draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-05.txt   draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-06.txt 
PCE Working Group S. Sivabalan PCE Working Group S. Sivabalan
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc. Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track J. Tantsura Intended status: Standards Track J. Tantsura
Expires: May 3, 2018 Individual Expires: May 24, 2018 Individual
I. Minei I. Minei
Google, Inc. Google, Inc.
R. Varga R. Varga
Pantheon Technologies SRO Pantheon Technologies SRO
J. Hardwick J. Hardwick
Metaswitch Networks Metaswitch Networks
October 30, 2017 November 20, 2017
Conveying path setup type in PCEP messages Conveying path setup type in PCEP messages
draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-05 draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-06
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 1, line 42 skipping to change at page 1, line 42
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
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 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 May 3, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 24, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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
(https://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
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Path Setup Type TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Path Setup Type Capability TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Path Setup Type TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.2. New Path Setup Type Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.3. PCEP-Error Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7.2. New Path Setup Type Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7.3. PCEP-Error Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
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 Computation Element (PCE), or between a PCE and a PCE. A PCC
a path subject to various constraints and optimization criteria from requests a path subject to various constraints and optimization
a PCE. The PCE responds to the PCC with a hop-by-hop path in an criteria from a PCE. The PCE responds to the PCC with a hop-by-hop
Explicit Route Object (ERO). The PCC uses the ERO to set up the path path in an Explicit Route Object (ERO). The PCC uses the ERO to set
in the network. up the path in the network.
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] specifies extensions to PCEP that allow a [RFC8231] specifies extensions to PCEP that allow a PCC to delegate
PCC to delegate its LSPs to a PCE. The PCE can then update the state its LSPs to a PCE. The PCE can then update the state of LSPs
of LSPs delegated to it. In particular, the PCE may modify the path delegated to it. In particular, the PCE may modify the path of an
of an LSP by sending a new ERO. The PCC uses this ERO to re-route LSP by sending a new ERO. The PCC uses this ERO to re-route the LSP
the LSP in a make-before-break fashion. in a make-before-break fashion. [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]
[I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] specifies a mechanism allowing a PCE specifies a mechanism allowing a PCE to dynamically instantiate an
to dynamically instantiate an LSP on a PCC by sending the ERO and LSP on a PCC by sending the ERO and characteristics of the LSP. The
characteristics of the LSP. The PCC signals the LSP using the ERO PCC creates the LSP using the ERO and other attributes sent by the
and other attributes sent by the PCE. PCE.
So far, the PCEP protocol and its extensions implicitly assume that So far, PCEP and its extensions have assumed that the TE paths are
the TE paths are label switched, and are established via the RSVP-TE label switched and are established via the RSVP-TE protocol.
protocol. However, other methods of LSP setup are not precluded. However, other methods of LSP setup are possible in the PCE
When a new path setup method (other than RSVP-TE) is introduced for architecture (see [RFC4655] and [RFC4657]). This document introduces
setting up a path, a new capability TLV pertaining to the new path a TLV called "PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY" which allows a PCEP speaker
setup method MAY be advertised when the PCEP session is established. to announce the path setup types it supports when the PCEP session is
Such capability TLV MUST be defined in the specification of the new established. When a new path setup type (other than RSVP-TE) is
path setup type. When multiple path setup methods are deployed in a introduced for setting up a path, a path setup type code and,
network, a given PCEP session may have to simultaneously support more optionally, a sub-TLV pertaining to the new path setup type will be
than one path setup types. In this case, the intended path setup defined by the document that specifies the new path setup type.
method needs to be either explicitly indicated or implied in the
appropriate PCEP messages (when necessary) so that both the PCC and When multiple path setup types are deployed in a network, a given
the PCE can take the necessary steps to set up the path. This PCEP session may have to simultaneously support more than one path
document introduces a generic TLV called "PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV" and setup type. In this case, the intended path setup type needs to be
specifies the base procedures to facilitate such operational model. either explicitly indicated or implied in the appropriate PCEP
messages (when necessary) so that both the PCC and the PCE can take
the necessary steps to set up the path. This document introduces a
generic TLV called "PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV" and specifies the base
procedures to facilitate this operational model.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
The following terminologies are used in this document: The following terminologies are used in this document:
ERO: Explicit Route Object. ERO: Explicit Route Object.
LSR: Label Switching Router. LSR: Label Switching Router.
PCC: Path Computation Client. PCC: Path Computation Client.
PCE: Path Computation Element PCE: Path Computation Element.
PCEP: Path Computation Element Protocol. PCEP: Path Computation Element Protocol.
PST: Path Setup Type.
TLV: Type, Length, and Value. TLV: Type, Length, and Value.
3. Path Setup Type TLV 3. Path Setup Type Capability TLV
A PCEP speaker indicates which PSTs it supports during the PCEP
Initialization phase, as follows. When the PCEP session is created,
it sends an Open message with an OPEN object containing the PATH-
SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV. The format of this TLV is as follows.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type (TBD1) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | PST length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// List of PSTs (variable) //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Optional sub-TLVs (variable) //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV
The TLV type is TBD1 (to be assigned by IANA). Its reserved field
MUST be set to zero. The other fields in the TLV are as follows.
PST length: The length of the list of supported PSTs, in octets,
excluding padding.
List of PSTs: A list of the PSTs that the PCEP speaker supports.
Each PST is a single octet in length. Duplicate entries in this
list MUST be ignored. The PCEP speaker MUST pad the list with
zeros so that it is a muliple of four octets in length.
Optional sub-TLVs: A list of sub-TLVs associated with the supported
PSTs. Each sub-TLV MUST obey the rules for TLV formatting defined
in ([RFC5440]). That is, each sub-TLV MUST be padded to a four
byte alignment, and the length field of each sub-TLV MUST NOT
include the padding bytes. This document does not define any sub-
TLVs.
This document defines the following PST value:
o PST = 0: Path is setup using the RSVP-TE signaling protocol.
The overall TLV length MUST be equal to the size of the appended sub-
TLVs plus the PST length (rounded up to the nearest multiple of four)
plus four bytes for the reserved field and PST length field. The PST
length field MUST be greater than zero. If a PCEP speaker receives a
PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV which violates these rules, then the
PCEP speaker MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type = 10
(Reception of an invalid object) and Error-Value = 11 (Malformed
object) and MUST close the PCEP session. The PCEP speaker MAY
include the malformed OPEN object in the PCErr message as well.
If a PCEP speaker receives an OPEN object with more than one PATH-
SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV then it MUST ignore all but the first
instance of this TLV.
The absence of the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV from the OPEN
object is equivalent to a PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV containing a
single PST of 0 (RSVP-TE signaling protocol) and no sub-TLVs. It is
RECOMMENDED that a PCEP speaker omits the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY
TLV if the only PST it supports is RSVP-TE. If a PCEP speaker
supports other PSTs besides RSVP-TE, then it SHOULD include the PATH-
SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV in its OPEN object.
If a PCEP speaker does not recognize the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY
TLV, it MUST ignore the TLV in accordance with ([RFC5440]). If a
PCEP speaker recognizes the TLV but does not support the TLV, it MUST
send a PCErr message with Error-Type = 2 (Capability not supported)
and MUST close the PCEP session.
4. Path Setup Type TLV
When a PCEP session is used to set up TE paths using different When a PCEP session is used to set up TE paths using different
methods, the corresponding PCE and PCC must be aware of the path methods, the corresponding PCE and PCC must be aware of the path
setup method used. That means, a PCE must be able to specify paths setup method used. That means, a PCE must be able to specify paths
in the correct format and a PCC must be able take control and take in the correct format and a PCC must be able take control plane and
forwarding plane actions appropriate to the path setup type. forwarding plane actions appropriate to the PST.
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | | Type (28) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | PST | | Reserved | PST |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV Figure 2: PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV
PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV is an optional TLV associated with the RP PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV is an optional TLV associated with the RP
([RFC5440]) and the SRP ([I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]) objects. Its ([RFC5440]) and the SRP ([RFC8231]) objects. Its format is shown in
format is shown in the above figure. The type of the TLV is to be the above figure. The TLV type is 28. Its reserved field MUST be
defined by IANA. The one octet value contains the Path Setup Type set to zero. The one octet value contains the PST as defined for the
(PST). This document specifies the following PST value: PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV.
o PST = 0: Path is setup via RSVP-TE signaling protocol(default).
The absence of the PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV is equivalent to an PATH- The absence of the PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV is equivalent to a PATH-SETUP-
SETUP-TYPE TLV with an PST value of 0. It is recommended to omit the TYPE TLV with a PST value of 0 (RSVP-TE). It is RECOMMENDED that a
TLV in the default case. If the RP or SRP object contains more than PCEP speaker omits the TLV if the PST is RSVP-TE. If the RP or SRP
one PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLVs, only the first TLV MUST be processed and object contains more than one PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV, only the first TLV
the rest MUST be ignored. MUST be processed and the rest MUST be ignored.
If a PCEP speaker does not recognize the PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV, it MUST If a PCEP speaker does not recognize the PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV, it MUST
ignore the TLV in accordance with ([RFC5440]). If a PCEP speaker ignore the TLV in accordance with ([RFC5440]). If a PCEP speaker
recognizes the TLV but does not support the TLV, it MUST send PCErr recognizes the TLV but does not support the TLV, it MUST send PCErr
with Error-Type = 2 (Capability not supported). with Error-Type = 2 (Capability not supported).
4. Operation 5. Operation
When requesting a path from a PCE using a PCReq message ([RFC5440]), During the PCEP Initialization phase, if a PCEP speaker receives a
a PCC MAY include the PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV in the RP object. If the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV from its peer, it MUST infer that the
PCE is capable of expressing the path in a format appropriate to the peer suports only the PSTs listed in the TLV. If the PCEP speaker
setup method used, it MUST use the appropriate ERO format in the and its peer have no PSTs in common, then the PCEP speaker MUST send
PCRep message. If the path setup type cannot be inferred from the a PCErr message with Error-Type = 21 (Invalid traffic engineering
ERO or any other object or TLV in the PCRep message, PATH-SETUP-TYPE path setup type) and Error-Value = 2 (Mismatched path setup type) and
TLV may be included in the RP object of the PCRep message. close the PCEP session.
Regardless of whether PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV is used or not, if the PCE
does not support the intended path setup type it MUST send PCErr with
Error-Type = TBD (Traffic engineering path setup error) (recommended
value is 21) and Error-Value = 1 (Unsupported path setup type) and
close the PCEP session. If the path setup types corresponding to the
PCReq and PCRep messages do not match, the PCC MUST send a PCErr with
Error-Type = 21 (Traffic engineering path setup error) and Error-
Value = 2 (Mismatched path setup type) and close the PCEP session.
In the case of stateful PCE, if the path setup type cannot be If the peer has sent no PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV, then the PCEP
unambiguously inferred from ERO or any other object or TLV, PATH- speaker MUST infer that the peer supports path setup using at least
SETUP-TYPE TLV MAY be used in PCRpt and PCUpd messages. If PATH- RSVP-TE. The PCEP speaker MAY also infer that the peer supports
SETUP-TYPE TLV is used in PCRpt message, the SRP object MUST be other path setup types, but the means of inference are outside the
present even in cases when the SRP-ID-number is the reserved value of scope of this document.
0x00000000. Regardless of whether PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV is used or
not, if a PCRpt message is triggered due to a PCUpd message (in this
case SRP-ID-number is not equal to 0x00000000), the path setup types
corresponding to the PCRpt and PCUpd messages should match.
Otherwise, the PCE MUST send PCErr with Error-Type = 21 (Traffic
engineering path setup error) and Error-Value = 2 (Mismatched path
setup type) and close the connection.
In the case of PCE initiated LSPs, a PCE MAY include PATH-SETUP-TYPE When a PCC sends a PCReq message to a PCE ([RFC5440]), it MUST
TLV in PCInitiate message if the message does not have any other include the PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV in the RP object, unless the intended
means of indicating path setup type. If a PCC does not support the PST is RSVP-TE, in which case it MAY omit the PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV.
path setup type associated with the PCInitiate message, the PCC MUST If the PCE is capable of expressing the path in a format appropriate
send PCErr with Error-Type = 21 (Traffic engineering path setup to the intended PST, it MUST use the appropriate ERO format in the
error) and Error-Value = 1 (Unsupported path setup type) and close PCRep message.
the PCEP session. Similarly, as mentioned above, if the path setup
type cannot be unambiguously inferred from ERO or any other object or
TLV, the PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV MAY be included in PCRpt messages
triggered by PCInitiate message. Regardless of whether PATH-SETUP-
TYPE TLV is used or not, if a PCRpt message is triggered by a
PCInitiate message, the path setup types corresponding to the PCRpt
and the PCInitiate messages should match. Otherwise, the PCE MUST
send PCErr message with Error-Type = 21 (Traffic engineering path
setup error) and Error-Value = 2 (Mismatched path setup type).
5. Security Considerations When a PCE sends a PCRep message to a PCC ([RFC5440]), it MUST
include the PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV in the RP object, unless the PST is
RSVP-TE, in which case it MAY omit the PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV. If the
PCE does not support the intended PST, it MUST send a PCErr message
with Error-Type = 21 (Invalid traffic engineering path setup type)
and Error-Value = 1 (Unsupported path setup type) and close the PCEP
session. If the PSTs corresponding to the PCReq and PCRep messages
do not match, the PCC MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type = 21
(Invalid traffic engineering path setup type) and Error-Value = 2
(Mismatched path setup type) and close the PCEP session.
No additional security measure is required. When a stateful PCE sends a PCUpd message ([RFC8231]) or a PCInitiate
message ([I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]) to a PCC, it MUST include
the PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV in the SRP object, unless the intended PST is
RSVP-TE, in which case it MAY omit the PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV. If the
PCC does not support the PST associated with the PCUpd or PCInitiate
message, it MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type = 21 (Invalid
traffic engineering path setup type) and Error-Value = 1 (Unsupported
path setup type) and close the PCEP session.
6. IANA Considerations When a PCC sends a PCRpt message to a stateful PCE ([RFC8231]), it
MUST include the PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV in the SRP object, unless the
PST is RSVP-TE, in which case it MAY omit the PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV.
The PCC MUST include the SRP object in the PCRpt message if the PST
is not RSVP-TE, even when the SRP-ID-number is the reserved value of
0x00000000. If the PCRpt message is triggered by a PCUpd or
PCInitiate message, then the PST that the PCC indicates in the PCRpt
MUST match the PST that the stateful PCE intended in the PCUpd or
PCInitiate. If it does not, then the PCE MUST send a PCErr message
with Error-Type = 21 (Invalid traffic engineering path setup type)
and Error-Value = 2 (Mismatched path setup type) and close the PCEP
session.
6.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators 6. Security Considerations
IANA is requested to allocate a new code point in the PCEP TLV Type The security considerations described in [RFC5440] and
Indicators registry, as follows: [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] are applicable to this
specification. No additional security measure is required.
Value Description Reference 7. IANA Considerations
TBD (recommended 28) PATH-SETUP-TYPE This document 7.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators
6.2. New Path Setup Type Registry IANA is requested to confirm the early allocation of the following
code point in the PCEP TLV Type Indicators registry.
Value Description Reference
28 PATH-SETUP-TYPE This document
IANA is requested to allocate a new code point for the following TLV
in the PCEP TLV Type Indicators registry.
Value Description Reference
TBD1 PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY This document
Note to IANA: The above TLV type was not part of the early code point
allocation that was done for this draft. It was added to the draft
after the early code point allocation had taken place. Please assign
a code point from the indicated registry and replace each instance of
"TBD1" in this document with the allocated code point.
7.2. New Path Setup Type Registry
IANA is requested to create a new sub-registry within the "Path IANA is requested to create a new sub-registry within the "Path
Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry called "PATH- Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry called "PCEP
SETUP-TYPE TLV PST Field". The allocation policy for this new Path Setup Types". The allocation policy for this new registry
registry should be by IETF Consensus. The new registry should should be by IETF Consensus. The new registry should contain the
contain the following value: following value:
Value Description Reference Value Description Reference
0 Traffic engineering path is This document 0 Path is setup using the RSVP- This document
setup using RSVP signaling TE signaling protocol.
protocol
6.3. PCEP-Error Object 7.3. PCEP-Error Object
IANA is requested to allocate code-points in the PCEP-ERROR Object IANA is requested to confirm the early allocation of the following
Error Types and Values registry for a new error-type and the code-points in the PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values registry.
following new error-values:
Error-Type Meaning
10 Reception of an invalid object
Error-value=11: Malformed object
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. Contributors Note to IANA: the early allocation for Error-Type=10, Error-value=11
was originally done by draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing. However, we
have since moved its definition into this document. Therefore,
please update the reference for this Error-value in the indicated
registry to point to RFC.ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type.
8. Contributors
The following people contributed to this document: The following people contributed to this document:
- Jan Medved - Jan Medved
- Edward Crabbe - Edward Crabbe
8. Acknowledgements 9. Acknowledgements
We like to thank Marek Zavodsky for valuable comments. We like to thank Marek Zavodsky for valuable comments.
9. Normative References 10. References
10.1. 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-09 (work in Model", draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-11 (work in
progress), March 2017. progress), October 2017.
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]
Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "PCEP
Extensions for Stateful PCE", draft-ietf-pce-stateful-
pce-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, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc-
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, <https://www.rfc-
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>. editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
Authors' Addresses [RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc8231>.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[RFC4657] Ash, J., Ed. and J. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic
Requirements", RFC 4657, DOI 10.17487/RFC4657, September
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4657>.
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
Jeff Tantsura Jeff Tantsura
Individual Individual
skipping to change at page 7, line 49 skipping to change at page 10, line 31
USA USA
Email: inaminei@google.com Email: inaminei@google.com
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: nite@hq.sk
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: jonathan.hardwick@metaswitch.com
 End of changes. 44 change blocks. 
142 lines changed or deleted 272 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.46. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/