draft-ietf-pce-pcep-p2mp-extensions-07.txt   draft-ietf-pce-pcep-p2mp-extensions-08.txt 
Internet Engineering Task Force Q. Zhao, Ed. Internet Engineering Task Force Q. Zhao, Ed.
Internet-Draft Huawei Technology Internet-Draft Huawei Technology
Intended Status: Standards Track Daniel King, Ed. Intended Status: Standards Track Daniel King, Ed.
Created: February 2, 2010 Old Dog Consulting Created: March 24, 2010 Old Dog Consulting
Expires: August 2, 2010 Expires: September 24, 2010
Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
(PCEP) for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (PCEP) for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-p2mp-extensions-07.txt draft-ietf-pce-pcep-p2mp-extensions-08.txt
Abstract Abstract
Point-to-point Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized Point-to-point Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized
MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) may MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) may
be established using signaling techniques, but their paths may first be established using signaling techniques, but their paths may first
need to be determined. The Path Computation Element (PCE) has been need to be determined. The Path Computation Element (PCE) has been
identified as an appropriate technology for the determination of the identified as an appropriate technology for the determination of the
paths of P2MP TE LSPs. paths of P2MP TE LSPs.
skipping to change at page 1, line 46 skipping to change at page 1, line 46
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 1, 2010. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 24, 2010.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2010 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
skipping to change at page 5, line 47 skipping to change at page 5, line 47
8. Non-Specification of Per-Destination Constraints and Parameters. 8. Non-Specification of Per-Destination Constraints and Parameters.
9. Path Modification and Path Diversity. 9. Path Modification and Path Diversity.
10. Reoptimization of P2MP TE LSPs. 10. Reoptimization of P2MP TE LSPs.
11. Addition and Removal of Destinations from Existing Paths. 11. Addition and Removal of Destinations from Existing Paths.
12. Specification of Applicable Branch Nodes. 12. Specification of Applicable Branch Nodes.
13. Capabilities Exchange 13. Capabilities Exchange.
14. Path-Tree Diversity 14. Path-Tree Diversity.
3. Protocol Procedures and Extensions 3. Protocol Procedures and Extensions
The following section describes the protocol extensions required to The following section describes the protocol extensions required to
satisfy the requirements specified in the Requirements section satisfy the requirements specified in the Requirements section
(Section 2) of this document. (Section 2) of this document.
3.1. P2MP Capability Advertisement 3.1. P2MP Capability Advertisement
3.1.1. P2MP Computation TLV in the Existing PCE Discovery Protocol 3.1.1. P2MP Computation TLV in the Existing PCE Discovery Protocol
skipping to change at page 6, line 49 skipping to change at page 6, line 49
3.1.2. Open Message Extension 3.1.2. Open Message Extension
Based on the Capabilities Exchange requirement described in Based on the Capabilities Exchange requirement described in
[PCE-P2MP-REQ], if a PCE does not advertise its P2MP capability [PCE-P2MP-REQ], if a PCE does not advertise its P2MP capability
during discovery, PCEP should be used to allow a PCC to discover during discovery, PCEP should be used to allow a PCC to discover
which PCEs are capable of supporting P2MP path computation. which PCEs are capable of supporting P2MP path computation.
To satisfy this requirement, we extend the PCEP OPEN object by To satisfy this requirement, we extend the PCEP OPEN object by
defining a new optional TLV to indicate the PCE's capability to defining a new optional TLV to indicate the PCE's capability to
perform P2MP path computations.wait, I lie, perform P2MP path computations.
The TLV type number is TBA by IANA. The length value is 2 bytes. The TLV type number is TBA by IANA. The length value is 2 bytes.
The value field is set to default value 0. The value field is set to default value 0.
The inclusion of this TLV in an OPEN object indicates that the sender The inclusion of this TLV in an OPEN object indicates that the sender
can perform P2MP path computations. can perform P2MP path computations.
Note that the capability TLV is meaningful only for a PCE so it will Note that the capability TLV is meaningful only for a PCE so it will
typically appear only in one of the two Open messages during PCE typically appear only in one of the two Open messages during PCE
session establishment. However, in case of PCE cooperation (e.g., session establishment. However, in case of PCE cooperation (e.g.,
inter-domain), when a PCE behaving as a PCC initiates a PCE session inter-domain), when a PCE behaving as a PCC initiates a PCE session
 End of changes. 6 change blocks. 
7 lines changed or deleted 8 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.38. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/