC implementation SHOULD allow a limit to be placed on the rate of
   LSP Updates to the same LSP to avoid signaling overload discussed in
   Section 10.3.


10.  Security Considerations

10.1.  Vulnerability

   This document defines extensions to PCEP to enable stateful PCEs.
   The nature of these extensions and the delegation of path control to
   PCEs results in more information being available for a hypothetical
   adversary and a number of additional attack surfaces which must be
   protected.

   The security provisions described in [RFC5440] remain applicable to
   these extensions.  However, because the protocol modifications
   outlined in this document allow the PCE to control path computation
   timing and sequence, the PCE defense mechanisms described in
   [RFC5440] section 7.2 are also now applicable to PCC security.




Crabbe, et al.          Expires January 16, 2013               [Page 49]


Internet-Draft      PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE           July 2012


   As a general precaution, it is RECOMMENDED that these PCEP extensions
   only be activated on authenticated and encrypted sessions across PCEs
   and PCCs belonging to the same administrative authority.

   The following sections identify specific security concerns that may
   result from the PCEP extensions outlined in this document along with
   recommended mechanisms to protect PCEP infrastructure against related
   attacks.

10.2.  LSP State Snooping

   The stateful nature of this extension explicitly requires LSP status
   updates to be sent from PCC to PCE.  While this gives the PCE the
   ability to provide more optimal computations to the PCC, it also
   provides an adversary with the opportunity to eavesdrop on decisions
   made by network systems external to PCE.  This is especially true if
   the PCC delegates LSPs to multiple PCEs simultaneously.

   Adversaries may gain access to this information by eavesdropping on
   unsecured PCEP sessions, and might then use this information in
   various ways to target or optimize attacks on network infrastructure.
   For example by flexibly countering anti-DDoS measures being taken to
   protect the network, or by determining choke points in the network
   where the greatest harm might be caused.

   PCC implementations which allow concurrent connections to multiple
   PCEs SHOULD allow the operator to group the PCEs by administrative
   domains and they MUST NOT advertise LSP existence and state to a PCE
   if the LSP is delegated to a PCE in a different group.

10.3.  Malicious PCE

   The LSP delegation mechanism described in this document allows a PCC
   to grant effective control of an LSP to the PCE for the duration of a
   PCEP session.  While this enables PCE control of the timing and
   sequence of path computations within and across PCEP sessions, it
   also introduces a new attack vector: an attacker may flood the PCC
   with PCUpd messages at a rate which exceeds either the PCC's ability
   to process them or the network's ability to signal the changes,
   either by spoofing messages or by compromising the PCE itself.

   A PCC is free to revoke an LSP delegation at any time without needing
   any justification.  A defending PCC can do this by enqueueing the
   appropriate PCRpt message.  As soon as that message is enqueued in
   the session, the PCC is free to drop any incoming PCUpd messages
   without additional processing.





Crabbe, et al.          Expires January 16, 2013               [Page 50]


Internet-Draft      PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE           July 2012


10.4.  Malicious PCC

   A stateful session also result in increased attack surface by placing
   a requirement for the PCE to keep an LSP state replica for each PCC.
   It is RECOMMENDED that PCE implementations provide a limit on
   resources a single PCC can occupy.

   Delegation of LSPs can create further strain on PCE resources and a
   PCE implementation MAY preemptively give back delegations if it finds
   itself lacking the resources needed to effectively manage the
   delegation.  Since the delegation state is ultimately controlled by
   the PCC, PCE implementations SHOULD provide throttling mechanisms to
   prevent strain created by flaps of either a PCEP session or an LSP
   delegation.


11.  Acknowledgements

   We would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Cyril Margaria and Ramon
   Casellas for their contributions to this document.

   We would like to thank Shane Amante,Julien Meuric, Kohei Shiomoto,
   Paul Schultz and Raveendra Torvi for their comments and suggestions.
   Thanks also to Dhruv Dhoddy, Oscar Gonzales de Dios, Tomas Janciga,
   Stefan Kobza and Kexin Tang for helpful discussions.


12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

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

   [RFC2205]  Braden, B., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
              Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
              Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.

   [RFC3209]  Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
              and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
              Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.

   [RFC4090]  Pan, P., Swallow, G., and A. Atlas, "Fast Reroute
              Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090,
              May 2005.

   [RFC5088]  Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., Ikejiri, Y., and R. Zhang,
              "OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element



Crabbe, et al.          Expires January 16, 2013               [Page 51]


Internet-Draft      PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE           July 2012


              (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5088, January 2008.

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

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              May 2008.

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

   [RFC5511]  Farrel, A., "Routing Backus-Naur Form (RBNF): A Syntax
              Used to Form Encoding Rules in Various Routing Protocol
              Specifications", RFC 5511, April 2009.

12.2.  Informative References

   [MPLS-PC]  Chaieb, I., Le Roux, JL., and B. Cousin, "Improved MPLS-TE
              LSP Path Computation using Preemption",  Global
              Information Infrastructure Symposium, July 2007.

   [MXMN-TE]  Danna, E., Mandal, S., and A. Singh, "Practical linear
              programming algorithm for balancing the max-min fairness
              and throughput objectives in traffic engineering",  pre-
              print, 2011.

   [NET-REC]  Vasseur, JP., Pickavet, M., and P. Demeester, "Network
              Recovery: Protection and Restoration of Optical, SONET-
              SDH, IP,  and MPLS",  The Morgan Kaufmann Series in
              Networking, June 2004.

   [RFC2702]  Awduche, D., Malcolm, J., Agogbua, J., O'Dell, M., and J.
              McManus, "Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS",
              RFC 2702, September 1999.

   [RFC3031]  Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
              Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001.

   [RFC3346]  Boyle, J., Gill, V., Hannan, A., Cooper, D., Awduche, D.,
              Christian, B., and W. Lai, "Applicability Statement for
              Traffic Engineering with MPLS", RFC 3346, August 2002.

   [RFC3630]  Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
              (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630,
              September 2003.



Crabbe, et al.          Expires January 16, 2013               [Page 52]


Internet-Draft      PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE           July 2012


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

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

   [RFC5305]  Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
              Engineering", RFC 5305, October 2008.

   [RFC5394]  Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., Berger, L., and J. Ash,
              "Policy-Enabled Path Computation Framework", RFC 5394,
              December 2008.

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


Authors' Addresses

   Edward Crabbe
   Google, Inc.
   1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
   Mountain View, CA  94043
   US

   Email: edc@google.com


   Jan Medved
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   170 West Tasman Dr.
   San Jose, CA  95134
   US

   Email: jmedved@cisco.com


   Robert Varga
   Pantheon Technologies SRO
   Mlynske Nivy 56
   Bratislava  821 05
   Slovakia

   Email: robert.varga@pantheon.sk




Crabbe, et al.          Expires January 16, 2013               [Page 53]


Internet-Draft      PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE           July 2012


   Ina Minei
   Juniper Networks, Inc.
   1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
   Sunnyvale, CA  94089
   US

   Email: ina@juniper.net












































Crabbe, et al.          Expires January 16, 2013               [Page 54]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.124, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/