< draft-chen-pce-compute-backup-egress-13.txt   draft-chen-pce-compute-backup-egress-14.txt >
Internet Engineering Task Force H. Chen Internet Engineering Task Force H. Chen
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies Internet-Draft Futurewei
Intended status: Standards Track April 30, 2018 Intended status: Standards Track July 7, 2019
Expires: November 1, 2018 Expires: January 8, 2020
Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
for Backup Egress of a Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path for Backup Egress of a Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path
draft-chen-pce-compute-backup-egress-13.txt draft-chen-pce-compute-backup-egress-14.txt
Abstract Abstract
This document presents extensions to the Path Computation Element This document presents extensions to the Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCEP) for a PCC to send a request for Communication Protocol (PCEP) for a PCC to send a request for
computing a backup egress for an MPLS TE P2MP LSP or an MPLS TE P2P computing a backup egress for an MPLS TE P2MP LSP or an MPLS TE P2P
LSP to a PCE and for a PCE to compute the backup egress and reply to LSP to a PCE and for a PCE to compute the backup egress and reply to
the PCC with a computation result for the backup egress. the PCC with a computation result for the backup egress.
Status of this Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 1, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 8, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document.
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 Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Extensions to PCEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Extensions to PCEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.1. Backup Egress Capability Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.1. Backup Egress Capability Advertisement . . . . . . . . . 3
4.1.1. Capability TLV in Existing PCE Discovery Protocol . . 4 4.1.1. Capability TLV in Existing PCE Discovery Protocol . . 3
4.1.2. Open Message Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1.2. Open Message Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Request and Reply Message Extension . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.2. Request and Reply Message Extension . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2.1. RP Object Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.2.1. RP Object Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2.2. External Destination Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.2.2. External Destination Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2.3. Constraints between Egress and Backup Egress . . . . . 11 4.2.3. Constraints between Egress and Backup Egress . . . . 11
4.2.4. Constraints for Backup Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.2.4. Constraints for Backup Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2.5. Backup Egress Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.2.5. Backup Egress Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2.6. Backup Egress PCEP Error Objects and Types . . . . . . 12 4.2.6. Backup Egress PCEP Error Objects and Types . . . . . 12
4.2.7. Request Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.2.7. Request Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2.8. Reply Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.2.8. Reply Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.1. Backup Egress Capability Flag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6.1. Backup Egress Capability Flag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.2. Backup Egress Capability TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6.2. Backup Egress Capability TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.3. Request Parameter Bit Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6.3. Request Parameter Bit Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.4. PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6.4. PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
RFC 4655 "A Path Computation Element-(PCE) Based Architecture" RFC 4655 "A Path Computation Element-(PCE) Based Architecture"
describes a set of building blocks for constructing solutions to describes a set of building blocks for constructing solutions to
compute Point-to-Point (P2P) Traffic Engineering (TE) label switched compute Point-to-Point (P2P) Traffic Engineering (TE) label switched
paths across multiple areas or Autonomous System (AS) domains. A paths across multiple areas or Autonomous System (AS) domains. A
typical PCE-based system comprises one or more path computation typical PCE-based system comprises one or more path computation
servers, traffic engineering databases (TED), and a number of path servers, traffic engineering databases (TED), and a number of path
computation clients (PCC). A routing protocol is used to exchange computation clients (PCC). A routing protocol is used to exchange
skipping to change at page 13, line 27 skipping to change at page 13, line 27
<attribute-list>::= [<OF>] <attribute-list>::= [<OF>]
[<LSPA>] [<LSPA>]
[<BANDWIDTH>] [<BANDWIDTH>]
[<metric-list>] [<metric-list>]
[<IRO>] [<IRO>]
The definitions for RP, NO-PATH, END-POINTS, OF, LSPA, BANDWIDTH, The definitions for RP, NO-PATH, END-POINTS, OF, LSPA, BANDWIDTH,
metric-list, IRO, and SERO are described in RFC5440, RFC6006 and metric-list, IRO, and SERO are described in RFC5440, RFC6006 and
RFC4875. RFC4875.
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
The mechanism described in this document does not raise any new The mechanism described in this document does not raise any new
security issues for the PCEP, OSPF or IS-IS protocols. security issues for the PCEP, OSPF or IS-IS protocols.
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
This section specifies requests for IANA allocation. This section specifies requests for IANA allocation.
6.1. Backup Egress Capability Flag 6.1. Backup Egress Capability Flag
skipping to change at page 14, line 47 skipping to change at page 14, line 47
7. Acknowledgement 7. Acknowledgement
The author would like to thank Ramon Casellas, Dhruv Dhody and The author would like to thank Ramon Casellas, Dhruv Dhody and
Quintin Zhao for their valuable comments on this draft. Quintin Zhao for their valuable comments on this draft.
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/ Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001, Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
[RFC4090] Pan, P., Ed., Swallow, G., Ed., and A. Atlas, Ed., "Fast [RFC4090] Pan, P., Ed., Swallow, G., Ed., and A. Atlas, Ed., "Fast
Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090, Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4090, May 2005, DOI 10.17487/RFC4090, May 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4090>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4090>.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
[RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Ed., and S. [RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Ed., and S.
Yasukawa, Ed., "Extensions to Resource Reservation Yasukawa, Ed., "Extensions to Resource Reservation
Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to- Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-
Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875, Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4875, May 2007, DOI 10.17487/RFC4875, May 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4875>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4875>.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
[RFC6006] Zhao, Q., Ed., King, D., Ed., Verhaeghe, F., Takeda, T., [RFC6006] Zhao, Q., Ed., King, D., Ed., Verhaeghe, F., Takeda, T.,
Ali, Z., and J. Meuric, "Extensions to the Path Ali, Z., and J. Meuric, "Extensions to the Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for
Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched
Paths", RFC 6006, DOI 10.17487/RFC6006, September 2010, Paths", RFC 6006, DOI 10.17487/RFC6006, September 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6006>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6006>.
8.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, DOI 10.17487/ Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
RFC4655, August 2006, DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[RFC5862] Yasukawa, S. and A. Farrel, "Path Computation Clients [RFC5862] Yasukawa, S. and A. Farrel, "Path Computation Clients
(PCC) - Path Computation Element (PCE) Requirements for (PCC) - Path Computation Element (PCE) Requirements for
Point-to-Multipoint MPLS-TE", RFC 5862, DOI 10.17487/ Point-to-Multipoint MPLS-TE", RFC 5862,
RFC5862, June 2010, DOI 10.17487/RFC5862, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5862>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5862>.
Author's Address Author's Address
Huaimo Chen Huaimo Chen
Huawei Technologies Futurewei
Boston, MA Boston, MA
USA USA
Email: Huaimo.chen@huawei.com Email: Huaimo.chen@futurewei.com
 End of changes. 18 change blocks. 
54 lines changed or deleted 50 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/