draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-03.txt   draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-04.txt 
PCE Working Group S. Sivabalan PCE Working Group S. Sivabalan
Internet-Draft J. Medved Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc. Intended status: Standards Track J. Tantsura
Expires: December 25, 2015 I. Minei Expires: October 27, 2017 Individual
I. Minei
Google, Inc. Google, Inc.
E. Crabbe
Individual Contributor
R. Varga R. Varga
Pantheon Technologies SRO Pantheon Technologies SRO
J. Tantsura
Ericsson
J. Hardwick J. Hardwick
Metaswitch Networks Metaswitch Networks
June 23, 2015 April 25, 2017
Conveying path setup type in PCEP messages Conveying path setup type in PCEP messages
draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-03.txt draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-04
Abstract Abstract
A Path Computation Element can compute traffic engineering paths (TE A Path Computation Element can compute traffic engineering paths (TE
paths) through a network that are subject to various constraints. paths) through a network that are subject to various constraints.
Currently, TE paths are label switched paths (LSPs) which are set up Currently, TE paths are label switched paths (LSPs) which are set up
using the RSVP-TE signaling protocol. However, other TE path setup using the RSVP-TE signaling protocol. However, other TE path setup
methods are possible within the PCE architecture. This document methods are possible within the PCE architecture. This document
proposes an extension to PCEP to allow support for different path proposes an extension to PCEP to allow support for different path
setup methods over a given PCEP session. setup methods over a given PCEP session.
skipping to change at page 2, line 7 skipping to change at page 1, line 49
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 http://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 December 25, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on October 27, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 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 (http://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
skipping to change at page 2, line 35 skipping to change at page 2, line 31
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Path Setup Type TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Path Setup Type TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.2. New Path Setup Type Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.2. New Path Setup Type Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.3. PCEP-Error Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.3. PCEP-Error Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
[RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) for [RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) for
communication between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a Path communication between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a Path
Control Element (PCE) or between one a pair of PCEs. A PCC requests Control Element (PCE) or between one a pair of PCEs. A PCC requests
a path subject to various constraints and optimization criteria from a path subject to various constraints and optimization criteria from
a PCE. The PCE responds to the PCC with a hop-by-hop path in an a PCE. The PCE responds to the PCC with a hop-by-hop path in an
Explicit Route Object (ERO). The PCC uses the ERO to set up the path Explicit Route Object (ERO). The PCC uses the ERO to set up the path
skipping to change at page 6, line 32 skipping to change at page 6, line 32
Error Types and Values registry for a new error-type and the Error Types and Values registry for a new error-type and the
following new error-values: following new error-values:
Error-Type Meaning Error-Type Meaning
21 Invalid traffic engineering path setup type 21 Invalid traffic engineering path setup type
Error-value=0: Unassigned Error-value=0: Unassigned
Error-value=1: Unsupported path setup type Error-value=1: Unsupported path setup type
Error-value=2: Mismatched path setup type Error-value=2: Mismatched path setup type
7. Acknowledgements 7. Contributors
The following people contributed to this document:
- Jan Medved
- Edward Crabbe
8. Acknowledgements
We like to thank Marek Zavodsky for valuable comments. We like to thank Marek Zavodsky for valuable comments.
8. Normative References 9. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]
Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "PCEP Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "PCEP
Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
Model", draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-04 (work in Model", draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-09 (work in
progress), April 2015. progress), March 2017.
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]
Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "PCEP Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "PCEP
Extensions for Stateful PCE", draft-ietf-pce-stateful- Extensions for Stateful PCE", draft-ietf-pce-stateful-
pce-11 (work in progress), April 2015. pce-18 (work in progress), December 2016.
[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, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP. and JL. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
(PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, March Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
2009. DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Siva Sivabalan Siva Sivabalan
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
2000 Innovation Drive 2000 Innovation Drive
Kanata, Ontario K2K 3E8 Kanata, Ontario K2K 3E8
Canada Canada
Email: msiva@cisco.com Email: msiva@cisco.com
Jan Medved Jeff Tantsura
Cisco Systems, Inc. Individual
170 West Tasman Dr.
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Email: jmedved@cisco.com Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com
Ina Minei Ina Minei
Google, Inc. Google, Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043 Mountain View, CA 94043
USA USA
Email: inaminei@google.com Email: inaminei@google.com
Edward Crabbe
Individual Contributor
Robert Varga Robert Varga
Pantheon Technologies SRO Pantheon Technologies SRO
Mlynske Nivy 56 Mlynske Nivy 56
Bratislava, 821 05 Bratislava, 821 05
Slovakia Slovakia
Email: robert.varga@pantheon.sk Email: robert.varga@pantheon.sk
Jeff Tantsura
Ericsson
300 Holger Way
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Email: jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com
Jon Hardwick Jon Hardwick
Metaswitch Networks Metaswitch Networks
100 Church Street 100 Church Street
Enfield, Middlesex Enfield, Middlesex
UK UK
Email: jon.hardwick@metaswitch.com Email: jon.hardwick@metaswitch.com
 End of changes. 18 change blocks. 
39 lines changed or deleted 33 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/