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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp

PCE Working Group                                               U. Palle
Internet-Draft                                                  D. Dhody
Intended status: Standards Track                     Huawei Technologies
Expires: July 13, 2016                                         Y. Tanaka
                                                      NTT Communications
                                                                  Z. Ali
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                               V. Beeram
                                                        Juniper Networks
                                                        January 10, 2016


  PCEP Extensions for PCE-initiated Point-to-Multipoint LSP Setup in a
                           Stateful PCE Model
           draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-initiated-p2mp-lsp-07

Abstract

   The Path Computation Element (PCE) has been identified as an
   appropriate technology for the determination of the paths of point-
   to-multipoint (P2MP) TE LSPs.  This document provides extensions
   required for Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP)
   so as to enable the usage of a stateful PCE initiation capability in
   recommending P2MP TE LSP instantiation.

Status of This Memo

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

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

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on July 13, 2016.

Copyright Notice

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





Palle, et al.             Expires July 13, 2016                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft               INITIATED-P2MP                 January 2016


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

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Architectural Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Motivation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  Operation Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Support of PCE Initiated P2MP TE LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  IGP Extensions for PCE-Initiation for P2MP Capabilities
       Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  PCE-initiated P2MP TE LSP Operations  . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     6.1.  The PCInitiate message  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     6.2.  P2MP TE LSP Instantiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.3.  P2MP TE LSP Deletion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.4.  Adding and Pruning Leaves for the P2MP TE LSP . . . . . .   8
     6.5.  P2MP TE LSP Delegation and Cleanup  . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  PCIntiate Message Fragmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     7.1.  PCIntiate Fragmentation Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  Non-Support of P2MP TE LSP Instantiation for Stateful PCE . .   9
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   10. Manageability Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     10.1.  Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     10.2.  Information and Data Models  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     10.3.  Liveness Detection and Monitoring  . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     10.4.  Verify Correct Operations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     10.5.  Requirements On Other Protocols  . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     10.6.  Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     11.1.  PCE Capabilities in IGP Advertisements . . . . . . . . .  11
     11.2.  STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     11.3.  Extension of PCEP-Error Object . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   13. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   14. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     14.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     14.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Appendix A.  Contributor Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15



Palle, et al.             Expires July 13, 2016                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft               INITIATED-P2MP                 January 2016


   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15

1.  Introduction

   As per [RFC4655], the Path Computation Element (PCE) is an entity
   that is capable of computing a network path or route based on a
   network graph, and applying computational constraints.  A Path
   Computation Client (PCC) may make requests to a PCE for paths to be
   computed.

   [RFC4857]describes how to set up point-to-multipoint (P2MP) Traffic
   Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) for use in Multiprotocol
   Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks.  The
   PCE has been identified as a suitable application for the computation
   of paths for P2MP TE LSPs ( [RFC5671]).

   The PCEP is designed as a communication protocol between PCCs and
   PCEs for point-to-point (P2P) path computations and is defined in
   [RFC5440].  The extensions of PCEP to request path computation for
   P2MP TE LSPs are described in [RFC6006].

   Stateful PCEs are shown to be helpful in many application scenarios,
   in both MPLS and GMPLS networks, as illustrated in
   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app].  These scenarios apply equally to
   P2P and P2MP TE LSPs.  [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] provides the
   fundamental extensions needed for stateful PCE to support general
   functionality for P2P TE LSP.  Further
   [I-D.palle-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp] focuses on the extensions that are
   necessary in order for the deployment of stateful PCEs to support
   P2MP TE LSPs.  It includes mechanisms to effect P2MP LSP state
   synchronization between PCCs and PCEs, delegation of control of P2MP
   LSPs to PCEs, and PCE control of timing and sequence of P2MP path
   computations within and across PCEP sessions and focuses on a model
   where P2MP LSPs are configured on the PCC and control over them is
   delegated to the PCE.

   [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] provides the fundamental extensions
   needed for stateful PCE-initiated P2P TE LSP recommended
   instantiation.

   This document describes the setup, maintenance and teardown of PCE-
   initiated P2MP LSPs under the stateful PCE model, without the need
   for local configuration on the PCC, thus allowing for a dynamic
   network that is centrally controlled and deployed.







Palle, et al.             Expires July 13, 2016                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft               INITIATED-P2MP                 January 2016


1.1.  Requirements Language

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

2.  Terminology

   Terminology used in this document is same as terminology used in
   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce], [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] and
   [RFC6006].

3.  Architectural Overview

3.1.  Motivation

   [I-D.palle-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp] provides stateful control over P2MP
   TE LSPs that are locally configured on the PCC.  This model relies on
   the Ingress taking an active role in delegating locally configured
   P2MP TE LSPs to the PCE, and is well suited in environments where the
   P2MP TE LSP placement is fairly static.  However, in environments
   where the P2MP TE LSP placement needs to change in response to
   application demands, it is useful to support dynamic creation and
   tear down of P2MP TE LSPs.  The ability for a PCE to trigger the
   creation of P2MP TE LSPs on demand can be seamlessly integrated into
   a controller-based network architecture, where intelligence in the
   controller can determine when and where to set up paths.

   Section 3 of [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] further describes the
   motivation behind the PCE-Initiation capability, which are equally
   applicable for P2MP TE LSPs.

3.2.  Operation Overview

   A PCC or PCE indicates its ability to support PCE provisioned dynamic
   P2MP LSPs during the PCEP Initialization Phase via mechanism
   described in Section 4.

   As per section 5.1 of [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp], the PCE sends
   a Path Computation LSP Initiate Request (PCInitiate) message to the
   PCC to suggest instantiation or deletion of a P2P TE LSP.  This
   document extends the PCInitiate message to support P2MP TE LSP (see
   details in Section 6.1).

   P2MP TE LSP suggested instantiation and deletion operations are same
   as P2P LSP as described in section 5.3 and 5.4 of
   [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp].  This document focuses on




Palle, et al.             Expires July 13, 2016                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft               INITIATED-P2MP                 January 2016


   extensions needed for further handling of P2MP TE LSP (see details in
   Section 6.2).

4.  Support of PCE Initiated P2MP TE LSPs

   During PCEP Initialization Phase, as per Section 7.1.1 of
   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce], PCEP speakers advertises Stateful
   capability via Stateful PCE Capability TLV in open message.  A new
   flag is defined for the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV defined in
   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] and updated in
   [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp],
   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations], and
   [I-D.palle-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp].

   A new bit P (P2MP-LSP-INSTANTIATION-CAPABILITY) is added in this
   document:

   P (P2MP-LSP-INSTANTIATION-CAPABILITY - 1 bit):  If set to 1 by a PCC,
      the P Flag indicates that the PCC allows suggested instantiation
      of an P2MP LSP by a PCE.  If set to 1 by a PCE, the P flag
      indicates that the PCE will suggest P2MP LSP instantiation.  The
      P2MP-LSP-INSTANTIATION-CAPABILITY flag must be set by both PCC and
      PCE in order to support PCE-initiated P2MP LSP instantiation.

   A PCEP speaker should continue to advertise the basic P2MP capability
   via mechanisms as described in [RFC6006].

5.  IGP Extensions for PCE-Initiation for P2MP Capabilities
    Advertisement

   When PCCs are LSRs participating in the IGP (OSPF or IS-IS), and PCEs
   are either LSRs or servers also participating in the IGP, an
   effective mechanism for PCE discovery within an IGP routing domain
   consists of utilizing IGP advertisements.  Extensions for the
   advertisement of PCE Discovery Information are defined for OSPF and
   for IS-IS in [RFC5088] and [RFC5089] respectively.

   The PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV, defined in [RFC5089], is an optional sub-
   TLV used to advertise PCE capabilities.  It MAY be present within the
   PCED sub-TLV carried by OSPF or IS-IS.  [RFC5088] and [RFC5089]
   provide the description and processing rules for this sub-TLV when
   carried within OSPF and IS-IS, respectively.

   The format of the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV is included below for easy
   reference:

   Type: 5




Palle, et al.             Expires July 13, 2016                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft               INITIATED-P2MP                 January 2016


   Length: Multiple of 4.

   Value: This contains an array of units of 32 bit flags with the most
   significant bit as 0.  Each bit represents one PCE capability.

   PCE capability bits are defined in [RFC5088].  This document defines
   a new capability bit for the PCE-Initiation with P2MP as follows:

                  Bit                  Capability
                  TBD                  PCE-Initiation with P2MP


   Note that while PCE-Initiation for P2MP capability may be advertised
   during discovery, PCEP Speakers that wish to use stateful PCEP MUST
   negotiate stateful PCE-Initiation capabilities during PCEP session
   setup, as specified in the current document.

6.  PCE-initiated P2MP TE LSP Operations

6.1.  The PCInitiate message

   As defined in section 5.1 of [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp], PCE
   sends a PCInitiate message to a PCC to recommend instantiation of a
   P2P TE LSP, this document extends the format of PCInitiate message
   for the creation of P2MP TE LSPs but the creation and deletion
   operations of P2MP TE LSP are same to the P2P TE LSP.

   The format of PCInitiate message is as follows:























Palle, et al.             Expires July 13, 2016                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft               INITIATED-P2MP                 January 2016


   <PCInitiate Message> ::= <Common Header>
                            <PCE-initiated-lsp-list>
   Where:

   <PCE-initiated-lsp-list> ::= <PCE-initiated-lsp-request>
                                [<PCE-initiated-lsp-list>]

   <PCE-initiated-lsp-request> ::=
   (<PCE-initiated-lsp-instantiation>|<PCE-initiated-lsp-deletion>)

   <PCE-initiated-lsp-instantiation> ::= <SRP>
                                         <LSP>
                                         <end-point-path-pair-list>
                                         [<attribute-list>]

   <PCE-initiated-lsp-deletion> ::= <SRP>
                                    <LSP>

   Where:

   <end-point-path-pair-list>::=
                      [<END-POINTS>]
                      <path>
                      [<end-point-path-pair-list>]

   <path> ::= (<ERO>|<SERO>)
              [<path>]

   <attribute-list> is defined in [RFC5440] and extended
   by PCEP extensions.


   The PCInitiate message with an LSP object with N bit (P2MP) set is
   used to convey operation on a P2MP TE LSP.  The SRP object is used to
   correlate between initiation requests sent by the PCE and the error
   reports and state reports sent by the PCC as described in
   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce].

   The END-POINTS object MUST be carried in PCInitiate message when N
   bit is set in LSP object for P2MP TE LSP.  If the END-POINTS object
   is missing, the receiving PCC MUST send a PCErr message with Error-
   type=6 (Mandatory Object missing) and Error-value=3 (END-POINTS
   object missing) (defined in [RFC5440].








Palle, et al.             Expires July 13, 2016                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft               INITIATED-P2MP                 January 2016


6.2.  P2MP TE LSP Instantiation

   The Instantiation operation of P2MP TE LSP is same as defined in
   section 5.3 of [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] including handling of
   PLSP-ID, SYMBOLIC-PATH-NAME TLV etc.  Rules of processing and error
   codes remains unchanged.  Further, as defined in section 6.1 of
   [I-D.palle-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp], N bit MUST be set in LSP object in
   PCInitiate message by PCE to specify the instantiation is for P2MP TE
   LSP and the PCC or PCE MUST follow the mechanism defined in
   [I-D.palle-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp] for delegation and updation of P2MP
   TE LSPs.

   Though N bit is set in the LSP object, P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIER TLV
   defined in section 6.2 of [I-D.palle-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp] MUST NOT
   be included in the LSP object in PCIntiitate message as it SHOULD be
   generated by PCC and carried in PCRpt message.

6.3.  P2MP TE LSP Deletion

   The deletion operation of P2MP TE LSP is same as defined in section
   5.4 of [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] by sending an LSP Initiate
   Message with an LSP object carrying the PLSP-ID of the LSP to be
   removed and an SRP object with the R flag set (LSP-REMOVE as per
   section 5.2 of [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]).  Rules of
   processing and error codes remains unchanged.

6.4.  Adding and Pruning Leaves for the P2MP TE LSP

   Adding of new leaves and Pruning of old Leaves for the PCE initiated
   P2MP TE LSP MUST be carried in PCUpd message and SHOULD refer
   [I-D.palle-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp] for P2MP TE LSP extensions.  As
   defined in [RFC6006], leaf type = 1 for adding of new leaves, leaf
   type = 2 for pruning of old leaves of P2MP END-POINTS Object are used
   in PCUpd message.

   PCC MAY use the Incremental State Update mechanims as described in
   [RFC4875] to signal adding and pruning of leaves.

6.5.  P2MP TE LSP Delegation and Cleanup

   P2MP TE LSP delegation and cleanup operations are same as defined in
   section 6 of [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp].  Rules of processing
   and error codes remains unchanged.








Palle, et al.             Expires July 13, 2016                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft               INITIATED-P2MP                 January 2016


7.  PCIntiate Message Fragmentation

   The total PCEP message length, including the common header, is 16
   bytes.  In certain scenarios the P2MP LSP Initiate may not fit into a
   single PCEP message (e.g. initial PCInitiate message).  The F-bit is
   used in the LSP object to signal that the initial PCInitiate was too
   large to fit into a single message and will be fragmented into
   multiple messages.

   Fragmentation procedure described below for PCInitiate message is
   similar to [RFC6006] which describes request and response message
   fragmentation.

7.1.  PCIntiate Fragmentation Procedure

   Once the PCE initiates to set up the P2MP TE LSP, a PCInitiate
   message is sent to the PCC.  If the PCInitiate is too large to fit
   into a single PCInitiate message, the PCE will split the PCInitiate
   over multiple messages.  Each PCInitiate message sent by the PCE,
   except the last one, will have the F-bit set in the LSP object to
   signify that the PCInitiate has been fragmented into multiple
   messages.  In order to identify that a series of PCInitiate messages
   represents a single Initiate, each message will use the same PLSP-ID
   (in this case 0) and SRP-ID-number.

   To indicate P2MP message fragmentation errors associated with a P2MP
   PCInitiate, a Error-Type (18) and a new error-value TBD is used if a
   PCC has not received the last piece of the fragmented message, it
   should send an error message to the PCE to signal that it has
   received an incomplete message (i.e., "Fragmented Instantiation
   failure").

8.  Non-Support of P2MP TE LSP Instantiation for Stateful PCE

   The PCEP protocol extensions described in this document for PCC or
   PCE with instantiation capability for P2MP TE LSPs MUST NOT be used
   if PCC or PCE has not advertised its stateful capability with
   Instantiation and P2MP capability as per Section 4.  If the PCEP
   Speaker on the PCC supports the extensions of this draft (understands
   the P (P2MP-LSP-INSTANTIATION-CAPABILITY) flag in the LSP object) but
   did not advertise this capability, then upon receipt of PCInitiate
   message from the PCE, it SHOULD generate a PCErr with error-type 19
   (Invalid Operation), error-value TBD (Attempted LSP Instantiation
   Request for P2MP if stateful PCE instantiation capability for P2MP
   was not advertised).






Palle, et al.             Expires July 13, 2016                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft               INITIATED-P2MP                 January 2016


9.  Security Considerations

   The stateful operations on P2MP TE LSP are more CPU-intensive and
   also utilize more link bandwidth.  In the event of an unauthorized
   stateful P2MP operations, or a denial of service attack, the
   subsequent PCEP operations may be disruptive to the network.
   Consequently, it is important that implementations conform to the
   relevant security requirements of [RFC5440], [RFC6006],
   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] and [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp].

10.  Manageability Considerations

   All manageability requirements and considerations listed in
   [RFC5440], [RFC6006], [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] and
   [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] apply to PCEP protocol extensions
   defined in this document.  In addition, requirements and
   considerations listed in this section apply.

10.1.  Control of Function and Policy

   A PCE or PCC implementation MUST allow configuring the stateful
   Initiation capability for P2MP LSPs.

10.2.  Information and Data Models

   The PCEP MIB module SHOULD be extended to include advertised P2MP
   stateful PCE-Initiation capability etc.

10.3.  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 [RFC5440].

10.4.  Verify Correct Operations

   Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new operation
   verification requirements in addition to those already listed in
   [RFC5440], [RFC6006] and [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce].

10.5.  Requirements On Other Protocols

   Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new requirements
   on other protocols.







Palle, et al.             Expires July 13, 2016                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft               INITIATED-P2MP                 January 2016


10.6.  Impact On Network Operations

   Mechanisms defined in this document do not have any impact on network
   operations in addition to those already listed in [RFC5440],
   [RFC6006] and [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce].

11.  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.

11.1.  PCE Capabilities in IGP Advertisements

   IANA is requested to allocate a new bit in "PCE Capability Flags"
   registry for PCE-Initiation for P2MP capability as follows:



                 Bit      Meaning               Reference
                 TBD      Stateful PCE          [This I-D]
                          Initiation with P2MP


11.2.  STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV

   The following values are defined in this document for the Flags field
   in the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY-TLV (defined in
   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]) in the OPEN object:


       Bit    Description           Reference

       TBD    P2MP-LSP-             This.I-D
              INSTANTIATION-
              CAPABILITY




11.3.  Extension of PCEP-Error Object

   A error types 19 (recommended values) is defined in section 8.4 of
   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce].  The error-type 18 is deined in
   [RFC6006].  This document extend the new Error-Values for the error
   type for the following error conditions:





Palle, et al.             Expires July 13, 2016                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft               INITIATED-P2MP                 January 2016


       Error-Type  Meaning
          18       P2MP Fragmentation Error
                     Error-value= TBD. Fragmented Instantiation
                         failure
          19       Invalid Operation
                     Error-value= TBD. Attempted LSP Instantiation
                         Request for P2MP if stateful PCE
                         instantiation capability for P2MP was not
                         advertised



   Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to make the
   assignment of a new error value for the existing "PCEP-ERROR Object
   Error Types and Values" registry located at
   http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-error-object.

12.  Security Considerations

   The security considerations described in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]
   and [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] apply to the extensions
   described in this document.  The stateful operations on P2MP TE LSP
   are more CPU-intensive and also utilize more link bandwidth.  In the
   event of an unauthorized stateful P2MP operations, or a denial of
   service attack, the subsequent PCEP operations may be disruptive to
   the network.  Consequently, it is important that implementations
   conform to the relevant security requirements of [RFC5440],
   [RFC6006], [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce], and
   [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp].

13.  Acknowledgments

   Thanks to Quintin Zhao, Avantika and Venugopal Reddy for his
   comments.

14.  References

14.1.  Normative References

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

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



Palle, et al.             Expires July 13, 2016                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft               INITIATED-P2MP                 January 2016


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

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

   [RFC6006]  Zhao, Q., Ed., King, D., Ed., Verhaeghe, F., Takeda, T.,
              Ali, Z., and J. Meuric, "Extensions to the Path
              Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for
              Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched
              Paths", RFC 6006, DOI 10.17487/RFC6006, September 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6006>.

   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]
              Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "PCEP
              Extensions for Stateful PCE", draft-ietf-pce-stateful-
              pce-13 (work in progress), December 2015.

   [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]
              Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "PCEP
              Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
              Model", draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-05 (work in
              progress), October 2015.

   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations]
              Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., Varga, R., Zhang, X.,
              and D. Dhody, "Optimizations of Label Switched Path State
              Synchronization Procedures for a Stateful PCE", draft-
              ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-04 (work in
              progress), November 2015.

   [I-D.palle-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp]
              Palle, U., Dhody, D., Tanaka, Y., Ali, Z., and V. Beeram,
              "Path Computation Element (PCE) Protocol Extensions for
              Stateful PCE usage for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic
              Engineering Label Switched Paths", draft-palle-pce-
              stateful-pce-p2mp-07 (work in progress), June 2015.

14.2.  Informative References

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



Palle, et al.             Expires July 13, 2016                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft               INITIATED-P2MP                 January 2016


   [RFC4857]  Fogelstroem, E., Jonsson, A., and C. Perkins, "Mobile IPv4
              Regional Registration", RFC 4857, DOI 10.17487/RFC4857,
              June 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4857>.

   [RFC4875]  Aggarwal, R., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Ed., and S.
              Yasukawa, Ed., "Extensions to Resource Reservation
              Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-
              Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4875, May 2007,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4875>.

   [RFC5671]  Yasukawa, S. and A. Farrel, Ed., "Applicability of the
              Path Computation Element (PCE) to Point-to-Multipoint
              (P2MP) MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 5671,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5671, October 2009,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5671>.

   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app]
              Zhang, X. and I. Minei, "Applicability of a Stateful Path
              Computation Element (PCE)", draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-
              app-05 (work in progress), October 2015.






























Palle, et al.             Expires July 13, 2016                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft               INITIATED-P2MP                 January 2016


Appendix A.  Contributor Addresses

   Yuji Kamite
   NTT Communications Corporation
   Granpark Tower
   3-4-1 Shibaura, Minato-ku
   Tokyo  108-8118
   Japan

   EMail: y.kamite@ntt.com

Authors' Addresses

   Udayasree Palle
   Huawei Technologies
   Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
   Bangalore, Karnataka  560037
   India

   EMail: udayasree.palle@huawei.com


   Dhruv Dhody
   Huawei Technologies
   Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
   Bangalore, Karnataka  560037
   India

   EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com


   Yosuke Tanaka
   NTT Communications Corporation
   Granpark Tower
   3-4-1 Shibaura, Minato-ku
   Tokyo  108-8118
   Japan

   EMail: yosuke.tanaka@ntt.com


   Zafar Ali
   Cisco Systems

   EMail: zali@cisco.com






Palle, et al.             Expires July 13, 2016                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft               INITIATED-P2MP                 January 2016


   Vishnu Pavan Beeram
   Juniper Networks

   EMail: vbeeram@juniper.net















































Palle, et al.             Expires July 13, 2016                [Page 16]


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