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

Versions: (draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-initiated-p2mp-lsp) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp

PCE Working Group                                               U. Palle
Internet-Draft                                                  D. Dhody
Intended status: Standards Track                     Huawei Technologies
Expires: August 18, 2014                                       Y. Tanaka
                                                               Y. Kamite
                                                      NTT Communications
                                                       February 14, 2014


  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-02

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.  [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app]
   presents several use cases, demonstrating scenarios that benefit from
   the deployment of a stateful PCE.  [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]
   provides the fundamental PCE communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions
   needed to support stateful PCE functions.  This memo provides
   extensions required for PCEP so as to enable the usage of a stateful
   PCE capability in supporting point-to-multipoint (P2MP) TE LSPs.

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 August 18, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.





Palle, et al.            Expires August 18, 2014                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                STATEFUL-P2MP                February 2014


   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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Supporting P2MP TE LSP for Stateful PCE . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Motivation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  Objectives  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Functions to Support P2MP TE LSPs for Stateful PCEs . . . . .   4
   5.  Architectural Overview of Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . .   5
     5.1.  Extension of PCEP Messages  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.2.  Capability Advertisement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.3.  State Synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.4.  LSP Delegation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.5.  LSP Operations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       5.5.1.  Passive Stateful PCE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       5.5.2.  Active Stateful PCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  PCEP Object Extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     6.1.  Extension of LSP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     6.2.  P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIER TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     6.3.  S2L Object  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  PCEP Message Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     7.1.  The PCRpt Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     7.2.  The PCUpd Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     7.3.  Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       7.3.1.  P2MP TE LSP Update Request  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       7.3.2.  P2MP TE LSP Report  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     7.4.  Report and Update Message Fragmentation . . . . . . . . .  15
       7.4.1.  Report Fragmentation Procedure  . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       7.4.2.  Update Fragmentation Procedure  . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   8.  Non-Support of P2MP TE LSPs for Stateful PCE  . . . . . . . .  16
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   10. Manageability Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     10.1.  Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     10.2.  Information and Data Models  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     10.3.  Liveness Detection and Monitoring  . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     10.4.  Verify Correct Operations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     10.5.  Requirements On Other Protocols  . . . . . . . . . . . .  16



Palle, et al.            Expires August 18, 2014                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                STATEFUL-P2MP                February 2014


     10.6.  Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     11.1.  Extension of LSP Object  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     11.2.  Extension of PCEP-Error Object . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     11.3.  PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   13. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     13.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     13.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18

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.  Complementarily, this document focuses
   on the extensions that are necessary in order for the deployment of
   stateful PCEs to support P2MP TE LSPs.

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].








Palle, et al.            Expires August 18, 2014                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                STATEFUL-P2MP                February 2014


2.  Terminology

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

3.  Supporting P2MP TE LSP for Stateful PCE

3.1.  Motivation

   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app]presents several use cases,
   demonstrating scenarios that benefit from the deployment of a
   stateful PCE including optimization, recovery, etc.
   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]defines the extensions to PCEP for P2P TE
   LSPs in applying these scenarios.  But these scenarios apply equally
   to P2MP TE LSPs as well.

   In addition to that, the stateful nature of a PCE simplifies the
   information conveyed in PCEP messages since it is possible to refer
   to the LSPs via PLSP-ID.  For P2MP this is an added advantage, where
   the size of message is much larger.  Incase of stateless PCE, a
   modification of P2MP tree requires encoding of all leaves along with
   the paths in PCReq message, but using a stateful PCE with P2MP
   capability, the PCEP message can be used to convey only the
   modifications (the other information can be retrieved from the P2MP
   LSP identifier).

3.2.  Objectives

   The objectives for the protocol extensions to support P2MP TE LSP for
   stateful PCE are same as the objectives described in section 3.2 of
   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce].

4.  Functions to Support P2MP TE LSPs for Stateful PCEs

   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]specifies new functions to support a
   stateful PCE.  It also specifies that a function can be initiated
   either from a PCC towards a PCE (C-E) or from a PCE towards a PCC
   (E-C).

   This document extends these functions to support P2MP TE LSPs.

   Capability Advertisement (E-C,C-E):  both the PCC and the PCE must
      announce during PCEP session establishment that they support PCEP
      Stateful PCE extensions for P2MP using mechanisms defined in
      [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]and [RFC6006].

   LSP State Synchronization (C-E):  after the session between the PCC
      and a stateful PCE with P2MP capability is initialized, the PCE



Palle, et al.            Expires August 18, 2014                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                STATEFUL-P2MP                February 2014


      must learn the state of a PCC's P2MP TE LSPs before it can perform
      path computations or update LSP attributes in a PCC.

   LSP Update Request (E-C):  a stateful PCE with P2MP capability
      requests modification of attributes on a PCC's P2MP TE LSP.

   LSP State Report (C-E):  a PCC sends an LSP state report to a PCE
      whenever the state of a P2MP TE 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 P2MP TE LSPs; the PCE becomes
      the authoritative source of the LSP's attributes as long as the
      delegation is in effect (See Section 5.5 of
      [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]); the PCC may withdraw the delegation
      or the PCE may give up the delegation at any time.

   [I-D.sivabalan-pce-disco-stateful]and [RFC6006]defines the IGP
   extensions needed to support autodiscovery of stateful PCEs with P2MP
   capability.

5.  Architectural Overview of Protocol Extensions

5.1.  Extension of PCEP Messages

   New PCEP messages are defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]to
   support stateful PCE for P2P TE LSPs.  In this document these
   messages are extended to support P2MP TE LSPs.

   Path Computation State Report (PCRpt):  Each P2MP TE LSP State Report
      in a PCRpt message can contain actual P2MP TE LSP path attributes,
      LSP status, etc.  An LSP State Report carried on a PCRpt message
      is also used in delegation or revocation of control of a P2MP TE
      LSP to/from a PCE.  The extension of PCRpt message is described in
      Section 7.1.

   Path Computation Update Request (PCUpd):  Each P2MP TE LSP Update
      Request in a PCUpd message MUST contain all LSP parameters that a
      PCE wishes to set for a given P2MP TE 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 a P2MP TE LSP.
      The PCUpd message is described in Section 7.2.

5.2.  Capability Advertisement

   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 and as per
   Section 3.1 of [RFC6006], PCE advertises P2MP capability via IGP



Palle, et al.            Expires August 18, 2014                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                STATEFUL-P2MP                February 2014


   discovery or a P2MP capable TLV in open message.  These mechanism
   when used together indicates a stateful PCE with P2MP capability.

5.3.  State Synchronization

   State Synchronization operations described in Section 5.4 of
   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]are applicable for P2MP TE LSPs as well.

5.4.  LSP Delegation

   LSP delegation operations described in Section 5.5 of
   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]are applicable for P2MP TE LSPs as well.

5.5.  LSP Operations

5.5.1.  Passive Stateful PCE

   LSP operations for passive stateful PCE described in Section 5.6.1 of
   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]are applicable for P2MP TE LSPs as well.

   The Path Computation Request and Response message format for P2MP TE
   LSPs is as per Section 3.4 and Section 3.5 of [RFC6006]respectively.

   [Editor's Note: The Request and Response message should support LSP
   object, so that it is possible to refer to a LSP with a unique
   identifier and simplify the PCEP message exchange. for example,
   incase of modification of one leaf in a P2MP tree, there should be no
   need to carry the full P2MP tree in PCReq message.]

5.5.2.  Active Stateful PCE

   LSP operations for active stateful PCE described in Section 5.6.2 of
   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]are applicable for P2MP TE LSPs as well.

6.  PCEP Object Extensions

   The PCEP TLV defined in this document is compliant with the PCEP TLV
   format defined in [RFC5440].

6.1.  Extension of LSP Object

   LSP Object is defined in Section 7.3 of [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce].
   It specifies PLSP-ID to uniquely identify an LSP that is constant for
   the life time of a PCEP session.  Similarly for P2MP tunnel, PLSP-ID
   identify a P2MP TE LSP uniquely.  This document adds the following
   flags to the LSP Object:





Palle, et al.            Expires August 18, 2014                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                STATEFUL-P2MP                February 2014


   N (P2MP bit):  If the bit is set to 1, it specifies the message is
      for P2MP TE LSP which MUST be set in PCRpt or PCUpd message for a
      P2MP TE LSP.

   F (Fragmentation bit):  If the bit is set to 1, it specifies the
      message is fragmented.

   If P2MP bit is set, the following P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIER TLV MUST be
   present in LSP object.

6.2.  P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIER TLV

   The P2MP LSP Identifier TLV MUST be included in the LSP object in
   PCRpt message for RSVP-signaled P2MP TE LSPs.  If the TLV is missing,
   the PCE will generate an error with error-type 6 (mandatory object
   missing) and error-value TBD (12) (P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV missing)
   and close the PCEP session.

   The P2MP LSP Identifier TLV MAY be included in the LSP object in
   PCUpd message for RSVP-signaled P2MP TE LSPs.  The special value of
   all zeros for this TLV is used to refer to all paths pertaining to a
   particular PLSP-ID.

   There are two P2MP LSP Identifier TLVs, one for IPv4 and one for
   IPv6.

   The format of the IPV4-P2MP-LSP-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=16           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                   IPv4 Tunnel Sender Address                  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |             LSP ID            |           Tunnel ID           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                        Extended Tunnel ID                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                             P2MP ID                           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+



               Figure 1: IPV4-P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIER TLV format





Palle, et al.            Expires August 18, 2014                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                STATEFUL-P2MP                February 2014


   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.

   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.

   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.

   P2MP ID:  contains the 32-bit 'P2MP ID' identifier defined in
      Section 19.1.1 of [RFC4875]for the P2MP LSP Tunnel IPv4 SESSION
      Object.

   The format of the IPV6-P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIER TLV is shown in the
   following figure:


























Palle, et al.            Expires August 18, 2014                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                STATEFUL-P2MP                February 2014


    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=40           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                  IPv6 tunnel sender address                   |
   +                          (16 octets)                          +
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |             LSP ID            |           Tunnel ID           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                       Extended Tunnel ID                      |
   +                          (16 octets)                          +
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                             P2MP ID                           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


               Figure 2: IPV6-P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIER TLV format

   The type of the TLV is [TBD] and it has a fixed length of 24 octets.
   The value contains the following fields:

   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.

   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.




Palle, et al.            Expires August 18, 2014                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                STATEFUL-P2MP                February 2014


   P2MP ID:  As defined above in IPV4-P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV.

6.3.  S2L Object

   The S2L (Source-to-Leaf) Object is used to report RSVP state of one
   or more destiantions(leaves) encoded within the END-POINTS object for
   a P2MP TE LSP.  It MUST be carried in PCRpt message along with END-
   POINTS object when N bit is set in LSP object.

   The format of the S2L object 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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                             Flags                       |    O|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   //                      Optional TLVs                          //
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


                        Figure 3: S2L object format

   Flags(32 bits):

   O(Operational - 3 bits)  the O Field represents the operational
      status of the group of destinations.  The values are as per
      Operational field in LSP object defined in Section 7.3 of
      [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce].

   When N bit is set in LSP object then the O field in LSP object
   represents the operational status of the full P2MP TE LSP and the O
   field in S2L object represents the operational status of a group of
   destinations encoded within the END-POINTS object.

   Optional TLVs that may be included in the S2L Object.

   [Editor's Note: Further discussions are needed to find the need to
   encode Sub-Group Originator ID and Sub-Group ID in a TLVs.]

7.  PCEP Message Extensions








Palle, et al.            Expires August 18, 2014               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                STATEFUL-P2MP                February 2014


7.1.  The PCRpt Message

   As per Section 6.1 of [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce], PCRpt message is
   used to report the current state of a P2P TE LSP.  This document
   extends the PCRpt message in reporting the status of P2MP TE LSP.

   The format of PCRpt message is as follows:


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

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

   <state-report> ::= [<SRP>]
                       <LSP>
                       <end-point-path-pair-list>
                       <attribute-list>
   Where:

   <end-point-path-pair-list>::=
                      [<END-POINTS>]
                      <S2L>
                      <path>
                      [<end-point-path-pair-list>]

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

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


   The P2MP END-POINTS object defined in [RFC6006]is mandatory for
   specifying address of P2MP leaves grouped based on leaf types.

   o  New leaves to add (leaf type = 1)

   o  Old leaves to remove (leaf type = 2)

   o  Old leaves whose path can be modified/reoptimized (leaf type = 3)

   o  Old leaves whose path must be left unchanged (leaf type = 4)





Palle, et al.            Expires August 18, 2014               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                STATEFUL-P2MP                February 2014


   When reporting the status of a P2MP TE LSP, the destinations are
   grouped in END-POINTS object based on the operational status (O field
   in S2L object) and leaf type (in END-POINTS).  This way the leaves
   that share the same operational status are grouped together.  For
   reporing the status of delegated P2MP TE LSP, leaf-type = 3, where as
   for non-delegated P2MP TE LSP, leaf-type = 4 is used.

   For delegated P2MP TE LSP configuration changes are reported via
   PCRpt message.  For example, adding of new leaves END-POINTS (leaf-
   type = 1) is used where as removing of old leaves (leaf-type = 2) is
   used.

   Note that we preserve compatibility with the
   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]definition of <state-report>.  At least
   one instance of <END-POINTS> MUST be present in this message.

   [Editor Note: suggest to add <END-POINTS> object mandatory in
   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]document for <state-report>].

   During state synchronization, the PCRpt message must report the
   status of the full P2MP TE LSP.

7.2.  The PCUpd Message

   As per Section 6.2 of [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce], PCUpd message is
   used to update P2P TE LSP attributes.  This document extends the
   PCUpd message in updating the attributes of P2MP TE LSP.

   The format of a PCUpd message is as follows:






















Palle, et al.            Expires August 18, 2014               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                STATEFUL-P2MP                February 2014


      <PCUpd Message> ::= <Common Header>
                          <update-request-list>

      Where:

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

      <update-request> ::= <SRP>
                           <LSP>
                           <end-point-path-pair-list>

   <attribute-list>
      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.


   Note that we preserve compatibility with the
   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]definition of <update-request>.

7.3.  Example

7.3.1.  P2MP TE LSP Update Request

   LSP Update Request message is sent by an active stateful PCE to
   update the P2MP TE LSP parameters or attributes.  An example of a
   PCUpd message for P2MP TE LSP is described below:


              Common Header
              SRP
              LSP with P2MP flag set
              END-POINTS for leaf type 3
                ERO list

   In this example, a stateful PCE request updation of path taken by
   some of the leaves in a P2MP tree.  The update request uses the END-
   POINT type 3 (modified/reoptimized).  The ERO list represents the S2L



Palle, et al.            Expires August 18, 2014               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                STATEFUL-P2MP                February 2014


   path after modification.  The update message does not need to encode
   the full P2MP tree in this case.

7.3.2.  P2MP TE LSP Report

   LSP State Report message is sent by a PCC to report or delegate the
   P2MP TE LSP.  An example of a PCRpt message for a delegated P2MP TE
   LSP is described below to add new leaves to an existing P2MP TE LSP:


              Common Header
              LSP with P2MP flag set
              END-POINTS for leaf type 1
                S2L (O=DOWN)
                ERO list (empty)

   An example of a PCRpt message for P2MP TE LSP is described below to
   prune leaves from an existing P2MP TE LSP:


              Common Header
              LSP with P2MP flag set
              END-POINTS for leaf type 2
                S2L (O=UP)
                ERO list

   An example of a PCRpt message for a delegated P2MP TE LSP is
   described below to report status of leaves in an existing P2MP TE
   LSP:


              Common Header
              LSP with P2MP flag set
              END-POINTS for leaf type 3
                S2L (O=UP)
                ERO list
              END-POINTS for leaf type 3
                S2L (O=DOWN)
                ERO list

   An example of a PCRpt message for a non-delegated P2MP TE LSP is
   described below to report status of leaves:









Palle, et al.            Expires August 18, 2014               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                STATEFUL-P2MP                February 2014


              Common Header
              LSP with P2MP flag set
              END-POINTS for leaf type 4
                S2L (O=ACTIVE)
                ERO list
              END-POINTS for leaf type 4
                S2L (O=DOWN)
                ERO list

7.4.  Report and Update Message Fragmentation

   The total PCEP message length, including the common header, is 16
   bytes.  In certain scenarios the P2MP report and update request may
   not fit into a single PCEP message (initial report or update).  The
   F-bit is used in the LSP object to signal that the initial report or
   update was too large to fit into a single message and will be
   fragmented into multiple messages.  In order to identify the single
   report or update, each message will use the same PLSP-ID.

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

7.4.1.  Report Fragmentation Procedure

   If the initial report is too large to fit into a single report
   message, the PCC will split the report over multiple messages.  Each
   message sent to the PCE, except the last one, will have the F-bit set
   in the LSP object to signify that the report has been fragmented into
   multiple messages.  In order to identify that a series of report
   messages represents a single report, each message will use the same
   PLSP-ID.

7.4.2.  Update Fragmentation Procedure

   Once the PCE computes and updates a path for some or all leaves in a
   P2MP TE LSP, an update message is sent to the PCC.  If the update is
   too large to fit into a single update message, the PCE will split the
   update over multiple messages.  Each update message sent by the PCE,
   except the last one, will have the F-bit set in the LSP object to
   signify that the update has been fragmented into multiple messages.
   In order to identify that a series of update messages represents a
   single update, each message will use the same PLSP-ID and SRP-ID-
   number.

   [Editor Note: P2MP message fragmentation errors associated with a
   P2MP path report and update will be defined in future version].




Palle, et al.            Expires August 18, 2014               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft                STATEFUL-P2MP                February 2014


8.  Non-Support of P2MP TE LSPs for Stateful PCE

   The PCEP protocol extensions described in this document for stateful
   PCEs with P2MP capability MUST NOT be used if PCE has not advertised
   its stateful capability with P2MP as per Section 5.2.  If this is not
   the case and Stateful operations on P2MP TE LSPs are attempted, then
   a PCErr with error-type 19 (Invalid Operation) and error-value TBD
   needs to be generated.

   If a Stateful PCE receives a P2MP TE LSP report message and it
   understands the P2MP flag in the LSP object, but the stateful PCE is
   not capable of P2MP computation, the PCE MUST send a PCErr message
   with error-type 19 (Invalid Operation) and error-value TBD.

   If a Stateful PCE receives a P2MP TE LSP report message and the PCE
   does not understand the P2MP flag in the LSP object, and therefore
   the PCEP extensions described in this document, then the PCE SHOULD
   reject the request.

   [Editor Note: more information on exact error value is needed]

9.  Security Considerations

   TBD

10.  Manageability Considerations

10.1.  Control of Function and Policy

   TBD.

10.2.  Information and Data Models

   TBD.

10.3.  Liveness Detection and Monitoring

   TBD.

10.4.  Verify Correct Operations

   TBD.

10.5.  Requirements On Other Protocols

   TBD.





Palle, et al.            Expires August 18, 2014               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft                STATEFUL-P2MP                February 2014


10.6.  Impact On Network Operations

   TBD.

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.  Extension of 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

       24      P2MP                 This.I-D
       23      Fragmentation        This.I-D




11.2.  Extension of PCEP-Error Object

   A new error types 6 and 19 defined in section 8.4 of
   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce].  This document extend the new Error-
   Values for those error types for the following error conditions:


       Error-Type  Meaning
          6        Mandatory Object missing
                     Error-value=12: P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIER TLV missing
          19       Invalid Operation
                     Error-value= TBD.





Palle, et al.            Expires August 18, 2014               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft                STATEFUL-P2MP                February 2014


11.3.  PCEP TLV Type Indicators

   This document defines the following new PCEP TLVs:


          Value     Meaning                           Reference
            22      P2MP-IPV4-LSP-IDENTIFIERS         This.I-D
            23      P2MP-IPV6-LSP-IDENTIFIERS         This.I-D



12.  Acknowledgments

   Thanks to Quintin Zhao for his comments.

13.  References

13.1.  Normative References

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

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

   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]
              Crabbe, E., Medved, J., Minei, I., and R. Varga, "PCEP
              Extensions for Stateful PCE", draft-ietf-pce-stateful-
              pce-07 (work in progress), October 2013.

13.2.  Informative References

   [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.

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

   [RFC4857]  Fogelstroem, E., Jonsson, A., and C. Perkins, "Mobile IPv4
              Regional Registration", RFC 4857, June 2007.

   [RFC4875]  Aggarwal, R., Papadimitriou, D., and S. Yasukawa,
              "Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic
              Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE Label
              Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875, May 2007.




Palle, et al.            Expires August 18, 2014               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft                STATEFUL-P2MP                February 2014


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

   [RFC5671]  Yasukawa, S. and A. Farrel, "Applicability of the Path
              Computation Element (PCE) to Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP)
              MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 5671,
              October 2009.

   [RFC6006]  Zhao, Q., King, D., 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,
              September 2010.

   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app]
              Zhang, X. and I. Minei, "Applicability of Stateful Path
              Computation Element (PCE)", draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-
              app-01 (work in progress), September 2013.

   [I-D.sivabalan-pce-disco-stateful]
              Sivabalan, S., Medved, J., and X. Zhang, "IGP Extensions
              for Stateful PCE Discovery", draft-sivabalan-pce-disco-
              stateful-03 (work in progress), January 2014.

Authors' Addresses

   Udayasree Palle
   Huawei Technologies
   Leela Palace
   Bangalore, Karnataka  560008
   INDIA

   EMail: udayasree.palle@huawei.com


   Dhruv Dhody
   Huawei Technologies
   Leela Palace
   Bangalore, Karnataka  560008
   INDIA

   EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com








Palle, et al.            Expires August 18, 2014               [Page 19]


Internet-Draft                STATEFUL-P2MP                February 2014


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

   EMail: yosuke.tanaka@ntt.com


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

   EMail: y.kamite@ntt.com

































Palle, et al.            Expires August 18, 2014               [Page 20]


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