draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-03.txt   draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-04.txt 
PCE Working Group A. Wang PCE Working Group A. Wang
Internet-Draft China Telecom Internet-Draft China Telecom
Intended status: Standards Track B. Khasanov Intended status: Standards Track B. Khasanov
Expires: September 9, 2019 Huawei Expires: February 27, 2020 Huawei
S. Cheruathur S. Cheruathur
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
C. Zhu C. Zhu
ZTE Corporation ZTE Corporation
S. Fang S. Fang
Huawei Huawei
March 8, 2019 August 26, 2019
PCEP Extension for Native IP Network PCEP Extension for Native IP Network
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-03 draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-04
Abstract Abstract
This document defines the PCEP extension for CCDR application in This document defines the Path Computation Element Communication
Native IP network. The scenario and architecture of CCDR in native Protocol (PCEP) extension for Central Control Dynamic Routing (CCDR)
IP is described in [I-D.ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios] and based application in Native IP network. The scenario and framework
of CCDR in native IP is described in
[I-D.ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios] and
[I-D.ietf-teas-pce-native-ip]. This draft describes the key [I-D.ietf-teas-pce-native-ip]. This draft describes the key
information that is transferred between PCE and PCC to accomplish the information that is transferred between Path Computation Element
end2end traffic assurance in Native IP network under central control (PCE) and Path Computation Clients (PCC) to accomplish the End to End
(E2E) traffic assurance in Native IP network under central control
mode. mode.
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 September 9, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 27, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. CCI Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. CCI Object associated TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. CCI Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.1. Peer Address List TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. CCI Object associated TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. Peer Prefix Association TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.1. Peer Address List TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2.1. Prefix sub TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.2. Peer Prefix Association TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. Explicit Peer Route TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.2.1. Prefix sub TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Management Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.3. Explicit Peer Route TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Management Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.1. CCI Object Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.2. CCI Object Associated TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8.1. CCI Object Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8.2. CCI Object Associated TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Traditionally, MPLS-TE traffic assurance requires the corresponding Traditionally, Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering
network devices support MPLS or the complex RSVP/LDP/Segment Routing (MPLS-TE) traffic assurance requires the corresponding network
etc. technologies to assure the end-to-end traffic performance. But devices support Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) or the complex
in native IP network, there will be no such signaling protocol to Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)/Label Distribution Protocol
synchronize the action among different network devices. It is (LDP) /Segment Routing etc. technologies to assure the End-to-End
necessary to use the central control mode that described in [RFC8283] (E2E) traffic performance. But in native IP network, there will be
to correlate the forwarding behavior among different network devices. no such signaling protocol to synchronize the action among different
Draft [I-D.ietf-teas-pce-native-ip] describes the architecture and network devices. It is necessary to use the central control mode
solution philosophy for the end2end traffic assurance in Native IP that described in [RFC8283] to correlate the forwarding behavior
network via Dual/Multi BGP solution. This draft describes the among different network devices. Draft [I-D.ietf-teas-pce-native-ip]
corresponding PCEP extensions to transfer the key information about describes the architecture and solution philosophy for the E2E
peer address list, peer prefix association and the explicit peer traffic assurance in Native IP network via Dual/Multi Border Gateway
route on on-path router. Protocol (BGP) solution. This draft describes the corresponding Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions to
transfer the key information about peer address list, peer prefix
association and the explicit peer route on on-path router.
2. Conventions used in this document 2. Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
3. CCI Objects 3. Terminology
.This document uses the following terms defined in [RFC5440]: PCE,
PCEP
The following terms are defined in this document:
o CCDR: Central Control Dynamic Routing
o CCI: Central Controller's Instructions
o E2E: End to End
o EPR: Explicit Peer Route
o PAL: Peer Address List
o PPA: Peer Prefix Association
o QoS: Quality of Service
4. CCI Objects
Draft [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] introduces the Draft [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] introduces the
CCI object which is included in the PCInitiate and PCRpt message to Central Controller's Instructions (CCI) object which is included in
transfer the centrally control instruction and status between PCE and the PCInitiate and PCRpt message to transfer the centrally control
PCC. This object is extended to include the construction for native instruction and status between Path Computation Element (PCE) and
IP solution. Additional TLVs are defined and included in this Path Computation Clients (PCC). This object is extended to include
extended CCI object. the construction for native IP solution. Additional Type-Length-
Values (TLVs) are defined and included in this extended CCI object.
CCI Object-Class is TBD, should be same as that defined in draft CCI Object-Class is TBD, should be same as that defined in draft
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller]
CCI Object-Type is TBD for Native IP network CCI Object-Type is TBD for Native IP network
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| CC-ID | | CC-ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Flags | | Reserved | Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
skipping to change at page 4, line 5 skipping to change at page 4, line 32
creates an CC-ID for each instruction, the value is unique within the creates an CC-ID for each instruction, the value is unique within the
scope of the PCE and is constant for the lifetime of a PCEP session. scope of the PCE and is constant for the lifetime of a PCEP session.
The values 0 and 0xFFFFFFFF are reserved and MUST NOT be used. The values 0 and 0xFFFFFFFF are reserved and MUST NOT be used.
Flags: Is used to carry any additional information pertaining to the Flags: Is used to carry any additional information pertaining to the
CCI. CCI.
Optional TLV: Additional TLVs that are associated with the Native IP Optional TLV: Additional TLVs that are associated with the Native IP
construction. construction.
4. CCI Object associated TLV 5. CCI Object associated TLV
Three new TLVs are defined in this draft: Three new TLVs are defined in this draft:
o PAL TLV: Peer Address List TLV, used to tell the network device o PAL TLV: Peer Address List TLV, used to tell the network device
which peer it should be peered with dynamically which peer it should be peered with dynamically
o PPA TLV: Peer Prefix Association TLV,used to tell which prefixes o PPA TLV: Peer Prefix Association TLV,used to tell which prefixes
should be advertised via the corresponding peer should be advertised via the corresponding peer
o EPR TLV: Explicit Peer Route TLV,used to point out which route o EPR TLV: Explicit Peer Route TLV,used to point out which route
should be taken to arrive to the peer. should be taken to arrive to the peer.
4.1. Peer Address List TLV 5.1. Peer Address List TLV
The Peer Address List TLV is defined to specify the IP address of The Peer Address List TLV is defined to specify the IP address of
peer that the received network device should establish the BGP peer that the received network device should establish the BGP
relationship with. This TLV should only be included and sent to the relationship with. This TLV should only be included and sent to the
head and end router of the end2end path in case there is no RR head and end router of the E2E path in case there is no Route
involved. If the RR is used between the head and end routers, then Reflection (RR) involved. If the RR is used between the head and end
such information should be sent to head router, RR and end router routers, then such information should be sent to head router, RR and
respectively. end router respectively.
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=TBD | Length | | Type=TBD | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer Num | Resv. | | Peer Num | Resv. |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer ID | AT | Resv. | | Peer ID | AT | Resv. |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 5, line 30 skipping to change at page 6, line 13
Peer AS Number: 4 Bytes, to indicate the AS number of Remote Peer. Peer AS Number: 4 Bytes, to indicate the AS number of Remote Peer.
Local IP Address(4/16 Bytes): IPv4 address of the local router, used Local IP Address(4/16 Bytes): IPv4 address of the local router, used
to peer with other end router. When AT equal to 4, length is 32bit; to peer with other end router. When AT equal to 4, length is 32bit;
when AT equal to 16, length is 128bit. when AT equal to 16, length is 128bit.
Peer IP Address(4/16 Bytes): IPv4 address of the peer router, used to Peer IP Address(4/16 Bytes): IPv4 address of the peer router, used to
peer with the local router. When AT equal to 4, length is 32bit; peer with the local router. When AT equal to 4, length is 32bit;
IPv6 address of the peer when AT equal to 16, length is 128bit; IPv6 address of the peer when AT equal to 16, length is 128bit;
4.2. Peer Prefix Association TLV 5.2. Peer Prefix Association TLV
The Peer Prefix Association TLV is defined to specify the IP prefixes The Peer Prefix Association TLV is defined to specify the IP prefixes
that should be advertised by the corresponding Peer. This TLV should that should be advertised by the corresponding Peer. This TLV should
only be included and sent to the head/end router of the end2end path only be included and sent to the head/end router of the end2end path
in case there is no RR involved. If the RR is used between the head in case there is no RR involved. If the RR is used between the head
and end routers, then such information should be sent to head and end routers, then such information should be sent to head
router,RR and end router respectively. router,RR and end router respectively.
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
skipping to change at page 6, line 20 skipping to change at page 7, line 5
Equal to 4, if the following IP address of peer is belong to IPv4; Equal to 4, if the following IP address of peer is belong to IPv4;
Equal to 6 if the following IP address of peer is belong to IPv6. Equal to 6 if the following IP address of peer is belong to IPv6.
Prefixes Num: 2 Bytes, number of prefixes that advertised by the Prefixes Num: 2 Bytes, number of prefixes that advertised by the
corresponding Peer. It should be equal to number of the following IP corresponding Peer. It should be equal to number of the following IP
prefix sub TLV. prefix sub TLV.
Peer Associated IP Prefix sub TLV: Variable Length, indicate the Peer Associated IP Prefix sub TLV: Variable Length, indicate the
advertised IP Prefix. advertised IP Prefix.
4.2.1. Prefix sub TLV 5.2.1. Prefix sub TLV
Prefix sub TLV is used to carry the prefix information, which has the Prefix sub TLV is used to carry the prefix information, which has the
following format: following format:
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=TBD | Length | | Type=TBD | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AT | Prefix Length | Resv. | | AT | Prefix Length | Resv. |
skipping to change at page 7, line 5 skipping to change at page 7, line 35
AT: 1 Byte, Address Type. To indicate the address type of Peer. AT: 1 Byte, Address Type. To indicate the address type of Peer.
Equal to 4, if the following "Prefix address" belong to IPv4; Equal Equal to 4, if the following "Prefix address" belong to IPv4; Equal
to 6 if the following "Prefix address" belong to IPv6. to 6 if the following "Prefix address" belong to IPv6.
Prefix Length: 1 Byte, the length of the following prefix. For Prefix Length: 1 Byte, the length of the following prefix. For
example, for 10.0.0.0/8, this field will be equal to 8. example, for 10.0.0.0/8, this field will be equal to 8.
Prefix Value: Variable length, the value of the prefix. For example, Prefix Value: Variable length, the value of the prefix. For example,
for 10.0.0./8, this field will be 10.0.0.0 for 10.0.0./8, this field will be 10.0.0.0
4.3. Explicit Peer Route TLV 5.3. Explicit Peer Route TLV
The Explicit Peer Route TLV is defined to specify the explicit peer The Explicit Peer Route TLV is defined to specify the explicit peer
route to the corresponding peer address on each device that is on the route to the corresponding peer address on each device that is on the
end2end assurance path. This TLV should be sent to all the devices E2E assurance path. This TLV should be sent to all the devices that
that locates on the end2end assurance path that calculated by PCE. locates on the E2E assurance path that calculated by PCE.
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=TBD | Length | | Type=TBD | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer ID | AT | Resv. | | Peer ID | AT | Route Priority|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Next Hop Address to the Peer(IPv4/IPv6) | | Next Hop Address to the Peer(IPv4/IPv6) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: Explicit Peer Route TLV Figure 5: Explicit Peer Route TLV
Type: 2 Bytes, value is TBD Type: 2 Bytes, value is TBD
Length: 2 Bytes, the length of following fields. Length: 2 Bytes, the length of following fields.
Peer-ID: 2 Bytes, to indicate the peer that the following next hop Peer-ID: 2 Bytes, to indicate the peer that the following next hop
address point to. This value is assigned in the Peer Address List address point to. This value is assigned in the Peer Address List
object and is referred in this object. object and is referred in this object.
AT: 1 Byte, Address Type. To indicate the address type of explicit AT: 1 Byte, Address Type. To indicate the address type of explicit
peer route. Equal to 4, if the following next hop address to the peer route. Equal to 4, if the following next hop address to the
peer belongs to IPv4; Equal to 6 if the following next hop address to peer belongs to IPv4; Equal to 6 if the following next hop address to
the peer belongs to IPv6. the peer belongs to IPv6.
Resv.: 1 Byte, reservation for future use. Route Priority: 1 Byte, The priority of this explicit route. The
higher priority should be preferred by the device.
Next Hop Address to the Peer: Variable Length, to indicate the next Next Hop Address to the Peer: Variable Length, to indicate the next
hop address to the corresponding peer that indicated by the Peer-ID. hop address to the corresponding peer that indicated by the Peer-ID.
If AT=4, the length will be 4 bytes, if AT=6, the length will be 16 If AT=4, the length will be 4 bytes, if AT=6, the length will be 16
bytes. bytes.
5. Management Consideration 6. Management Consideration
TBD TBD
6. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
TBD TBD
7. IANA Considerations 8. IANA Considerations
7.1. CCI Object Type 8.1. CCI Object Type
IANA is requested to allocate new registry for the CCI Object Type: IANA is requested to allocate new registry for the CCI Object Type:
Object-Type Value CCI Object Name Reference Object-Type Value CCI Object Name Reference
3 Native IP This document 3 Native IP This document
7.2. CCI Object Associated TLV 8.2. CCI Object Associated TLV
IANA is requested to confirm the early allocation of the following IANA is requested to confirm the early allocation of the following
TLV Type Indicator values within the "PCEP TLV Type Indicator" sub- TLV Type Indicator values within the "PCEP TLV Type Indicator" sub-
registry of the PCEP Numbers registry, and to update the reference in registry of the PCEP Numbers registry, and to update the reference in
the registry to point to this document, when it is an RFC: the registry to point to this document, when it is an RFC:
Value Meaning Reference Value Meaning Reference
--------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------
TBD Peer Address List TLV This document TBD Peer Address List TLV This document
TBD Peer Prefix Association TLV This document TBD Peer Prefix Association TLV This document
TBD Explicit Peer Route TLV This document TBD Explicit Peer Route TLV This document
TBD Prefix sub TLV This document TBD Prefix sub TLV This document
8. Acknowledgement 9. Acknowledgement
Thanks Dhruv Dhody for his valuable suggestions and comments. Thanks Dhruv Dhody for his valuable suggestions and comments.
9. Normative References 10. References
10.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller]
Zhao, Q., Li, Z., Negi, M., and C. Zhou, "PCEP Procedures Zhao, Q., Li, Z., Negi, M., and C. Zhou, "PCEP Procedures
and Protocol Extensions for Using PCE as a Central and Protocol Extensions for Using PCE as a Central
Controller (PCECC) of LSPs", draft-ietf-pce-pcep- Controller (PCECC) of LSPs", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-
extension-for-pce-controller-01 (work in progress), extension-for-pce-controller-02 (work in progress), July
February 2019. 2019.
[I-D.ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios]
Wang, A., Huang, X., Qou, C., Li, Z., and P. Mi,
"Scenario, Simulation and Suggestion of PCE in Native IP
Network", draft-ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios-02 (work in
progress), October 2018.
[I-D.ietf-teas-pce-native-ip] [I-D.ietf-teas-pce-native-ip]
Wang, A., Zhao, Q., Khasanov, B., Chen, H., and R. Mallya, Wang, A., Zhao, Q., Khasanov, B., Chen, H., and R. Mallya,
"PCE in Native IP Network", draft-ietf-teas-pce-native- "PCE in Native IP Network", draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-
ip-02 (work in progress), October 2018. ip-03 (work in progress), April 2019.
[RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281>.
[RFC8283] Farrel, A., Ed., Zhao, Q., Ed., Li, Z., and C. Zhou, "An [RFC8283] Farrel, A., Ed., Zhao, Q., Ed., Li, Z., and C. Zhou, "An
Architecture for Use of PCE and the PCE Communication Architecture for Use of PCE and the PCE Communication
Protocol (PCEP) in a Network with Central Control", Protocol (PCEP) in a Network with Central Control",
RFC 8283, DOI 10.17487/RFC8283, December 2017, RFC 8283, DOI 10.17487/RFC8283, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8283>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8283>.
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios]
Wang, A., Huang, X., Qou, C., Li, Z., and P. Mi,
"Scenarios and Simulation Results of PCE in Native IP
Network", draft-ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios-06 (work in
progress), June 2019.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Aijun Wang Aijun Wang
China Telecom China Telecom
Beiqijia Town, Changping District Beiqijia Town, Changping District
Beijing, Beijing 102209 Beijing, Beijing 102209
China China
Email: wangaj.bri@chinatelecom.cn Email: wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn
Boris Khasanov Boris Khasanov
Huawei Technologies,Co.,Ltd Huawei Technologies,Co.,Ltd
Moskovskiy Prospekt 97A Moskovskiy Prospekt 97A
St.Petersburg 196084 St.Petersburg 196084
Russia Russia
Email: khasanov.boris@huawei.com Email: khasanov.boris@huawei.com
Sudhir Cheruathur Sudhir Cheruathur
 End of changes. 32 change blocks. 
78 lines changed or deleted 112 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/