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

Versions: 00 01 02 03

PCE Working Group                                                Y. Lee
Internet Draft                                                 H. Zheng
Intended status: Standard Track                                  Huawei
Expires: December 26, 2018
                                                            R. Casellas
                                                             R. Vilalta
                                                                    CTTC

                                                           D. Ceccarelli
                                                             F. Lazzeri
                                                               Ericsson



                                                          June 26, 2018


                 PCEP Extension for Flexible Grid Networks


                      draft-lee-pce-flexible-grid-02


Abstract

   This document provides the Path Computation Element Communication
   Protocol (PCEP) extensions for the support of Routing and Spectrum
   Assignment (RSA) in Flexible Grid networks.

Status of this Memo

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

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.




Lee, et al            Expires December 26, 2018                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft     PCEP Extension for Flexible Grid           June 2018


   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 26, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors. All rights reserved.

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


Table of Contents


   1. Terminology....................................................3
   2. Requirements Language..........................................3
   3. Introduction...................................................3
   4. Spectrum Assignment (SA) Object................................4
      4.1. Frequency-Slot Selection TLV..............................6
      4.2. Frequency-slot Restriction Constraint TLV.................8
         4.2.1. Frequency-Slot Restriction Field....................10
   5. Encoding of a RSA Path Reply..................................10
      5.1. Error Indicator..........................................11
      5.2. NO-PATH Indicator........................................12
   6. Manageability Considerations..................................12
      6.1. Control of Function and Policy...........................13
      6.2. Information and Data Models..............................13
      6.3. Verifying Correct Operation..............................13
      6.4. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components13
      6.5. Impact on Network Operation..............................14
   7. Security Considerations.......................................14
   8. IANA Considerations...........................................14
      8.1. New PCEP Object..........................................14
      8.2. New PCEP TLV: Frequency Slot Selection TLV...............15
      8.3. New PCEP TLV: Frequency Slot Restriction Constraint TLV..15
      8.4. New PCEP TLV: Spectrum Allocation TLV....................15
      8.5. New No-Path Reasons......................................16
      8.6. New Error-Types and Error-Values.........................16
   9. References....................................................17



Lee et al.              Expires December 2018                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft     PCEP Extension for Flexible Grid           June 2018


      9.1. Informative References...................................17
      9.2. Normative References.....................................18
   10. Contributors.................................................19
   Authors' Addresses...............................................20



1. Terminology

   This document uses the terminology defined in [RFC4655], [RFC5440]
   and [RFC7698].

2. 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].



3. Introduction

   [RFC4655] defines a PCE based path computation architecture and
   explains how a Path Computation Element (PCE) may compute Label
   Switched Paths (LSP) in Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic
   Engineering (MPLS-TE) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks at the
   request of Path Computation Clients (PCCs).  A PCC is said to be any
   network component that makes such a request and may be, for
   instance, an Optical Switching Element within a Wavelength Division
   Multiplexing (WDM) network.  The PCE, itself, can be located
   anywhere within the network, and may be within an optical switching
   element, a Network Management System (NMS) or Operational Support
   System (OSS), or may be an independent network server.

   The PCE communications Protocol (PCEP) is the communication protocol
   used between a PCC and a PCE, and may also be used between
   cooperating PCEs.  [RFC4657] sets out the common protocol
   requirements for PCEP.  Additional application-specific requirements
   for PCEP are deferred to separate documents.

   [PCEP-WSON] provides the PCEP extensions for the support of Routing
   and Wavelength Assignment (RWA) in Wavelength Switched Optical
   Networks (WSON) based on the requirements specified in [RFC6163] and
   [RFC7449].

   [RFC7698] provides Framework and Requirements for GMPLS-Based
   Control of Flexi-Grid Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM)


Lee et al.              Expires December 2018                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft     PCEP Extension for Flexible Grid           June 2018


   Networks. To allow efficient allocation of optical spectral
   bandwidth for systems that have high bit-rates, the International
   Telecommunication Union Telecommunication Standardization Sector
   (ITU-T) has extended its Recommendations G.694.1 and G.872 to
   include a new Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) grid by
   defining a set of nominal central frequencies, channel spacings, and
   the concept of the "frequency slot". In such an environment, a data-
   plane connection is switched based on allocated, variable-sized
   frequency ranges within the optical spectrum, creating what is known
   as a flexible grid (flexi-grid).

   This document provides PCEP extensions to support Routing and
   Spectrum Assignment (RSA) in in Spectrum Switched Optical Networks
   (SSON)[RFC7698].

   Figure 2 shows one typical PCE based implementation, which is
   referred to as the Combined Routing and Spectrum Assignment (R&SA)
   [RFC7698]. With this architecture, the two processes of routing and
   spectrum assignment are accessed via a single PCE. This architecture
   is the base architecture from which the PCEP extensions are going to
   be specified in this document.

                          +----------------------------+
            +-----+       |     +-------+     +--+     |
            |     |       |     |Routing|     |SA|     |
            | PCC |<----->|     +-------+     +--+     |
            |     |       |                            |
            +-----+       |             PCE            |
                          +----------------------------+


               Figure 1 Combined Process (R&SA) architecture



4. Spectrum Assignment (SA) Object

   Spectrum allocation can be performed by the PCE by different means:

     (a) By means of Explicit Label Control (ELC) where the PCE
     allocates which label to use for each interface/node along the
     path.

     (b) By means of a Label Set where the PCE provides a range of
     potential frequency slots to allocate by each node along the path.
     This document aligns with GMPLS extensions for PCEP [PCEP-GMPLS]
     for generic property such as label, label-set and label assignment


Lee et al.              Expires December 2018                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft     PCEP Extension for Flexible Grid           June 2018


     noting that frequency is a type of label. Frequency restrictions
     and constraints are also formulated in terms of labels per
     [RFC7579].

   Option (b) allows distributed spectrum allocation (performed during
   signaling) to complete spectrum assignment.

   Additionally, given a range of potential spectrums to allocate, the
   request SHOULD convey the heuristic / mechanism to the allocation.

   The format of a PCReq message after incorporating the Spectrum
   Assignment (SA) object is as follows:

   <PCReq Message> ::= <Common Header>

                          [<svec-list>]

                          <request-list>

      Where:

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

         <request>::= <RP>

                      <ENDPOINTS>

                      [ <SA> ]

                      [other optional objects...]

   If the SA object is present in the request, it MUST be encoded after
   the ENDPOINTS object.

   The format of the Spectrum Assignment (SA) object body is as
   follows:

   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |          Reserved             |           Flags             |M|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                Frequency-Slot Selection TLV                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |         Frequency-Slot Restriction Constraint TLV             |



Lee et al.              Expires December 2018                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft     PCEP Extension for Flexible Grid           June 2018


   .                                                               .
   .                                                               .
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   //                      Optional TLVs                          //
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                            Figure 2 SA Object

   o  Reserved (16 bits)

   o  Flags (16 bits)

   The following new flags SHOULD be set

     . M (Mode - 1 bit): M bit is used to indicate the mode of
        spectrum assignment. When M bit is set to 1, this indicates
        that the spectrum assigned by the PCE must be explicit. That
        is, the selected way to convey the allocated spectrum is by
        means of Explicit Label Control (ELC) [RFC4003] for each hop of
        a computed LSP. Otherwise, the spectrum assigned by the PCE
        needs not be explicit (i.e., it can be suggested in the form of
        label set objects in the corresponding response, to allow
        distributed SA. In such case, the PCE MUST return a Label Set
        Field as described in Section 2.6 of [RFC7579] in the response.
        See Section 5 of this document for the encoding discussion of a
        Label Set Field in a PCRep message.



4.1. Frequency-Slot Selection TLV

   The Frequency-Slot Selection TLV is used to indicate the frequency-
   slot selection constraint in regard to the order of frequency-slot
   assignment to be returned by the PCE. This TLV is only applied when
   M bit is set in the SA Object specified in Section 3.1. This TLV
   MUST NOT be used when the M bit is cleared.

   The Frequency-Slot Selection sub-TLV value field is defined as:








Lee et al.              Expires December 2018                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft     PCEP Extension for Flexible Grid           June 2018


       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |S|  FSA Method  |                   Reserved                   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   Where:

      S (Symmetry, 1 bit):  This flag is only meaningful when the
request is for a bidirectional LSP (see [RFC5440]).

      0 denotes requiring the same frequency-slot in both directions;
      1 denotes that different spectrums on both directions are
      allowed.

      Frequency-Slot Assignment (FSA) Method (7 bits):

      0: unspecified (any); This does not constrain the SA method
         used by a specific node.  This value is implied when the
         Frequency-Slot Selection sub-TLV is absent.

      1: First-Fit.  All the feasible frequency slots are numbered
         (based on "n" parameter), and this SA method chooses the
         available frequency-slot with the lowest index (of "n"
         parameter).

      2: Random.  This SA method chooses an feasible frequency-slot
         ("n" paramerer) randomly.

      3-127: Unassigned.

      The processing rules for this TLV are as follows:

      If a PCE does not support the attribute(s), its
      behavior is specified below:

      -  S bit not supported: a PathErr MUST be generated with the
         Error Code "Routing Problem" (24) with error sub-code
         "Unsupported Frequency slot Selection Symmetry value" (TDB).

      -  FSA method not supported: a PathErr MUST be generated with the
         Error Code "Routing Problem" (24) with error sub-code


Lee et al.              Expires December 2018                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft     PCEP Extension for Flexible Grid           June 2018


         "Unsupported Frequency Slot Assignment value" (TDB).

   A Frequency Slot Selection TLV can be constructed by a node and
   added to an ERO Hop Attributes subobject in order to be processed
   by downstream nodes (transit and egress).  As defined in
   [RFC7570], the R bit reflects the LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTE and
   LSP_ATTRIBUTE semantic defined in [RFC5420], and it SHOULD be set
   accordingly.

   Once a node properly parses the Spectrum Selection sub-TLV
   received in an ERO Hop Attributes subobject, the node use the
   indicated spectrum assignment method (at that hop) for the LSP.
   In addition, the node SHOULD report compliance by adding an RRO
   Hop Attributes subobject with the WSON Processing Hop Attribute
   TLV (and its sub-TLVs) that indicate the utilized method.
   Frequency-Slot Selection TLVs carried in an RRO Hop Attributes
   subobject are subject to [RFC7570] and standard RRO processing;
   see [RFC3209].



4.2. Frequency-slot Restriction Constraint TLV

   For any request that contains a Frequency-slot assignment, the
   requester (PCC) MUST be able to specify a restriction on the
   frequency-slots to be used. This restriction is to be interpreted by
   the PCE as a constraint on the tuning ability of the origination
   laser transmitter or on any other maintenance related constraints.

   The format of the Frequency-Slot Restriction Constraint TLV is as
   follows:

   <Frequency-lot Restriction Constraint> ::=

                  <Action> <Count> <Reserved>

                  (<Link Identifiers> <Freq-slot Restriction>)...

   Where

   <Link Identifiers> ::= <Link Identifier> [<Link Identifiers>]

   See Section 4.3.1 in [PCEP-WSON] for the encoding of the Link
   Identifiers Field.


Lee et al.              Expires December 2018                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft     PCEP Extension for Flexible Grid           June 2018




   The Frequency slot Restriction Constraint TLV type is TBD. This TLV
   MAY appear more than once to be able to specify multiple
   restrictions.

   The TLV data is defined as follows:



   0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | Action          |    Count      |          Reserved           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Link Identifiers                          |
   |                          . . .                                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                Frequency Slot Restriction Field               |
   //                        . . . .                              //
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

           Figure 3 spectrum Restriction Constraint TLV Encoding


   o  Action: 8 bits


      .  0 - Inclusive List indicates that one or more link identifiers
         are included in the Link Set. Each identifies a separate link
         that is part of the set.

      .  1 - Inclusive Range indicates that the Link Set defines a
         range of links.  It contains two link identifiers. The first
         identifier indicates the start of the range (inclusive). The
         second identifier indicates the end of the range (inclusive).
         All links with numeric values between the bounds are
         considered to be part of the set. A value of zero in either
         position indicates that there is no bound on the corresponding
         portion of the range. Note that the Action field can be set to
         0 when unnumbered link identifier is used.






Lee et al.              Expires December 2018                  [Page 9]


Internet-Draft     PCEP Extension for Flexible Grid           June 2018


   o  Count: The number of the link identifiers (8 bits)

   Note that a PCC MAY add a spectrum restriction that applies to all
   links by setting the Count field to zero and specifying just a set
   of spectrums.

   Note that all link identifiers in the same list must be of the same
   type.

   o  Reserved: Reserved for future use (16 bits)


   o  Link Identifiers: Identifies each link ID for which restriction
   is applied. The length is dependent on the link format and the Count
   field. See Section 4.3.1 in [PCEP-WSON] for Link Identifier encoding
   and Section 3.3.1 for the Spectrum Restriction Field encoding,
   respectively.



4.2.1. Frequency-Slot Restriction Field

   The Frequency-Slot Restriction Field of the Frequency slot
   restriction TLV is encoded as defined in
   https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-
   09#section-4.1.1.

5. Encoding of a RSA Path Reply

   This section provides the encoding of a RSA Path Reply for frequency
   slot allocation as discussed in Section 4. Spectrum Allocation TLV

   The Spectrum Allocation TLV type is TBD, recommended value is TBD.
   The TLV data is defined as follows:



   0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |              Type             |        Length               |M|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Link Identifier                           |
   |                          . . .                                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


Lee et al.              Expires December 2018                 [Page 10]


Internet-Draft     PCEP Extension for Flexible Grid           June 2018


   |                    Allocated Spectrum(s)                      |
   //                        . . . .                              //
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                 Figure 4 Spectrum Allocation TLV Encoding


   o  Type (16 bits): The type of the TLV.

   o  Length (15 bits): The length of the TLV including the Type and
                        Length fields.

   o  M (Mode): 1 bit


      -  0 indicates the allocation is under Explicit Label Control.

      -  1 indicates the allocation is expressed in Label Sets.


   Note that all link identifiers in the same list must be of the same
   type.


   o  Link Identifier (variable): Identifies the interface to which
   assignment spectrum(s) is applied. See Section 3.3 for Link
   Identifier encoding.

   o  Allocated Spectrum(s) (variable): Indicates the allocated
   spectrum(s) to the link identifier. See Section 3.3.1 for encoding
   details.

   This TLV is encoded as an attributes TLV, per [RFC5420], which is
   carried in the ERO LSP Attribute Subobjects per [RFC7570]. The type
   value of the Spectrum Restriction Constraint TLV is TBD by IANA.


5.1. Error Indicator

   To indicate errors associated with the RSA request, a new Error Type
   (TDB) and subsequent error-values are defined as follows for
   inclusion in the PCEP-ERROR Object:




Lee et al.              Expires December 2018                 [Page 11]


Internet-Draft     PCEP Extension for Flexible Grid           June 2018


   A new Error-Type (TDB) and subsequent error-values are defined as
   follows:

      .  Error-Type=TBD; Error-value=1: if a PCE receives a RSA request
         and the PCE is not capable of processing the request due to
         insufficient memory, the PCE MUST send a PCErr message with a
         PCEP-ERROR Object (Error-Type=TDB) and an Error-value(Error-
         value=1).  The PCE stops processing the request.  The
         corresponding RSA request MUST be cancelled at the PCC.

      .  Error-Type=TBD; Error-value=2: if a PCE receives a RSA request
         and the PCE is not capable of RSA computation, the PCE MUST
         send a PCErr message with a PCEP-ERROR Object (Error-Type=TDB)
         and an Error-value (Error-value=2). The PCE stops processing
         the request.  The corresponding RSA computation MUST be
         cancelled at the PCC.




5.2. NO-PATH Indicator


   To communicate the reason(s) for not being able to find RSA for the
   path request, the NO-PATH object can be used in the corresponding
   response.  The format of the NO-PATH object body is defined in
   [RFC5440].  The object may contain a NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV to provide
   additional information about why a path computation has failed.

   One new bit flag is defined to be carried in the Flags field in the
   NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV carried in the NO-PATH Object.

      .  Bit TDB: When set, the PCE indicates no feasible route was
         found that meets all the constraints (e.g., spectrum
         restriction, etc.) associated with RSA.



6. Manageability Considerations

   Manageability of SSON Routing and Spectrum Assignment (RSA) with PCE
   must address the following considerations:






Lee et al.              Expires December 2018                 [Page 12]


Internet-Draft     PCEP Extension for Flexible Grid           June 2018


6.1. Control of Function and Policy

   In addition to the parameters already listed in Section 8.1 of
   [RFC5440], a PCEP implementation SHOULD allow configuring the
   following PCEP session parameters on a PCC:

      .  The ability to send a Flexi-Grid RSA request.

   In addition to the parameters already listed in Section 8.1 of
   [RFC5440], a PCEP implementation SHOULD allow configuring the
   following PCEP session parameters on a PCE:

      .  The support for Flexi-Grid RSA .

      .  A set of Flexi-Grid RSA specific policies (authorized sender,
         request rate limiter, etc).


   These parameters may be configured as default parameters for any
   PCEP session the PCEP speaker participates in, or may apply to a
   specific session with a given PCEP peer or a specific group of
   sessions with a specific group of PCEP peers.


6.2. Information and Data Models

   Extensions to the PCEP YANG module may include to cover the Flexi-
   Grid RSA information introduced in this document. Liveness Detection
   and Monitoring

   Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness
   detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already
   listed in section 8.3 of [RFC5440].


6.3. Verifying Correct Operation

   Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new
   verification requirements in addition to those already listed in
   section 8.4 of [RFC5440]


6.4. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components

   The PCE Discovery mechanisms ([RFC5089] and [RFC5088]) may be used
   to advertise Flexi-Grid RSA path computation capabilities to PCCs.



Lee et al.              Expires December 2018                 [Page 13]


Internet-Draft     PCEP Extension for Flexible Grid           June 2018


   This draft has requirements on other protocols (ERO objects, etc.
   which are under TEAS or CCAMP.)




6.5. Impact on Network Operation

   Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new network
   operation requirements in addition to those already listed in
   section 8.6 of [RFC5440].



7. Security Considerations

   This document has no requirement for a change to the security models
   within PCEP. However, the additional information distributed in
   order to address the RSA problem represents a disclosure of network
   capabilities that an operator may wish to keep private.
   Consideration should be given to securing this information.



8. IANA Considerations

   IANA maintains a registry of PCEP parameters. IANA has made
   allocations from the sub-registries as described in the following
   sections.

8.1. New PCEP Object

   As described in Section 4.1, a new PCEP Object is defined to carry
   frequency-slot assignment related constraints. IANA is to allocate
   the following from "PCEP Objects" sub-registry
   (http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-objects):



   Object Class   Name  Object                     Reference
   Value                Type
   ---------------------------------------------------------

   TDB            SA    1: Spectrum Assignment   [This.I-D]




Lee et al.              Expires December 2018                 [Page 14]


Internet-Draft     PCEP Extension for Flexible Grid           June 2018



8.2. New PCEP TLV: Frequency Slot Selection TLV

   As described in Sections 4.2, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate
   spectrum selection constraints. IANA is to allocate this new TLV
   from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" subregistry
   (http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type-
   indicators).

   Value             Description                Reference
   ---------------------------------------------------------
   TBD               Spectrum Selection      [This.I-D]



8.3. New PCEP TLV: Frequency Slot Restriction Constraint TLV

   As described in Section 4.3, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate
   wavelength restriction constraints. IANA is to allocate this new TLV
   from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" subregistry
   (http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type-
   indicators).

   Value             Description                Reference
   ---------------------------------------------------------
   TBD               Frequency Slot Restriction    [This.I-D]
                     Constraint


8.4. New PCEP TLV: Spectrum Allocation TLV

   As described in Section 5, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate the
   allocation of freq-slots(s) by the PCE in response to a request by
   the PCC. IANA is to allocate this new TLV from the "PCEP TLV Type
   Indicators" subregistry
   (http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type-
   indicators).

   Value             Description                Reference
   ---------------------------------------------------------
   TBD               Spectrum Allocation     [This.I-D]



Lee et al.              Expires December 2018                 [Page 15]


Internet-Draft     PCEP Extension for Flexible Grid           June 2018




8.5. New No-Path Reasons

   As described in Section 4.3, a new bit flag are defined to be
   carried in the Flags field in the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV carried in the
   NO-PATH Object. This flag, when set, indicates that no feasible
   route was found that meets all the RSA constraints (e.g., spectrum
   restriction, signal compatibility, etc.) associated with a RSA path
   computation request.

   IANA is to allocate this new bit flag from the "PCEP NO-PATH-VECTOR
   TLV Flag Field" subregistry
   (http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#no-path-vector-
   tlv).

   Bit         Description                Reference
   -----------------------------------------------------
   TBD         No RSA constraints met     [This.I-D]

8.6. New Error-Types and Error-Values

   As described in Section 5.1, new PCEP error codes are defined for
   WSON RWA errors. IANA is to allocate from the ""PCEP-ERROR Object
   Error Types and Values" sub-registry
   (http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-error-object).



   Error-      Meaning           Error-Value       Reference
   Type
   ---------------------------------------------------------------


   TDB         Flexi-Grid RSA Error    1: Insufficient      [This.I-D]
                                          Memory

                                       2: RSA computation   [This.I-D]
                                          N                                               o                                                                                               t                                               u                                               s                                               p                                               p                                               r                                               o                                               e                                               t                                                                                               d








Lee et al.              Expires December 2018                 [Page 16]


Internet-Draft     PCEP Extension for Flexible Grid           June 2018


9. References

9.1. Informative References

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

   [RFC2863] McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group
             MIB", RFC 2863, June 2000.

   [RFC4003] Berger, L., "GMPLS Signaling Procedure for Egress
             Control", RFC 4003, February 2005.

   [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.

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

   [RFC5088] Le Roux, JL, JP. Vasseur, Y. Ikejiri, and R. Zhang, "OSPF
             Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element (PCE)
             Discovery," RFC 5088, January 2008.

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

   [RFC6163] Lee, Y. and Bernstein, G. (Editors), and W. Imajuku,
             "Framework for GMPLS and PCE Control of Wavelength
             Switched Optical Networks", RFC 6163, March 2011.

   [RFC6566] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein, D. Li, G. Martinelli, "A Framework
             for the Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks
             (WSON) with Impairments", RFC 6566, March 2012.

   [RFC7420] Koushik, A., E. Stephan, Q. Zhao, D. King, and J.
             Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
             (PCEP) Management Information Base (MIB) Module", RFC
             7420, December 2014.





Lee et al.              Expires December 2018                 [Page 17]


Internet-Draft     PCEP Extension for Flexible Grid           June 2018


   [RFC7446] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein. (Editors), "Routing and Wavelength
             Assignment Information Model for Wavelength Switched
             Optical Networks", RFC 7446, February 2015.

   [RFC7449] Lee, Y., et. al., "PCEP Requirements for WSON Routing and
             Wavelength Assignment", RFC 7449, February 2015.



9.2. Normative References

   [PCEP-GMPLS] Margaria, et al., "PCEP extensions for GMPLS", draft-
             ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions, work in progress.

   [RFC5420] Farrel, A. "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP
             Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic
             Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC5420, February 2009.

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

   [RFC6205] Tomohiro, O. and D. Li, "Generalized Labels for Lambda-
             Switching Capable Label Switching Routers", RFC 6205,
             January, 2011.

   [RFC7570] Margaria, et al., "Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in
             the Explicit Route Object (ERO)", RFC 7570, July 2015.

   [RFC7689] Bernstein et al, "Signaling Extensions for Wavelength
             Switched Optical Networks", RFC 7689, November 2015.

   [RFC7688] Y. Lee, and G. Bernstein, "OSPF Enhancement for Signal and
             Network Element Compatibility for Wavelength Switched
             Optical Networks", RFC 7688, November 2015.

   [RFC7698] O. Gonzalez de Dios, R. Casellas, editors, "Framework and
             Requirements for GMPLS-Based Control of Flexi-Grid Dense
             Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) Networks", RFC
             7698, November 2015.

   [RFC7581] Bernstein and Lee, "Routing and Wavelength Assignment
             Information Encoding for Wavelength Switched Optical
             Networks", RFC7581, June 2015.





Lee et al.              Expires December 2018                 [Page 18]


Internet-Draft     PCEP Extension for Flexible Grid           June 2018


   [RFC7579] Bernstein and Lee, "General Network Element Constraint
             Encoding for GMPLS Controlled Networks", RFC 7579, June
             2015.

   [PCEP-WSON] Y. Lee (Ed.), and R. Casellas (Ed.), "PCEP Extension for
             WSON Routing and Wavelength Assignment", draft-ietf-pce-
             wson-rwa-ext, work in progress.



10. Contributors






































Lee et al.              Expires December 2018                 [Page 19]


Internet-Draft     PCEP Extension for Flexible Grid           June 2018


Authors' Addresses

   Young Lee, Editor
   Huawei Technologies

   Email: leeyoung@huawei.com


   Haomian Zheng
   Huawei Technologies

   Email: zhenghaomian@huawei.com


   Ramon Casellas
   CTTC
   Av. Carl Friedrich Gauss n7
   Castelldefels, Barcelona 08860
   Spain

   Email: ramon.casellas@cttc.es


   Ricard Vilalta
   CTTC
   Email: ricard.vilalta@cttc.es


   Daniele Ceccarelli
   Ericsson AB
   Gronlandsgatan 21
   Kista - Stockholm
   Email: daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com

   Francesco Lazzeri
   Ericsson
   Via Melen 77
   Genova - Italy
   Email: francesco.lazzeri@ericsson.com










Lee et al.              Expires December 2018                 [Page 20]


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