< draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-12.txt   draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-13.txt >
Network Working Group C. Margaria, Ed. Network Working Group C. Margaria, Ed.
Internet-Draft Juniper Internet-Draft Juniper
Intended status: Standards Track O. Gonzalez de Dios, Ed. Intended status: Standards Track O. Gonzalez de Dios, Ed.
Expires: March 31, 2019 Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo Expires: August 3, 2019 Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo
F. Zhang, Ed. F. Zhang, Ed.
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
September 27, 2018 January 30, 2019
PCEP extensions for GMPLS PCEP extensions for GMPLS
draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-12 draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-13
Abstract Abstract
The Path Computation Element (PCE) provides path computation
functions for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized
MPLS (GMPLS) networks. Additional requirements for GMPLS are
identified in RFC7025.
This memo provides extensions to the Path Computation Element This memo provides extensions to the Path Computation Element
communication Protocol (PCEP) for the support of GMPLS control plane. communication Protocol (PCEP) for the support of the GMPLS control
plane to address those requirements.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted 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 https://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 March 31, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 3, 2019.
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
(https://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. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. PCEP Requirements for GMPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. PCEP Requirements for GMPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3. Current GMPLS Support and Limitation of Base PCEP Objects 4 1.3. Requirements Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.4. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.3.1. Requirements on Path Computation Request . . . . . . 4
2. PCEP Objects and Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.3.2. Requirements on Path Computation Response . . . . . . 6
2.1. GMPLS Capability Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.4. GMPLS Support and Limitation of Base
PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2. PCEP Objects and Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.1. GMPLS Capability Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1.1. GMPLS Computation TLV in the Existing PCE Discovery 2.1.1. GMPLS Computation TLV in the Existing PCE Discovery
Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1.2. OPEN Object Extension GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV . . . . . 6 2.1.2. OPEN Object Extension GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV . . . . . 9
2.2. RP Object Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.2. RP Object Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3. BANDWIDTH Object Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.3. BANDWIDTH Object Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.4. LOAD-BALANCING Object Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.4. LOAD-BALANCING Object Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.5. END-POINTS Object Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.5. END-POINTS Object Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.5.1. Generalized Endpoint Object Type . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.5.1. Generalized Endpoint Object Type . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.5.2. END-POINTS TLV Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2.5.2. END-POINTS TLV Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.6. IRO Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 2.6. IRO Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.7. XRO Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 2.7. XRO Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.8. LSPA Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2.8. LSPA Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.9. NO-PATH Object Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2.9. NO-PATH Object Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.9.1. Extensions to NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV . . . . . . . . . . 21 2.9.1. Extensions to NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV . . . . . . . . . . 24
3. Additional Error-Types and Error-Values Defined . . . . . . . 21 3. Additional Error-Types and Error-Values Defined . . . . . . . 24
4. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 4. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.1. Control of Function through Configuration and Policy . . 23 4.1. Control of Function through Configuration and Policy . . 26
4.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 4.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 4.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.4. Verifying Correct Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 4.4. Verifying Correct Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components 24 4.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components 27
4.6. Impact on Network Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 4.6. Impact on Network Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.1. PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 5.1. PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.2. END-POINTS Object, Object Type Generalized Endpoint . . . 25 5.2. END-POINTS Object, Object Type Generalized Endpoint . . . 28
5.3. New PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 5.3. New PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.4. RP Object Flag Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 5.4. RP Object Flag Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.5. New PCEP Error Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 5.5. New PCEP Error Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.6. New NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 5.6. New NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.7. New Subobject for the Include Route Object . . . . . . . 28 5.7. New Subobject for the Include Route Object . . . . . . . 31
5.8. New Subobject for the Exclude Route Object . . . . . . . 28 5.8. New Subobject for the Exclude Route Object . . . . . . . 31
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
7. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 7. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Appendix A. LOAD-BALANCING Usage for SDH Virtual Concatenation . 35 Appendix A. LOAD-BALANCING Usage for SDH Virtual Concatenation . 39
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Although [RFC4655] defines the PCE architecture and framework for Although [RFC4655] defines the PCE architecture and framework for
both MPLS and GMPLS networks, most preexisting PCEP RFCs [RFC5440], both MPLS and GMPLS networks, most preexisting PCEP RFCs [RFC5440],
[RFC5521], [RFC5541], [RFC5520] are focused on MPLS networks, and do [RFC5521], [RFC5541], [RFC5520] are focused on MPLS networks, and do
not cover the wide range of GMPLS networks. This document not cover the wide range of GMPLS networks. This document
complements these RFCs by addressing the extensions required for complements these RFCs by addressing the extensions required for
GMPLS applications and routing requests, for example for OTN and WSON GMPLS applications and routing requests, for example for OTN and WSON
networks. networks.
The functional requirements to be considered by the PCEP extensions The functional requirements to be considered by the PCEP extensions
to support those application are described in [RFC7025] and to support those application are fully described in [RFC7025] and
[RFC7449]. [RFC7449].
1.1. Contributing Authors 1.1. Terminology
Elie Sfeir, Franz Rambach (Nokia Siemens Networks) Francisco Javier This document uses terminologies from the PCE architecture document
Jimenez Chico (Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo) Suresh BR, [RFC4655], the PCEP documents including [RFC5440], [RFC5521],
Young Lee, SenthilKumar S, Jun Sun (Huawei Technologies), Ramon [RFC5541], [RFC5520], [RFC7025] and [RFC7449], and the GMPLS
Casellas (CTTC) documents such as [RFC3471], [RFC3473] and so on. Note that it is
expected the reader is familiar with these documents.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
1.2. PCEP Requirements for GMPLS 1.2. PCEP Requirements for GMPLS
The document [RFC7025] describes the set of PCEP requirements to The document [RFC7025] describes the set of PCEP requirements to
support GMPLS TE-LSPs. When a PCC requests a PCE to perform a path support GMPLS TE-LSPs. This document assumes a significant
computation (by means of a PCReq message), the PCC should be able to familiarity with [RFC7025] and existing PCEP extension. As a short
indicate the following additional information: overview, those requirements can be broken down in the following
categories.
o Which data flow is switched by the LSP: a combination of Switching o Which data flow is switched by the LSP: a combination of Switching
type (for instance L2SC or TDM), LSP Encoding type (e.g., type (for instance L2SC or TDM), LSP Encoding type (e.g.,
Ethernet, SONET/SDH) and sometimes the Signal Type (e.g. in case Ethernet, SONET/SDH) and sometimes the Signal Type (e.g. in case
of TDM/LSC switching capability) of TDM/LSC switching capability).
o Data flow specific traffic parameters, which are technology o Data flow specific traffic parameters, which are technology
specific. For instance, in SDH/SONET and G.709 OTN networks the specific. For instance, in SDH/SONET and G.709 OTN networks the
Concatenation Type and the Concatenation Number have an influence Concatenation Type and the Concatenation Number have an influence
on the switched data and on which link it can be supported on the switched data and on which link it can be supported
o Support for asymmetric bandwidth requests. o Support for asymmetric bandwidth requests.
o Support for unnumbered interface identifiers, as defined in o Support for unnumbered interface identifiers, as defined in
[RFC3477] [RFC3477]
o Label information and technology specific label(s) such as o Label information and technology specific label(s) such as
wavelength labels as defined in [RFC6205]. A PCC should also be wavelength labels as defined in [RFC6205]. A PCC should also be
able to specify a Label restriction similar to the one supported able to specify a Label restriction similar to the one supported
by RSVP-TE (Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering). by RSVP-TE (Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering).
o Ability to indicate the requested granularity for the path ERO: o Ability to indicate the requested granularity for the path ERO:
node, link or label. This is to allow the use of the explicit node, link or label. This is to allow the use of the explicit
label control feature of RSVP-TE. label control feature of RSVP-TE.
We describe in this document a set of PCEP protocol extensions, The requirements of [RFC7025] apply to several objects conveyed by
including new object types, TLVs, encodings, error codes and PCEP, this is described in Section 1.3. Some of the requirements of
procedures, in order to fulfill the aforementioned requirements. [RFC7025] are already supported in existing documents, as described
in Section 1.4.
1.3. Current GMPLS Support and Limitation of Base PCEP Objects This document describes a set of PCEP extensions, including new
object types, TLVs, encodings, error codes and procedures, in order
to fulfill the aforementioned requirements not covered in existing
RFCs.
PCEP as of [RFC5440], [RFC5521] and [RFC8282], supports the following 1.3. Requirements Applicability
objects, included in requests and responses related to the described
requirements. This section follows the organization of [RFC7025] Section 3 and
indicates, for each requirement, the affected piece of information
carried by PCEP and its scope.
1.3.1. Requirements on Path Computation Request
(1) Switching capability/type: as described in [RFC3471] this piece
of information is used with the Encoding Type and Signal Type
to fully describe the switching technology and data carried by
the TE-LSP. This is applicable to the TE-LSP itself and also
to the TE-LSP endpoint (Carried in the END-POINTS object for
MPLS networks in [RFC5440]) when considering multiple network
layers. Inter-layer path computation requirements are
addressed in in [RFC8282] which addressing the TE-LSP itself,
but the TE-LSP endpoints are not addressed.
(2) Encoding type: see (1).
(3) Signal type: see (1).
(4) Concatenation type: this parameter and the Concatenation Number
(5) are specific to some TDM (SDH and ODU) switching
technology. They MUST be described together and are used to
derive the requested resource allocation for the TE-LSP. Its
scoped to the TE-LSP and is related to the BANDWIDTH object in
MPLS networks.
(5) Concatenation number: see (4).
(6) Technology-specific label(s): as described in [RFC3471] the
GMPLS Labels are specific to each switching technology. They
can be specified on each link and also on the TE-LSP endpoints
, in WSON networks for instance, as described in [RFC6163].
The label restriction can apply to endpoints and on each hop,
the related PCEP objects are END-POINTS, IRO, XRO and RRO.
(7) End-to-End (E2E) path protection type: as defined in [RFC4872],
this is applicable to the TE-LSP. In MPLS networks the related
PCEP object is LSPA (carrying local protection information).
(8) Administrative group: as defined in [RFC3630], this information
is already carried in the LSPA object.
(9) Link protection type: as defined in [RFC4872], this is
applicable to the TE-LSP and is carried in association with the
E2E path protection type.
(10) Support for unnumbered interfaces: as defined in [RFC3477].
Its scope and related objects are the same as labels
(11) Support for asymmetric bandwidth requests: as defined
[RFC6387], the scope is similar to (4)
(12) Support for explicit label control during the path computation.
This affects the TE-LSP and amount of information returned in
the ERO.
(13) Support of label restrictions in the requests/responses: This
is described in (6).
1.3.2. Requirements on Path Computation Response
(1) Path computation with concatenation: This is related to Path
Computation request requirement (4). In addition there is a
specific type of concatenation called virtual concatenation that
allows different routes to be used between the endpoints. Its
similar to the semantic and scope of the LOAD-BALANCING in MPLS
networks.
(2) Label constraint: The PCE should be able to include Labels in
the path returned to the PCC, the related object is the ERO
object.
(3) Roles of the routes: as defined in [RFC4872], this is applicable
to the TE-LSP and is carried in association with the E2E path
protection type.
1.4. GMPLS Support and Limitation of Base PCEP Objects
The support for requirements [RFC7025] is summarized in Table 1 and
Table 2
Req. Name Support
1 Switching capability/type SWITCH-LAYER
(RFC8282)
2 Encoding type SWITCH-LAYER
(RFC8282)
3 Signal type SWITCH-LAYER
(RFC8282)
4 Concatenation type No
5 Concatenation number No
6 Technology-specific label (Partial) ERO
(RFC5440)
7 End-to-End (E2E) path protection type No
8 Administrative group LSPA (RFC5440)
9 Link protection type No
10 Support for unnumbered interfaces (Partial) ERO
(RFC5440)
11 Support for asymmetric bandwidth requests No
12 Support for explicit label control during the No
path computation
13 Support of label restrictions in the No
requests/responses
Table 1: RFC7025 Section 3.1 requirements support
Req. Name Support
1 Path computation with concatenation No
2 Label constraint No
3 Roles of the routes No
Table 2: RFC7025 Section 3.2 requirements support
As described in Section 1.3 PCEP as of [RFC5440], [RFC5521] and
[RFC8282], supports the following objects, included in requests and
responses, related to the described requirements.
From [RFC5440]: From [RFC5440]:
o END-POINTS: only numbered endpoints are considered. The context o END-POINTS: related to requirements (1, 2, 3, 6, 10 and 13). The
specifies whether they are node identifiers or numbered object only supports numbered endpoints. The context specifies
interfaces. whether they are node identifiers or numbered interfaces.
o BANDWIDTH: the data rate is encoded in the bandwidth object (as o BANDWIDTH: related to requirements (4, 5 and 11). The data rate
IEEE 32 bit float). [RFC5440] does not include the ability to is encoded in the bandwidth object (as IEEE 32 bit float).
convey an encoding proper to all GMPLS-controlled networks. [RFC5440] does not include the ability to convey an encoding
proper to all GMPLS-controlled networks.
o ERO: Unnumbered IDs are supported. o ERO: related to requirements (6, 10, 12 and 13). The ERO content
is defined in RSVP and supports all the requirements already.
o LSPA: LSP attributes (setup and holding priorities) o LSPA: related to requirements (7, 8 and 9). The requirement 8
(setup and holding priorities) is already supported.
From [RFC5521]: From [RFC5521]:
o XRO object: o XRO object:
* This object allows excluding (strict or not) resources, and * This object allows excluding (strict or not) resources and is
includes the requested diversity (node, link or SRLG). related to requirements (6, 10 and 13). It also includes the
requested diversity (node, link or SRLG).
* When the F bit is set, the request indicates that the existing * When the F bit is set, the request indicates that the existing
path has failed and the resources present in the RRO can be path has failed and the resources present in the RRO can be
reused. reused.
From [RFC8282]: From [RFC8282]:
o INTER-LAYER: indicates whether inter-layer computation is allowed o SWITCH-LAYER: address requirements (1, 2 and 3) for the TE-LSP and
indicates which layer(s) should be considered, can be used to
o SWITCH-LAYER: indicates which layer(s) should be considered, can represent the RSVP-TE generalized label request. It does not
be used to represent the RSVP-TE generalized label request address the endpoints case of requirements (1, 2 and 3).
o REQ-ADAP-CAP: indicates the adaptation capabilities requested, can o REQ-ADAP-CAP: indicates the adaptation capabilities requested, can
also be used for the endpoints in case of mono-layer computation also be used for the endpoints in case of mono-layer computation
The shortcomings of the base PCEP object are: The gaps in functional coverage of the base PCEP objects are:
The BANDWIDTH and LOAD-BALANCING objects do not describe the The BANDWIDTH and LOAD-BALANCING objects do not describe the
details of the traffic request (for example NVC, multiplier) in details of the traffic request (requirements 4 and 5, for example
the context of GMPLS networks, for instance TDM or OTN networks. NVC, multiplier) in the context of GMPLS networks, for instance
TDM or OTN networks.
The END-POINTS object does not allow specifying an unnumbered The END-POINTS object does not allow specifying an unnumbered
interface, nor potential label restrictions on the interface. interface, nor potential label restrictions on the interface
Those parameters are of interest in case of switching constraints. (requirements 6, 10 and 13). Those parameters are of interest in
case of switching constraints.
The Inclue/eXclude Route Objects (IRO/XRO) do not allow the The Include/eXclude Route Objects (IRO/XRO) do not allow the
inclusion/exclusion of labels. inclusion/exclusion of labels (requirements 6, 10 and 13).
Base attributes do not allow expressing the requested link protection Base attributes do not allow expressing the requested link
level and/or the end-to-end protection attributes. protection level and/or the end-to-end protection attributes.
The covered PCEP extensions are: The PCEP extensions defined later in this document to cover the gap
are:
Two new object types are introduced for the BANDWIDTH Two new object types are introduced for the BANDWIDTH object
object(Generalized bandwidth, Generalized bandwidth of existing (Generalized bandwidth, Generalized bandwidth of existing TE-LSP
TE-LSP for which a reoptimization is requested for which a for which a reoptimization is requested).
reoptimization is requested).
A new object type is introduced for the LOAD-BALANCING object A new object type is introduced for the LOAD-BALANCING object
(Generalized Load Balancing). (Generalized Load Balancing).
A new object type is introduced for the END-POINTS object A new object type is introduced for the END-POINTS object
(Generalized Endpoint). (Generalized Endpoint).
A new TLV is added to the OPEN message for capability negotiation. A new TLV is added to the OPEN message for capability negotiation.
A new TLV is added to the LSPA object. A new TLV is added to the LSPA object.
A new TLV type for label is allowed in IRO and XRO objects. The Label TLV is now allowed in the IRO and XRO objects.
In order to indicate the used routing granularity in the response, In order to indicate the used routing granularity in the response,
a new flag in the RP object is added. a new flag in the RP object is added.
1.4. 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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. PCEP Objects and Extensions 2. PCEP Objects and Extensions
This section describes the necessary PCEP objects and extensions. This section describes the necessary PCEP objects and extensions.
The PCReq and PCRep messages are defined in [RFC5440]. This document The PCReq and PCRep messages are defined in [RFC5440]. This document
does not change the existing grammars does not change the existing grammars.
2.1. GMPLS Capability Advertisement 2.1. GMPLS Capability Advertisement
2.1.1. GMPLS Computation TLV in the Existing PCE Discovery Protocol 2.1.1. GMPLS Computation TLV in the Existing PCE Discovery Protocol
IGP-based PCE Discovery (PCED) is defined in [RFC5088] and [RFC5089] IGP-based PCE Discovery (PCED) is defined in [RFC5088] and [RFC5089]
for the OSPF and IS-IS protocols. Those documents have defined bit 0 for the OSPF and IS-IS protocols. Those documents have defined bit 0
in PCE-CAP-FLAGS Sub-TLV of the PCED TLV as "Path computation with in PCE-CAP-FLAGS Sub-TLV of the PCED TLV as "Path computation with
GMPLS link constraints". This capability can be used to detect GMPLS link constraints". This capability can be used to detect
GMPLS-capable PCEs. GMPLS-capable PCEs.
skipping to change at page 6, line 32 skipping to change at page 9, line 26
In addition to the IGP advertisement, a PCEP speaker SHOULD be able In addition to the IGP advertisement, a PCEP speaker SHOULD be able
to discover the other peer GMPLS capabilities during the Open message to discover the other peer GMPLS capabilities during the Open message
exchange. This capability is also useful to avoid misconfigurations. exchange. This capability is also useful to avoid misconfigurations.
This document defines a new OPTIONAL GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV for use in This document defines a new OPTIONAL GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV for use in
the OPEN object to negotiate the GMPLS capability. The inclusion of the OPEN object to negotiate the GMPLS capability. The inclusion of
this TLV in the OPEN message indicates that the PCC/PCE support the this TLV in the OPEN message indicates that the PCC/PCE support the
PCEP extensions defined in the document. A PCE that is able to PCEP extensions defined in the document. A PCE that is able to
support the GMPLS extensions defined in this document SHOULD include support the GMPLS extensions defined in this document SHOULD include
the GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV on the OPEN message. If the PCE does not the GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV on the OPEN message. If the PCE does not
include the GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV in the OPEN message and PCC does include the GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV in the OPEN message and the PCC does
include the TLV, it is RECOMMENDED that the PCC indicates a mismatch include the TLV, it is RECOMMENDED that the PCC indicates a mismatch
of capabilities. Moreover, in case that the PCC does not receive the of capabilities. Moreover, in case that the PCC does not receive the
GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV it is RECOMMENDED that the PCC does not make use GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV it is RECOMMENDED that the PCC does not make use
of the objects and TLVs defined in this document. of the objects and TLVs defined in this document.
IANA has allocated value TBA-1 from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" IANA has allocated value TBA-1 from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators"
sub-registry, as documented in Section 5.3 ("New PCEP TLVs"). The sub-registry, as documented in Section 5.3 ("New PCEP TLVs"). The
description is "GMPLS-CAPABILITY". Its format is shown in the description is "GMPLS-CAPABILITY". Its format is shown in the
following figure. following figure.
skipping to change at page 7, line 8 skipping to change at page 9, line 51
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags | | Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
No Flags are defined in this document, they are reserved for future No Flags are defined in this document, they are reserved for future
use. use.
2.2. RP Object Extension 2.2. RP Object Extension
Explicit label control (ELC) is a procedure supported by RSVP-TE, Explicit label control (ELC) is a procedure supported by RSVP-TE,
where the outgoing label(s) is(are) encoded in the ERO. As a where the outgoing labels are encoded in the ERO. As a consequence,
consequence, the PCE can provide such label(s) directly in the path the PCE can provide such labels directly in the path ERO. Depending
ERO. Depending on policies or switching layer, it can be necessary on policies or switching layer, it can be necessary for the PCC to
for the PCC to use explicit label control or expect explicit link, use explicit label control or expect explicit link, thus it needs to
thus it need to indicate in the PCReq which granularity it is indicate in the PCReq which granularity it is expecting in the ERO.
expecting in the ERO. This corresponds to requirement 12 of This corresponds to requirement 12 of [RFC7025]. The possible
[RFC7025] The possible granularities can be node, link or label. The granularities can be node, link or label. The granularities are
granularities are inter-dependent, in the sense that link granularity inter-dependent, in the sense that link granularity implies the
implies the presence of node information in the ERO; similarly, a presence of node information in the ERO; similarly, a label
label granularity implies that the ERO contains node, link and label granularity implies that the ERO contains node, link and label
information. information.
A new 2-bit routing granularity (RG) flag (Bits TBA-13) is defined in A new 2-bit routing granularity (RG) flag (Bits TBA-13) is defined in
the RP object. The values are defined as follows the RP object. The values are defined as follows
0: reserved 0: reserved
1: node 1: node
2: link 2: link
3: label 3: label
Table 1: RG flag Table 3: RG flag
The flag in the RP object indicates the requested route granularity. The flag in the RP object indicates the requested route granularity.
The PCE SHOULD follow this granularity and MAY return a NO-PATH if The PCE SHOULD follow this granularity and MAY return a NO-PATH if
the requested granularity cannot be provided. The PCE MAY return any the requested granularity cannot be provided. The PCE MAY return any
granularity on the route based on its policy. The PCC can decide if granularity on the route based on its policy. The PCC can decide if
the ERO is acceptable based on its content. the ERO is acceptable based on its content.
If a PCE honored the requested routing granularity for a request, it If a PCE honored the requested routing granularity for a request, it
MUST indicate the selected routing granularity in the RP object MUST indicate the selected routing granularity in the RP object
included in the response. Otherwise, the PCE MUST use the reserved included in the response. Otherwise, the PCE MUST use the reserved
skipping to change at page 8, line 14 skipping to change at page 11, line 10
TSpec and FlowSpec objects. This document extends the BANDWIDTH TSpec and FlowSpec objects. This document extends the BANDWIDTH
object with new object types reusing the RSVP-TE encoding. object with new object types reusing the RSVP-TE encoding.
The following possibilities are supported by the extended encoding: The following possibilities are supported by the extended encoding:
o Asymmetric bandwidth (different bandwidth in forward and reverse o Asymmetric bandwidth (different bandwidth in forward and reverse
direction), as described in [RFC6387] direction), as described in [RFC6387]
o GMPLS (SDH/SONET, G.709, ATM, MEF etc) parameters. o GMPLS (SDH/SONET, G.709, ATM, MEF etc) parameters.
This correspond to requirement 3, 4, 5 and 11 of [RFC7025] section This corresponds to requirements 3, 4, 5 and 11 of [RFC7025] section
3.1. 3.1.
This document defines two Object Types for the BANDWIDTH object: This document defines two Object Types for the BANDWIDTH object:
TBA-2 Generalized bandwidth TBA-2 Generalized bandwidth
TBA-3 Generalized bandwidth of an existing TE-LSP for which a TBA-3 Generalized bandwidth of an existing TE-LSP for which a
reoptimization is requested reoptimization is requested
The definitions below apply for Object Type TBA-2 and TBA-3. The The definitions below apply for Object Type TBA-2 and TBA-3. The
skipping to change at page 9, line 26 skipping to change at page 12, line 21
Object Type Name Reference Object Type Name Reference
2 Intserv [RFC2210] 2 Intserv [RFC2210]
4 SONET/SDH [RFC4606] 4 SONET/SDH [RFC4606]
5 G.709 [RFC4328] 5 G.709 [RFC4328]
6 Ethernet [RFC6003] 6 Ethernet [RFC6003]
7 OTN-TDM [RFC7139] 7 OTN-TDM [RFC7139]
8 SSON [RFC7792] 8 SSON [RFC7792]
Table 2: Generalized Bandwidth and Reverse Generalized Bandwidth Table 4: Generalized Bandwidth and Reverse Generalized Bandwidth
field encoding field encoding
When a PCC requests a bi-directional path with symmetric bandwidth, When a PCC requests a bi-directional path with symmetric bandwidth,
it SHOULD only specify the Generalized Bandwidth field, and set the it SHOULD only specify the Generalized Bandwidth field, and set the
Reverse Bandwidth Spec Length to 0. When a PCC needs to request a Reverse Bandwidth Spec Length to 0. When a PCC needs to request a
bi-directional path with asymmetric bandwidth, it SHOULD specify the bi-directional path with asymmetric bandwidth, it SHOULD specify the
different bandwidth in the forward and reverse directions with a different bandwidth in the forward and reverse directions with a
Generalized Bandwidth and Reverse Generalized Bandwidth fields. Generalized Bandwidth and Reverse Generalized Bandwidth fields.
The procedure described in [RFC5440] for the PCRep is unchanged: a The procedure described in [RFC5440] for the PCRep is unchanged: a
skipping to change at page 11, line 13 skipping to change at page 14, line 7
Max-LSP (8 bits): maximum number of TE-LSPs in the set. Max-LSP (8 bits): maximum number of TE-LSPs in the set.
Min Bandwidth Spec (variable): specifies the minimum bandwidth Min Bandwidth Spec (variable): specifies the minimum bandwidth
specification of each element of the TE-LSP set. specification of each element of the TE-LSP set.
Min Reverse Bandwidth Spec (variable): specifies the minimum reverse Min Reverse Bandwidth Spec (variable): specifies the minimum reverse
bandwidth specification of each element of the TE-LSP set. bandwidth specification of each element of the TE-LSP set.
The encoding of the fields Min Bandwidth Spec and Min Reverse The encoding of the fields Min Bandwidth Spec and Min Reverse
Bandwidth Spec is the same as in RSVP-TE SENDER_TSPEC object, it can Bandwidth Spec is the same as in RSVP-TE SENDER_TSPEC object, it can
be found in Table 2 from Section 2.3. be found in Table 4 from Section 2.3.
When a PCC requests a bi-directional path with symetric bandwidth When a PCC requests a bi-directional path with symmetric bandwidth
while specifying load balancing constraints it SHOULD specify the Min while specifying load balancing constraints it SHOULD specify the Min
Bandwidth Spec field, and set the Reverse Bandwidth Spec Length to 0. Bandwidth Spec field, and set the Reverse Bandwidth Spec Length to 0.
When a PCC needs to request a bi-directional path with asymmetric When a PCC needs to request a bi-directional path with asymmetric
bandwidth while specifying load balancing constraints, it MUST bandwidth while specifying load balancing constraints, it MUST
specify the different bandwidth in forward and reverse directions specify the different bandwidth in forward and reverse directions
through a Min Bandwidth Spec and Min Reverse Bandwidth Spec fields. through a Min Bandwidth Spec and Min Reverse Bandwidth Spec fields.
OPTIONAL TLVs MAY be included within the object body to specify more OPTIONAL TLVs MAY be included within the object body to specify more
specific bandwidth requirements. No TLVs for the Generalized Load specific bandwidth requirements. No TLVs for the Generalized Load
Balancing object type are defined by this document. Balancing object type are defined by this document.
skipping to change at page 12, line 7 skipping to change at page 14, line 50
o Specification of unnumbered endpoints type as seen in GMPLS o Specification of unnumbered endpoints type as seen in GMPLS
networks. networks.
The Object encoding is described in the following sections. The Object encoding is described in the following sections.
In path computation within a GMPLS context the endpoints can: In path computation within a GMPLS context the endpoints can:
o Be unnumbered as described in [RFC3477]. o Be unnumbered as described in [RFC3477].
o Have label(s) associated to them, specifying a set of constraints o Have labels associated to them, specifying a set of constraints in
in the allocation of labels. the allocation of labels.
o Have different switching capabilities o Have different switching capabilities
The IPv4 and IPv6 endpoints are used to represent the source and The IPv4 and IPv6 endpoints are used to represent the source and
destination IP addresses. The scope of the IP address (Node or destination IP addresses. The scope of the IP address (Node or
numbered Link) is not explicitly stated. It is also possible to numbered Link) is not explicitly stated. It is also possible to
request a Path between a numbered link and an unnumbered link, or a request a Path between a numbered link and an unnumbered link, or a
P2MP path between different type of endpoints. P2MP path between different type of endpoints.
This document defines the Generalized Endpoint object type TBA-5 for This document defines the Generalized Endpoint object type TBA-5 for
skipping to change at page 13, line 40 skipping to change at page 16, line 35
0 Point-to-Point 0 Point-to-Point
1 Point-to-Multipoint New leaves to add 1 Point-to-Multipoint New leaves to add
2 Old leaves to remove 2 Old leaves to remove
3 Old leaves whose path can be 3 Old leaves whose path can be
modified/reoptimized modified/reoptimized
4 Old leaves whose path has to be 4 Old leaves whose path has to be
left unchanged left unchanged
5-244 Reserved 5-244 Reserved
245-255 Experimental range 245-255 Experimental range
Table 3: Generalized Endpoint endpoint types Table 5: Generalized Endpoint endpoint types
The Endpoint Type is used to cover both point-to-point and different The Endpoint Type is used to cover both point-to-point and different
point-to-multipoint endpoints. A PCE may accept only Endpoint Type point-to-multipoint endpoints. A PCE may accept only Endpoint Type
0: Endpoint Types 1-4 apply if the PCE implementation supports P2MP 0: Endpoint Types 1-4 apply if the PCE implementation supports P2MP
path calculation. A PCE not supporting a given Endpoint Type SHOULD path calculation. A PCE not supporting a given Endpoint Type SHOULD
respond with a PCErr with Error Type 4, Value TBD "Unsupported respond with a PCErr with Error Type 4, Value TBD "Unsupported
endpoint type in END-POINTS Generalized Endpoint object type". As endpoint type in END-POINTS Generalized Endpoint object type". As
per [RFC5440], a PCE unable to process Generalized Endpoints may per [RFC5440], a PCE unable to process Generalized Endpoints may
respond with Error Type 3 or 4, Value 2. The TLVs present in the respond with Error Type 3 or 4, Value 2. The TLVs present in the
request object body MUST follow the following [RFC5511] grammar: request object body MUST follow the following [RFC5511] grammar:
skipping to change at page 14, line 34 skipping to change at page 17, line 34
[<endpoint-restriction-list>] [<endpoint-restriction-list>]
<endpoint-restriction> ::= <endpoint-restriction> ::=
<LABEL-REQUEST><label-restriction-list> <LABEL-REQUEST><label-restriction-list>
<label-restriction-list> ::= <label-restriction> <label-restriction-list> ::= <label-restriction>
[<label-restriction-list>] [<label-restriction-list>]
<label-restriction> ::= <LABEL-SET> <label-restriction> ::= <LABEL-SET>
The different TLVs are described in the following sections. A PCE The different TLVs are described in the following sections. A PCE
MAY support IPV4-ADDRESS, IPV6-ADDRESS or UNNUMBERED-ENDPOINT TLVs. MAY support any or all of IPV4-ADDRESS, IPV6-ADDRESS, and UNNUMBERED-
When receiving a PCReq, a PCE unable to resolve the identifier in one ENDPOINT TLVs. When receiving a PCReq, a PCE unable to resolve the
of those TLVs MUST respond using a PCRep with NO-PATH and set the bit identifier in one of those TLVs MUST respond using a PCRep with NO-
"Unknown destination" or "Unknown source" in the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV. PATH and set the bit "Unknown destination" or "Unknown source" in the
The response SHOULD include the END-POINTS object with only the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV. The response SHOULD include the END-POINTS
unsupported TLV(s). object with only the unsupported TLV(s).
A PCE MAY support LABEL-REQUEST or LABEL-SET TLVs. If a PCE finds a A PCE MAY support either or both of the LABEL-REQUEST and LABEL-SET
non-supported TLV in the END-POINTS the PCE MUST respond with a PCErr TLVs. If a PCE finds a non-supported TLV in the END-POINTS the PCE
message with Error Type 4 error value="Unsupported TLV present in MUST respond with a PCErr message with Error Type 4 error
END-POINTS Generalized Endpoint object type" and the message SHOULD value="Unsupported TLV present in END-POINTS Generalized Endpoint
include the END-POINTS object in the response with only the endpoint object type" and the message SHOULD include the END-POINTS object in
and endpoint restriction TLV it did not understand. A PCE supporting the response with only the endpoint and endpoint restriction TLV it
those TLVs but not being able to fulfil the label restriction MUST did not understand. A PCE supporting those TLVs but not being able
send a response with a NO-PATH object which has the bit "No endpoint to fulfil the label restriction MUST send a response with a NO-PATH
label resource" or "No endpoint label resource in range" set in the object which has the bit "No endpoint label resource" or "No endpoint
NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV. The response SHOULD include an END-POINTS object label resource in range" set in the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV. The response
containing only the TLV(s) related to the constraints the PCE could SHOULD include an END-POINTS object containing only the TLV(s)
not meet. related to the constraints the PCE could not meet.
2.5.2. END-POINTS TLV Extensions 2.5.2. END-POINTS TLV Extensions
All endpoint TLVs have the standard PCEP TLV header as defined in All endpoint TLVs have the standard PCEP TLV header as defined in
[RFC5440] section 7.1. In this object type the order of the TLVs [RFC5440] section 7.1. In this object type the order of the TLVs
MUST be followed according to the object type definition. MUST be followed according to the object type definition.
2.5.2.1. IPV4-ADDRESS TLV 2.5.2.1. IPV4-ADDRESS TLV
This TLV represents a numbered endpoint using IPv4 numbering, the This TLV represents a numbered endpoint using IPv4 numbering, the
skipping to change at page 22, line 25 skipping to change at page 25, line 25
Generalized Endpoint object type. Generalized Endpoint object type.
value=TBA-17: Unsupported granularity in the RP object value=TBA-17: Unsupported granularity in the RP object
flags. flags.
10 Reception of 10 Reception of
an invalid an invalid
object object
value=TBA-18: Bad Bandwidth Object type TBA-2(Generalized value=TBA-18: Bad Bandwidth Object type TBA-2(Generalized
bandwidth) or TBA-3( Generalized bandwidth bandwidth) or TBA-3( Generalized bandwidth
of existing TE-LSP for which a of existing TE-LSP for which a
reoptimization is requested). reoptimization is requested).
value=TBA-19: Unsupported LSP Protection Type in
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
value=TBA-20: Unsupported LSP Protection Flags in value=TBA-20: Unsupported LSP Protection Flags in
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
value=TBA-21: Unsupported Secondary LSP Protection Flags value=TBA-21: Unsupported Secondary LSP Protection Flags
in PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. in PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
value=TBA-22: Unsupported Link Protection Type in value=TBA-22: Unsupported Link Protection Type in
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
value=TBA-23: Unsupported Link Protection Type in
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
value=TBA-24: LABEL-SET TLV present with 0 bit set but value=TBA-24: LABEL-SET TLV present with 0 bit set but
without R bit set in RP. without R bit set in RP.
value=TBA-25: Wrong LABEL-SET value=TBA-25: Wrong LABEL-SET
TLV present with TLV present with
0 and L bit set. 0 and L bit set.
value=TBA-26: Wrong LABEL-SET with O bit set and wrong value=TBA-26: Wrong LABEL-SET with O bit set and wrong
format. format.
TBA-27 Path TBA-27 Path
computation computation
failure failure
skipping to change at page 24, line 29 skipping to change at page 27, line 29
4.6. Impact on Network Operation 4.6. Impact on Network Operation
This document makes no change to the basic operations of PCEP and This document makes no change to the basic operations of PCEP and
considerations described in [RFC5440] Section 8.6. In addition to considerations described in [RFC5440] Section 8.6. In addition to
the limit on the rate of messages sent by a PCEP speaker, a limit MAY the limit on the rate of messages sent by a PCEP speaker, a limit MAY
be placed on the size of the PCEP messages. be placed on the size of the PCEP messages.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
IANA assigns values to the PCEP protocol objects and TLVs. IANA is IANA assigns values to the PCEP objects and TLVs. IANA is requested
requested to make some allocations for the newly defined objects and to make some allocations for the newly defined objects and TLVs
TLVs introduced in this document. Also, IANA is requested to manage introduced in this document. Also, IANA is requested to manage the
the space of flags that are newly added in the TLVs. space of flags that are newly added in the TLVs.
5.1. PCEP Objects 5.1. PCEP Objects
As described in Section 2.3, Section 2.4 and Section 2.5.1 new As described in Section 2.3, Section 2.4 and Section 2.5.1 new
Objects types are defined. IANA is requested to make the following Objects types are defined. IANA is requested to make the following
Object-Type allocations from the "PCEP Objects" sub-registry. Object-Type allocations from the "PCEP Objects" sub-registry.
Object 5 Object 5
Class Class
Name BANDWIDTH Name BANDWIDTH
skipping to change at page 25, line 31 skipping to change at page 28, line 31
Name END-POINTS Name END-POINTS
Object-Type TBA-5: Generalized Endpoint Object-Type TBA-5: Generalized Endpoint
Reference This document (section Section 2.5) Reference This document (section Section 2.5)
5.2. END-POINTS Object, Object Type Generalized Endpoint 5.2. END-POINTS Object, Object Type Generalized Endpoint
IANA is requested to create a registry to manage the Endpoint Type IANA is requested to create a registry to manage the Endpoint Type
field of the END-POINTS object, Object Type Generalized Endpoint and field of the END-POINTS object, Object Type Generalized Endpoint and
manage the code space. manage the code space.
New endpoint type in the Reserved range MAY be allocated by an IETF New endpoint type in the Reserved range are assigned by Standards
consensus action. Each endpoint type should be tracked with the Action [RFC8126]. Each endpoint type should be tracked with the
following qualities: following qualities:
o Endpoint type o Endpoint type
o Description o Description
o Defining RFC o Defining RFC
New endpoint type in the Experimental range are for experimental use; New endpoint type in the Experimental range are for experimental use;
these will not be registered with IANA and MUST NOT be mentioned by these will not be registered with IANA and MUST NOT be mentioned by
RFCs. RFCs.
The following values have been defined by this document. The following values have been defined by this document.
(Section 2.5.1, Table 3): (Section 2.5.1, Table 5):
Value Type Meaning Value Type Meaning
0 Point-to-Point 0 Point-to-Point
1 Point-to-Multipoint New leaves to add 1 Point-to-Multipoint New leaves to add
2 Old leaves to remove 2 Old leaves to remove
3 Old leaves whose path can be 3 Old leaves whose path can be
modified/reoptimized modified/reoptimized
4 Old leaves whose path has to be 4 Old leaves whose path has to be
left unchanged left unchanged
skipping to change at page 26, line 34 skipping to change at page 29, line 34
do the following allocation. The values here are suggested for use do the following allocation. The values here are suggested for use
by IANA. by IANA.
Value Meaning Reference Value Meaning Reference
TBA-6 IPV4-ADDRESS This document (section Section 2.5.2.1) TBA-6 IPV4-ADDRESS This document (section Section 2.5.2.1)
TBA-7 IPV6-ADDRESS This document (section Section 2.5.2.2) TBA-7 IPV6-ADDRESS This document (section Section 2.5.2.2)
TBA-8 UNNUMBERED-ENDPOINT This document (section Section 2.5.2.3) TBA-8 UNNUMBERED-ENDPOINT This document (section Section 2.5.2.3)
TBA-9 LABEL-REQUEST This document (section Section 2.5.2.4) TBA-9 LABEL-REQUEST This document (section Section 2.5.2.4)
TBA-10 LABEL-SET This document (section Section 2.5.2.5) TBA-10 LABEL-SET This document (section Section 2.5.2.5)
TBA-11 SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET This document (section Section 2.5.2.5)
TBA-12 PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE This document (section Section 2.8) TBA-12 PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE This document (section Section 2.8)
TBA-1 GMPLS-CAPABILITY This document (section Section 2.1.2) TBA-1 GMPLS-CAPABILITY This document (section Section 2.1.2)
5.4. RP Object Flag Field 5.4. RP Object Flag Field
As described in Section 2.2 new flag are defined in the RP Object As described in Section 2.2 new flag are defined in the RP Object
Flag IANA is requested to make the following Object-Type allocations Flag IANA is requested to make the following Object-Type allocations
from the "RP Object Flag Field" sub-registry. The values here are from the "RP Object Flag Field" sub-registry. The values here are
suggested for use by IANA. suggested for use by IANA.
Bit Description Reference Bit Description Reference
TBA-13 (suggested bit routing granularity This document, Section TBA-13 routing granularity This document, Section 2.2
17-16) (RG) 2.2 (suggested bit 17-16) (RG)
5.5. New PCEP Error Codes 5.5. New PCEP Error Codes
As described in Section 3, new PCEP Error-Types and Error-values are As described in Section 3, new PCEP Error-Types and Error-values are
defined. IANA is requested to make the following allocation in the defined. IANA is requested to make the following allocation in the
"PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" registry. The values here "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" registry. The values here
are suggested for use by IANA. are suggested for use by IANA.
Error name Reference Error name Reference
Type=4 Not supported object [RFC5440] Type=4 Not supported object [RFC5440]
Value=TBA-14: Bandwidth Object type TBA or TBA not This Document Value=TBA-14: Bandwidth Object type TBA-2 or TBA-3 not This Document
supported. supported.
Value=TBA-15: Unsupported endpoint type in END-POINTS This Document Value=TBA-15: Unsupported endpoint type in END-POINTS This Document
Generalized Endpoint object type Generalized Endpoint object type
Value=TBA-16: Unsupported TLV present in END-POINTS This Document Value=TBA-16: Unsupported TLV present in END-POINTS This Document
Generalized Endpoint object type Generalized Endpoint object type
Value=TBA-17: Unsupported granularity in the RP object This Document Value=TBA-17: Unsupported granularity in the RP object This Document
flags flags
Type=10 Reception of an invalid object [RFC5440] Type=10 Reception of an invalid object [RFC5440]
Value=TBA-18: Bad Bandwidth Object type This Document Value=TBA-18: Bad Bandwidth Object type This Document
TBA-2(Generalized bandwidth) or TBA-2(Generalized bandwidth) or
TBA-3(Generalized bandwidth of existing TBA-3(Generalized bandwidth of existing
TE-LSP for which a reoptimization is TE-LSP for which a reoptimization is
requested). requested).
Value=TBA-19: Unsupported LSP Protection Type in This Document
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
Value=TBA-20: Unsupported LSP Protection Flags in This Document Value=TBA-20: Unsupported LSP Protection Flags in This Document
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
Value=TBA-21: Unsupported Secondary LSP Protection This Document Value=TBA-21: Unsupported Secondary LSP Protection This Document
Flags in PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. Flags in PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
Value=TBA-22: Unsupported Link Protection Type in This Document Value=TBA-22: Unsupported Link Protection Type in This Document
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
Value=TBA-23: Unsupported Link Protection Type in This Document
PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
Value=TBA-24: LABEL-SET TLV present with 0 bit set but This Document Value=TBA-24: LABEL-SET TLV present with 0 bit set but This Document
without R bit set in RP. without R bit set in RP.
Value=TBA-25: Wrong LABEL-SET TLV present with 0 and L This Document Value=TBA-25: Wrong LABEL-SET TLV present with 0 and L This Document
bit set. bit set.
Value=TBA-26: Wrong LABEL-SET with O bit set and wrong This Document Value=TBA-26: Wrong LABEL-SET with O bit set and wrong This Document
format. format.
Type=TBA-27 Path computation failure This Document Type=TBA-27 Path computation failure This Document
Value=0 Unassigned. This Document Value=0 Unassigned. This Document
Value=TBA-28: Unacceptable request message. This Document Value=TBA-28: Unacceptable request message. This Document
Value=TBA-29: Generalized bandwidth value not This Document Value=TBA-29: Generalized bandwidth value not This Document
skipping to change at page 29, line 28 skipping to change at page 32, line 28
part of a network infrastructure. The PCE can then play a key role part of a network infrastructure. The PCE can then play a key role
in the use of the resources and in determining the physical paths of in the use of the resources and in determining the physical paths of
the LSPs and thus it is important to ensure the identity of PCE and the LSPs and thus it is important to ensure the identity of PCE and
PCC, as well as the communication channel. In many deployments there PCC, as well as the communication channel. In many deployments there
will be a completely isolated network where an external attack is of will be a completely isolated network where an external attack is of
very low probability. However, there are other deployment cases in very low probability. However, there are other deployment cases in
which the PCC-PCE communication can be more exposed and there could which the PCC-PCE communication can be more exposed and there could
be more security considerations. Three main situations in case of an be more security considerations. Three main situations in case of an
attack in the GMPLS PCE context could happen: attack in the GMPLS PCE context could happen:
o PCE Identity theft: A legitimate PCC could requests a path for a o PCE Identity theft: A legitimate PCC could request a path for a
GMPLS LSP to a malicious PCE, which poses as a legitimate PCE. GMPLS LSP to a malicious PCE, which poses as a legitimate PCE.
The answer can make that the LSP traverses some geographical place The answer can make that the LSP traverses some geographical place
known to the attacker where some sniffing devices could be known to the attacker where some sniffing devices could be
installed. Also, the answer can omit constraints given in the installed. Also, the answer can omit constraints given in the
requests (e.g. excluding certain fibers, avoiding some SRLGs) requests (e.g. excluding certain fibers, avoiding some SRLGs)
which could make that the LSP which will be later set-up can look which could make that the LSP which will be later set-up can look
perfectly fine, but will be in a risky situation. Also, the perfectly fine, but will be in a risky situation. Also, the
answer can lead to provide a LSP that does not provide the desired answer can lead to provide a LSP that does not provide the desired
quality and gives less resources tan necessary. quality and gives less resources than necessary.
o PCC Identity theft: A malicious PCC, acting as a legitimate PCC, o PCC Identity theft: A malicious PCC, acting as a legitimate PCC,
requesting LSP paths to a legitimate PCE can obtain a good requesting LSP paths to a legitimate PCE can obtain a good
knowledge of the physical topology of a critical infrastructure. knowledge of the physical topology of a critical infrastructure.
It could get to know enough details to plan a later physical It could get to know enough details to plan a later physical
attack. attack.
o Message deciphering: As in the previous case, knowledge of an o Message inspection: As in the previous case, knowledge of an
infrastructure can be obtained by sniffing PCEP messages. infrastructure can be obtained by sniffing PCEP messages.
The security mechanisms can provide authentication and The security mechanisms can provide authentication and
confidentiality for those scenarios where the PCC-PCE communication confidentiality for those scenarios where the PCC-PCE communication
cannot be completely trusted. Authentication can provide origin cannot be completely trusted. [RFC8253] provides origin
verification, message integrity and replay protection, while verification, message integrity and replay protection, and ensures
confidentiality ensures that a third party cannot decipher the that a third party cannot decipher the contents of a message.
contents of a message.
In order to protect against against the malicious PCE case the PCC
SHOULD have policies in place to accept or not the path provided by
the PCE. Those policies can verify if the path follows the provided
constraints. In addition Technology specific data plane mechanism
can be used (following [RFC5920] Section 5.8) to verify the data
plane connectivity and deviation from constraints.
The document [RFC8253] describes the usage of Transport Layer The document [RFC8253] describes the usage of Transport Layer
Security (TLS) to enhance PCEP security. The document describes the Security (TLS) to enhance PCEP security. The document describes the
initiation of the TLS procedures, the TLS handshake mechanisms, the initiation of the TLS procedures, the TLS handshake mechanisms, the
TLS methods for peer authentication, the applicable TLS ciphersuites TLS methods for peer authentication, the applicable TLS ciphersuites
for data exchange, and the handling of errors in the security checks. for data exchange, and the handling of errors in the security checks.
Finally, as mentioned by [RFC7025] the PCEP extensions to support Finally, as mentioned by [RFC7025] the PCEP extensions to support
GMPLS should be considered under the same security as current PCE GMPLS should be considered under the same security as current PCE
work and this extension will not change the underlying security work and this extension will not change the underlying security
skipping to change at page 31, line 45 skipping to change at page 35, line 8
8. Acknowledgments 8. Acknowledgments
The research of Ramon Casellas, Francisco Javier Jimenez Chico, Oscar The research of Ramon Casellas, Francisco Javier Jimenez Chico, Oscar
Gonzalez de Dios, Cyril Margaria, and Franz Rambach leading to these Gonzalez de Dios, Cyril Margaria, and Franz Rambach leading to these
results has received funding from the European Community's Seventh results has received funding from the European Community's Seventh
Framework Program FP7/2007-2013 under grant agreement no 247674 and Framework Program FP7/2007-2013 under grant agreement no 247674 and
no 317999. no 317999.
The authors would like to thank Julien Meuric, Lyndon Ong, Giada The authors would like to thank Julien Meuric, Lyndon Ong, Giada
Lander, Jonathan Hardwick and Diego Lopez for their useful comments Lander, Jonathan Hardwick, Diego Lopez, David Sinicrope, Vincent Roca
to the document. and Tianran Zhou for their review and useful comments to the
document.
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. 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, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
skipping to change at page 32, line 34 skipping to change at page 35, line 41
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol- Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3473, January 2003, DOI 10.17487/RFC3473, January 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3473>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3473>.
[RFC3477] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered Links [RFC3477] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered Links
in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, DOI 10.17487/RFC3477, January 2003, (RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, DOI 10.17487/RFC3477, January 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3477>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3477>.
[RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3630>.
[RFC4003] Berger, L., "GMPLS Signaling Procedure for Egress [RFC4003] Berger, L., "GMPLS Signaling Procedure for Egress
Control", RFC 4003, DOI 10.17487/RFC4003, February 2005, Control", RFC 4003, DOI 10.17487/RFC4003, February 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4003>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4003>.
[RFC4328] Papadimitriou, D., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label [RFC4328] Papadimitriou, D., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical
Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328, Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4328, January 2006, DOI 10.17487/RFC4328, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4328>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4328>.
[RFC4606] Mannie, E. and D. Papadimitriou, "Generalized Multi- [RFC4606] Mannie, E. and D. Papadimitriou, "Generalized Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for
Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous
Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control", RFC 4606, Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control", RFC 4606,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4606, August 2006, DOI 10.17487/RFC4606, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4606>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4606>.
[RFC4802] Nadeau, T., Ed., Farrel, A., and , "Generalized [RFC4802] Nadeau, T., Ed. and A. Farrel, Ed., "Generalized
Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering
Management Information Base", RFC 4802, Management Information Base", RFC 4802,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4802, February 2007, DOI 10.17487/RFC4802, February 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4802>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4802>.
[RFC4872] Lang, J., Ed., Rekhter, Y., Ed., and D. Papadimitriou, [RFC4872] Lang, J., Ed., Rekhter, Y., Ed., and D. Papadimitriou,
Ed., "RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End Ed., "RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Recovery", RFC 4872, DOI 10.17487/RFC4872, May 2007, Recovery", RFC 4872, DOI 10.17487/RFC4872, May 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4872>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4872>.
skipping to change at page 34, line 44 skipping to change at page 38, line 12
DOI 10.17487/RFC7139, March 2014, DOI 10.17487/RFC7139, March 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7139>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7139>.
[RFC7792] Zhang, F., Zhang, X., Farrel, A., Gonzalez de Dios, O., [RFC7792] Zhang, F., Zhang, X., Farrel, A., Gonzalez de Dios, O.,
and D. Ceccarelli, "RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions in and D. Ceccarelli, "RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions in
Support of Flexi-Grid Dense Wavelength Division Support of Flexi-Grid Dense Wavelength Division
Multiplexing (DWDM) Networks", RFC 7792, Multiplexing (DWDM) Networks", RFC 7792,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7792, March 2016, DOI 10.17487/RFC7792, March 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7792>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7792>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8253] Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody, [RFC8253] Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody,
"PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the "PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)", Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)",
RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017, RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253>.
[RFC8282] Oki, E., Takeda, T., Farrel, A., and F. Zhang, "Extensions [RFC8282] Oki, E., Takeda, T., Farrel, A., and F. Zhang, "Extensions
to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
(PCEP) for Inter-Layer MPLS and GMPLS Traffic (PCEP) for Inter-Layer MPLS and GMPLS Traffic
Engineering", RFC 8282, DOI 10.17487/RFC8282, December Engineering", RFC 8282, DOI 10.17487/RFC8282, December
skipping to change at page 35, line 32 skipping to change at page 39, line 5
[RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS [RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, DOI 10.17487/RFC5920, July 2010, Networks", RFC 5920, DOI 10.17487/RFC5920, July 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5920>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5920>.
[RFC6123] Farrel, A., "Inclusion of Manageability Sections in Path [RFC6123] Farrel, A., "Inclusion of Manageability Sections in Path
Computation Element (PCE) Working Group Drafts", RFC 6123, Computation Element (PCE) Working Group Drafts", RFC 6123,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6123, February 2011, DOI 10.17487/RFC6123, February 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6123>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6123>.
[RFC6163] Lee, Y., Ed., Bernstein, G., Ed., and W. Imajuku,
"Framework for GMPLS and Path Computation Element (PCE)
Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs)",
RFC 6163, DOI 10.17487/RFC6163, April 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6163>.
[RFC7025] Otani, T., Ogaki, K., Caviglia, D., Zhang, F., and C. [RFC7025] Otani, T., Ogaki, K., Caviglia, D., Zhang, F., and C.
Margaria, "Requirements for GMPLS Applications of PCE", Margaria, "Requirements for GMPLS Applications of PCE",
RFC 7025, DOI 10.17487/RFC7025, September 2013, RFC 7025, DOI 10.17487/RFC7025, September 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7025>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7025>.
[RFC7449] Lee, Y., Ed., Bernstein, G., Ed., Martensson, J., Takeda, [RFC7449] Lee, Y., Ed., Bernstein, G., Ed., Martensson, J., Takeda,
T., Tsuritani, T., and O. Gonzalez de Dios, "Path T., Tsuritani, T., and O. Gonzalez de Dios, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Requirements for Wavelength Switched Optical Network Requirements for Wavelength Switched Optical Network
(WSON) Routing and Wavelength Assignment", RFC 7449, (WSON) Routing and Wavelength Assignment", RFC 7449,
 End of changes. 65 change blocks. 
169 lines changed or deleted 323 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/