Internet Engineering Task Force                             Q. Zhao, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                         Huawei Technology
Intended Status: Standards Track                        Daniel King, Ed.
Created: February 2, March 24, 2010                               Old Dog Consulting
Expires: August 2, September 24, 2010

    Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
(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

   Point-to-point Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized
   MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) may
   be established using signaling techniques, but their paths may first
   need to be determined.  The Path Computation Element (PCE) has been
   identified as an appropriate technology for the determination of the
   paths of P2MP TE LSPs.

   This document describes extensions to the PCE communication Protocol
   (PCEP) to handle requests and responses for the computation of paths
   for P2MP TE LSPs.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 1, September 24, 2010.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
   respect to this document.  Code Components extracted from this
   document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
   Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
   warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November
   10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s)
   controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not
   be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works
   of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except
   to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into
   languages other than English.

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].

Table of Contents
   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
     1.1 Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
   2.  Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
   3.  Protocol Procedures and Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
     3.1.  P2MP Capability Advertisement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
       3.1.1.  P2MP Computation TLV in the Existing PCE Discovery
               Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
       3.1.2.  Open Message Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
     3.2.  Efficient Presentation of P2MP TE LSPs . . . . . . . . . .7
     3.3.  P2MP Path Computation Request/Reply Message Extensions . .8
       3.3.1.  The Extension of the RP Object . . . . . . . . . . . .8
       3.3.2.  The New P2MP END-POINTS Object . . . . . . . . . . . .9
     3.4.  Request Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
     3.5.  Reply Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
     3.6.  P2MP Objective Functions and Metric Types  . . . . . . . .13
       3.6.1.  New Objective Functions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
       3.6.2.  New Metric Object Types  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
     3.7.  Non-Support of P2MP Path Computation.  . . . . . . . . . .14
     3.8.  Non-Support by Back-Level PCE Implementations. . . . . . .14
     3.9.  P2MP TE Path Reoptimization Request  . . . . . . . . . . .14
     3.10. Adding and Pruning Leaves to the P2MP Tree . . . . . . . .15
     3.11. Discovering Branch Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
       3.11.1 Branch Node Object . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . .18
     3.12. Synchronization of P2MP TE Path Computation Requests . . .19
     3.13. Request and Response Fragmentation . . . . . . . . . . . .20
       3.13.1 Request Fragmentation Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . .20
       3.13.2 Response Fragmentation Procedure  . . . . . . . . . . .20
       3.13.3 Fragmentation Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
     3.14. UNREACH-DESTINATION Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
     3.15. P2MP PCEP Error Object and Types . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
     3.16. PCEP NO-PATH Indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
   4.  Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
     4.1.  Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
     4.2.  Information and Data Models  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
     4.3.  Liveness Detection and Monitoring  . . . . . . . . . . . .24
     4.4.  Verifying Correct Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
     4.5.  Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional
           Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
     4.6.  Impact on Network Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
     6.1.  P2MP Capability TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
     6.2.  Request Parameter Bit Flags  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
     6.3.  Objective Functions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
     6.4.  Metric Object Types  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
     6.5.  PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
     6.6.  PCEP Error Objects and Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
     6.7.  PCEP NO-PATH Indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
   7.  Acknowledgement's. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
     8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
   9.  Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
     9.1.  Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
   Appendix A. RBNF Code Fragments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

1.  Introduction

   The Path Computation Element (PCE) defined in [RFC4655] is an entity
   that is capable of computing a network path or route based on a
   network graph, and applying computational constraints.  A Path
   Computation Client (PCC) may make requests to a PCE for paths to be
   computed.

   [RFC4875] describes how to set up point-to-multipoint (P2MP) Traffic
   Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) for use in Multiprotocol
   Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks.

   The PCE has been identified as a suitable application for the
   computation of paths for P2MP TE LSPs [RFC5671].

   The PCE communication protocol (PCEP) is designed as a communication
   protocol between PCCs and PCEs for point-to-point (P2P) path
   computations and is defined in [RFC5440].  However, that
   specification does not provide a mechanism to request path
   computation of P2MP TE LSPs.

   A P2MP LSP is comprised of multiple source-to-leaf (S2L) sub-LSPs.
   These S2L sub-LSPs are set up between ingress and egress LSRs and are
   appropriately overlaid to construct a P2MP TE LSP. During path
   computation, the P2MP TE LSP may be determined as a set of S2L sub-
   LSPs that are computed separately and combined to give the path of
   the P2MP LSP, or the entire P2MP TE LSP may be determined as a P2MP
   tree in a single computation.

   This document relies on the mechanisms of PCEP to request path
   computation for P2MP TE LSPs.  One path computation request message
   from a PCC may request the computation of the whole P2MP TE LSP, or
   the request may be limited to a sub-set of the S2L sub-LSPs. In the
   extreme case, the PCC may request the S2L sub-LSPs to be computed
   individually with it being the PCC's responsibility to decide whether
   to signal individual S2L sub-LSPs or combine the computation results
   to signal the entire P2MP TE LSP.  Hence the PCC may use one path
   computation request message or may split the request across multiple
   path computation messages.

1.1  Terminology

   Terminology used in this document.

   TE LSP: Traffic Engineered Label Switched Path.

   LSR: Label Switching Router.

   OF: Objective Function: A set of one or more optimization criteria
   used for the computation of a single path (e.g., path cost
   minimization), or for the synchronized computation of a set of paths
   (e.g., aggregate bandwidth consumption minimization).

   P2MP: Point-to-Multipoint.

   P2P: Point-to-Point.

   This document also uses the terminology defined in [RFC4655],
   [RFC4875], and [RFC5440].

2.  Requirements

   This section summarizes the PCC-PCE Communication Requirements for
   P2MP MPLS-TE LSPs described in [PCE-P2MP-REQ]. The numbering system
   corresponds to the requirement numbers used in [PCE-P2MP-REQ].

   1. Indication of P2MP Path Computation Request.

   2. Indication of P2MP Objective Functions.

   3. Non-Support of P2MP Path Computation.

   4. Non-Support by Back-Level PCE Implementations.

   5. Specification of Destinations.

   6. Indication of P2MP Paths.

   7. Multi-Message Requests and Responses.

   8. Non-Specification of Per-Destination Constraints and Parameters.

   9. Path Modification and Path Diversity.

   10. Reoptimization of P2MP TE LSPs.

   11. Addition and Removal of Destinations from Existing Paths.

   12. Specification of Applicable Branch Nodes.

   13. Capabilities Exchange Exchange.

   14. Path-Tree Diversity Diversity.

3.  Protocol Procedures and Extensions

   The following section describes the protocol extensions required to
   satisfy the requirements specified in the Requirements section
   (Section 2) of this document.

3.1.  P2MP Capability Advertisement

3.1.1.  P2MP Computation TLV in the Existing PCE Discovery Protocol

   [RFC5088] defines a PCE Discovery (PCED) TLV carried in an an OSPF
   Router Information LSA defined in [RFC4970] to facilitate PCE
   discovery using OSPF. [RFC5088] specifies that no new sub-TLVs may be
   added to the PCED TLV, so this document defines a new flag in the
   PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV of the PCED TLV to indicate the capability of
   P2MP computation.

   Similarly, [RFC5089] defines the PCED sub-TLV for use in PCE
   Discovery using IS-IS. This document defines a new flag in the
   PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV of the PCED sub-TLV to indicate the capability
   of P2MP computation.

   The PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV uses a common codepoint registry for OSPF
   and IS-IS PCE discovery.

   PCEs wishing to advertise that they support P2MP path computation set
   bit 10 (TBA by IANA) in the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV. PCCs that do not
   understand this bit will ignore it (per [RFC5088] and [RFC5089]).
   PCEs that do not support P2MP will leave the bit clear (per the
   default behavior defined in [RFC5088] and [RFC5089]).

   PCEs that set the bit to indicate support of P2MP path computation
   MUST follow the procedures in Section 3.1.2 to further qualify the
   level of support

3.1.2.  Open Message Extension

   Based on the Capabilities Exchange requirement described in
   [PCE-P2MP-REQ], if a PCE does not advertise its P2MP capability
   during discovery, PCEP should be used to allow a PCC to discover
   which PCEs are capable of supporting P2MP path computation.

   To satisfy this requirement, we extend the PCEP OPEN object by
   defining a new optional TLV to indicate the PCE's capability to
   perform P2MP path computations.wait, I lie, computations.

   The TLV type number is TBA by IANA. The length value is 2 bytes.
   The value field is set to default value 0.

   The inclusion of this TLV in an OPEN object indicates that the sender
   can perform P2MP path computations.

   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
   session establishment.  However, in case of PCE cooperation (e.g.,
   inter-domain), when a PCE behaving as a PCC initiates a PCE session
   it SHOULD also indicate its path computation capabilities.

3.2.  Efficient Presentation of P2MP LSPs

   When specifying additional leaves, or optimizing existing P2MP TE
   LSPs as specified in [PCE-P2MP-REQ], it may be necessary to pass
   existing P2MP LSP route information between the PCC and PCE in the
   request and reply message. In each of these scenarios, we need new
   path objects for efficiently passing the existing P2MP LSP between
   the PCE and PCC.

   We specify the use of the Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering
   Extensions (RSVP-TE)Explicit Route Object (ERO) to encode the
   explicit route of a TE LSP through the network.  PCEP ERO sub-object
   types correspond to RSVP-TE ERO sub-object types. The format and
   content of the ERO object are defined in [RFC3209] and [RFC3473].

   The Secondary Explicit Route Object (SERO) is used to specify the
   explicit route of a S2L sub-LSP.  The path of each subsequent S2L
   sub-LSP is encoded in a P2MP_SECONDARY_EXPLICIT_ROUTE object SERO.
   The format of the SERO is the same as an ERO defined in [RFC3209]
   and [RFC3473].

   The Secondary Recorded Route Object (SRRO) is used to record
   the explicit route of the S2L sub-LSP. The class of the P2MP SRRO
   is the same as the SRRO defined in [RFC4873].

   The SERO and SRRO are used to report the route of an existing TE
   LSP for which a reoptimization is desired. The format and content
   of the SERO and SRRO are defined in [RFC4875].

   A new PCEP object class and type are requested for SERO and SRRO.

   Object-Class Value    26
   Name                  SERO
   Object-Type           1: SERO
                         2-15: Unassigned
   Reference             This.I-D
   Object-Class Value    27
   Name                  SRRO
   Object-Type           1: SRRO
                         2-15: Unassigned
   Reference             This.I-D

   The request is referenced in the IANA Considerations section of this
   document.

   Since the explicit path is available for immediate signaling by the
   MPLS or GMPLS control plane, the meanings of all of the sub-objects
   and fields in this object are identical to those defined for the ERO.

3.3.  P2MP Path Computation Request/Reply Message Extensions

   This document extends the existing P2P RP (Request Parameters) object
   so that a PCC can signal a P2MP path computation request to the PCE
   receiving the PCEP request.  The END-POINT object is also extended
   to improve the efficiency of the message exchange between PCC and PCE
   in the case of P2MP path computation.

3.3.1.  The Extension of the RP Object

   The PCE path computation request and reply message will need the
   following additional parameters to allow a receiving PCE to
   identify that the request and reply message has been fragmented
   across multiple messages, has been requested for a P2MP path and to
   specify if the route is represented in the compressed or uncompressed
   format.

   The F bit is added to the flag bits of the RP object to indicate
   to the receiver that the request is part of a fragmented request, or
   is not a fragmented request.

   The N bit is added in the flag bits field of the RP object to signal
   the receiver of the message that the request/reply is for P2MP or
   not.

   The E bit is added in the flag bits field of the RP object to signal
   the receiver of the message that the route is in the compressed
   format or not. By default, the path returned by the PCE will use the
   compressed format.

   This document adds the following flags to the RP Object:

   o  F ( RP fragmentation bit - 1 bit):

         0: This indicates that the RP is not fragmented or it is the
            last piece of the fragmented RP.

         1: This indicates that the RP is fragmented and this is not
            the last piece of the fragmented RP and the receiver
            needs to wait until it receives an RP with the same RP-ID
            and with the F bit is set to 0.

   o  N ( P2MP bit - 1 bit):

         0: This indicates that this is not PCReq/PCRep for P2MP.

         1: This indicates that this is PCReq or PCRep message for P2MP.

   o  E ( ERO-compression bit - 1 bit):

         0: This indicates that the route is not in the compressed
         format.

         1: This indicates that the route is in the compressed format.

   The IANA request is referenced in Section 6.2 of this document.

3.3.2.  The New P2MP END-POINTS Object

   To represent the end points for a P2MP path efficiently, we define a
   new type of end-points object for the P2MP path.

   With the new END-POINTS object, the PCE path computation request
   message is expanded in a way which allows a single request
   message to list multiple destinations.

   There are 4 types of leaves in a P2MP request:

   o  New leaves to add;
   o  Old leaves to remove;
   o  Old leaves whose path can be modified/reoptimized;
   o  Old leaves whose path must be left unchanged.

   A given END-POINTS object gathers the leaves of a given type.  The
   type of leaf in a given END-POINTS object is identified by the END-
   POINTS object leaf type field.

   Four values are possible for the leaf type field:

   1.  New leaves to add;
   2.  Old leaves to remove;
   3.  Old leaves whose path can be modified/reoptimized;
   4.  Old leaves whose path must be left unchanged.

   With the new END-POINTS object, the END-POINTS portion of a request
   message for the multiple destinations can be reduced by up to 50% for
   a P2MP path where a single source address has a very large number of
   destinations.

   Note that a P2MP path computation request can mix the different types
   of leaves by including several END-POINTS object per RP object as
   shown in the PCReq Routing Backus-Naur Format (RBNF) [RFC5511] format
   in following Request Message Formats section (Section 3.4).

   The format of the new END-POINTS object body for IPv4 (Object-Type 3)
   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
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                          Leaf type                            |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                     Source IPv4 address                       |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                  Destination IPv4 address                     |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    ~                           ...                                 ~
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                  Destination IPv4 address                     |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

       Figure 1: The New P2MP END-POINTS Object Body Format for IPv4

   The format of the END-POINTS object body for IPv6 (Object-Type 4) 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
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                          Leaf type                            |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                                                               |
    |                Source IPv6 address (16 bytes)                 |
    |                                                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                                                               |
    |              Destination IPv6 address (16 bytes)              |
    |                                                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    ~                           ...                                 ~
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                                                               |
    |              Destination IPv6 address (16 bytes)              |
    |                                                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

       Figure 2: The New P2MP END-POINTS Object Body Format for IPv6

   The END-POINTS object body has a variable length. These are multiples
   of 4 bytes for IPv4, and multiples of 16 bytes for IPv6.

3.4.  Request Message Format

   The PCReq message is encoded as follows using RBNF as defined in
   [RFC5511].

   Below is the message format for the request message:

           <PCReq Message>::= <Common Header>
                                 <request>
        where:
                <request>::= <RP>
                                <end-point-rro-pair-list>
                                [<OF>]
                                [<LSPA>]
                                [<BANDWIDTH>]
                                [<metric-list>]
                                [<IRO>]
                                [<LOAD-BALANCING>]

        where:

                <end-point-rro-pair-list>::=
                                   <END-POINTS>[<RRO-List>][<BANDWIDTH>]
                                   [<end-point-rro-pair-list>]

                <RRO-List>::=<RRO>[<BANDWIDTH>][<RRO-List>]
                <metric-list>::=<METRIC>[<metric-list>]

           Figure 3: The Message Format for the Request Message

   Note we preserve compatibility with the [RFC5440] definition of
   <request>. At least one instance of <endpoints> must be present
   in this definition.

   Please see Appendix A for a full set of RBNF fragments defined in
   this document and the necessary code license.

3.5.  Reply Message Format

   The PCReq message is encoded as follows using RBNF as defined in
   [RFC5511].

   Below is the message format for the reply message:

          <PCRep Message>::= <Common Header>
                                <response>
          <response>::=<RP>
                          [<end-point-path-pair-list>]
                          [<NO-PATH>]
                          [<attribute-list>]

        where:

           <end-point-path-pair-list>::=
                   [<END-POINTS>]<path>[<end-point-path-pair-list>]

          <path> ::= (<ERO>|<SERO>) [<path>]

          <attribute-list>::=[<OF>]
                               [<LSPA>]
                               [<BANDWIDTH>]
                               [<metric-list>]
                               [<IRO>]

            Figure 4: The Message Format for the Reply Message

   The optional END-POINTS in the reply message is used to specify which
   paths are removed, changed, not changed, or added for the request.
   The path is only needed for the end points which are added or
   changed.

   If the E bit (ERO-Compress bit) was set to 1 in the request then the
   path will be formed by an ERO followed by a list of SEROs.

   Note that we preserve compatibility with the [RFC5440] definition of
   <response> and the optional <end-point-pair-list> and <path>.

   Please see Appendix A for a full set of RBNF fragments defined in
   this document and the necessary code license.

3.6. P2MP Objective Functions and Metric Types

3.6.1.  New Objective Functions

   Six objective functions have been defined in [RFC5541] for P2P path
   computation.

   This document defines two additional objective functions, namely SPT
   (Shortest Path Tree) and MCT (Minimum Cost Tree) that apply to P2MP
   path computation.  Hence two new objective function codes have to be
   defined.
   The description of the two new objective functions is as follows.

   Objective Function Code: 7 (suggested value, to be assigned by IANA)

   Name: Shortest Path Tree (SPT)

   Description: Minimize the maximum source-to-leaf cost with respect to
   a specific metric or to the TE metric used as the default metric when
   the metric is not specified. (e.g.  TE or IGP metric)

   Objective Function Code: 8 (suggested value, to be assigned by IANA)

   Name: Minimum Cost Tree (MCT)

   Description: Minimize the total cost of the tree, that is the sum of
   the costs of tree links, with respect to a specific metric or to the
   TE metric used as the default metric when the metric is not
   specified.
   Processing these two new objective functions is subject to the rules
   defined in [RFC5541].

3.6.2.  New Metric Object Types

   There are three types defined for the <METRIC> object in [RFC5440],
   namely, the IGP metric, the TE metric and the Hop Count metric.  This
   document defines three additional types for the <METRIC> object: the
   P2MP IGP metric, the P2MP TE metric, and the P2MP hop count metric.
   They encode the sum of the metrics of all links of the tree.  We
   propose the following values for these new metric types:

   o  P2MP IGP metric: T=8 (suggested value, to be assigned by IANA)

   o  P2MP TE metric: T=9 (suggested value, to be assigned by IANA)

   o  P2MP hop count metric: T=10 (suggested value, to be assigned by
      IANA)

3.7.  Non-Support of P2MP Path Computation.

   o  If a PCE receives a P2MP path request and it understands the P2MP
      flag in the RP object, but the PCE is not capable of P2MP
      computation, the PCE MUST send a PCErr message with a PCEP-ERROR
      Object and corresponding Error-Value.  The original P2MP path
      computation request MUST then be cancelled. New Error-Types and
      Error-Values are requested in the IANA Considerations section of
      this document.

   o  If the PCE does not understand the P2MP flag in the RP object,
      then the PCE MUST send a PCErr message with a new error type
      "Unknown RP flag".

3.8.  Non-Support by Back-Level PCE Implementations.

   If a PCC inadvertently sends a P2MP request to a PCE which does not
   support P2MP path computation and therefore the PCEP P2MP extensions,
   then the PCE SHOULD reject the request.

3.9.  P2MP TE Path Reoptimization Request

   A reoptimization request for a P2MP TE path is specified by the use
   of the R bit within the RP object as defined in [RFC5440] and is
   similar to the reoptimization request for a P2P TE path.  The only
   difference is that the user must insert the list of RROs and SRROs
   after each type of END-POINTS in the PCReq message, as described in
   the Request Message Format section (Section 3.4) of this document.

   An example of a reoptimization request and subsequent PCReq message
   is described below:

           Common Header
           RP with P2MP flag/R bits set
           END-POINTS for leaf type 3
             RRO list
           OF (optional)

            Figure 6: PCReq Message Example 1 for Optimization

   In this example, we request reoptimization of the path to all leaves
   without adding or pruning leaves.  The reoptimization request would
   use an END-POINT type 3. The RRO list would represent the P2MP LSP
   before the optimization and the modifiable path leaves would be
   indicated in the END-POINTS object.

   It is also possible to specify specific leaves whose path cannot
   be modified.  An example of the PCReq message in this scenario would
   be:

           Common Header
           RP with P2MP flag/R bits set
           END-POINTS for leaf type 3
             RRO list
           END-POINTS for leaf type 4
             RRO list
           OF (optional)

            Figure 7: PCReq Message Example 2 for Optimization

   A P2MP reoptimization request could contain a parameter that allows
   the PCC to express a cost-benefit reoptimization threshold for the
   whole LSP as well as per destination. This function would be set by
   the local PCC and subject to the PCE policy [RFC5394]. This
   specification does not provide a mechanism to address this threshold
   function. The function may be addressed in a future document.

3.10.  Adding and Pruning Leaves to the P2MP Tree

   When adding new leaves or removing old leaves to the existing P2MP
   tree, by supplying a list of existing leaves, it SHOULD be possible
   to optimize the existing P2MP tree.  This section explains the
   methods to add new leaves or remove old leaves to the existing
   P2MP tree.

   To add new leaves the user must build a P2MP request using
   END-POINTS with leaf type 1.

   To remove old leaves the user must build a P2MP request using
   END-POINTS with leaf type 2.

   The PCC must also provide the list of old leaves and indicate if
   they should be reoptimized or not by including END-POINTS with leaf
   type 3, leaf type 4 or both.  The error values when the conditions
   are not satisfied (i.e., when there is no END-POINTS with leaf type
   3 or 4, in the presence of END-POINTS with leaf type 1 or 2), are
   documented in the IANA Considerations section (Section 6) of this
   document.

   For old leaves the user must provide the old path as a list of RROs
   that immediately follows each END-POINTS object. This document
   specifies error values when specific conditions are not satisfied.

   The following examples demonstrate full and partial reoptimization
   of existing P2MP LSPs:

   Case 1: Adding leaves with full reoptimization of existing paths

           Common Header
           RP with P2MP flag/R bits set
           END-POINTS for leaf type 1
             RRO list
           END-POINTS for leaf type 3
             RRO list
           OF (optional)

            Figure 8: Adding Leaves with Full Reoptimization

   Case 2: Adding leaves with partial reoptimization of existing paths

           Common Header
           RP with P2MP flag/R bits set
           END-POINTS for leaf type 1
           END-POINTS for leaf type 3
             RRO list
           END-POINTS for leaf type 4
             RRO list
           OF (optional)

            Figure 9: Adding Leaves with Partial Reoptimization

   Case 3: Adding leaves without reoptimization of existing paths

           Common Header
           RP with P2MP flag/R bits set
           END-POINTS for leaf type 1
             RRO list
           END-POINTS for leaf type 4
             RRO list
           OF (optional)

            Figure 10: Adding Leaves without Reoptimization

           Common Header
           RP with P2MP flag/R bits set
           END-POINTS for leaf type 2
             RRO list
           END-POINTS for leaf type 3
             RRO list
           OF (optional)

           Figure 11: Pruning Leaves with Full Reoptimization

    Case 5: Pruning leaves with partial reoptimization of existing paths

           Common Header
           RP with P2MP flag/R bits set
           END-POINTS for leaf type 2
             RRO list
           END-POINTS for leaf type 3
             RRO list
           END-POINTS for leaf type 4
             RRO list
           OF (optional)

            Figure 12: Pruning Leaves with Partial Reoptimization

   Case 6: Pruning leaves without reoptimization of existing paths

           Common Header
           RP with P2MP flag/R bits set
           END-POINTS for leaf type 2
             RRO list
           END-POINTS for leaf type 4
             RRO list
           OF (optional)

            Figure 13: Pruning Leaves without Reoptimization

   Case 7: Adding and pruning leaves full reoptimization of existing
   paths

           Common Header
           RP with P2MP flag/R bits set
           END-POINTS for leaf type 1
           END-POINTS for leaf type 2
             RRO list
           END-POINTS for leaf type 3
             RRO list
           OF (optional)

            Figure 14: Adding and Pruning Leaves full Reoptimization

   Case 8: Adding and pruning leaves with partial reoptimization of
   existing paths
           Common Header
           RP with P2MP flag/R bits set
           END-POINTS for leaf type 1
           END-POINTS for leaf type 2
             RRO list
           END-POINTS for leaf type 3
             RRO list
           END-POINTS for leaf type 4
             RRO list
           OF (optional)

            Figure 15: Adding and Pruning Leaves with Partial
            Reoptimization

   Case 9: Adding and pruning leaves without reoptimization of existing
   paths

           Common Header
           RP with P2MP flag/R bits set
           END-POINTS for leaf type 1
           END-POINTS for leaf type 2
             RRO list
           END-POINTS for leaf type 4
             RRO list
           OF (optional)

            Figure 16: Adding and Pruning Leaves without Reoptimization

3.11. Discovering Branch Nodes

   Before computing the P2MP path, a PCE must be provided means to know
   which nodes in the network are capable of acting as branch LSRs.  A
   PCE can discover such capabilities by using the mechanisms defined in
   [RFC5073].

3.11.1 Branch Node Object

   The PCC can specify a list of nodes that can be used as branch
   nodes or a list of nodes that cannot be used as branch nodes by
   using the a BRANCH NODE Capability (BNC) Object. The BNC Object has
   the same format as the IRO object defined in [RFC5440] except that
   it only supports IPv4 and IPv6 prefix sub-objects. Two Object-
   types are also defined:

   o Branch node list: List of nodes that can be used as branch
   nodes.

   o Non-branch node list: List of nodes that cannot be used as branch
   nodes.

   The object can only be carried in a PCReq message. A Path Request
   may carry at most one BRANCH NODE Object.

   The Object-Class and Object-types will need to allocated by IANA. The
   IANA request is documented in Section 6.5.

3.12. Synchronization of P2MP TE Path Computation Requests

   There are cases when multiple P2MP LSPs computations need to be
   synchronized.  For example, one P2MP LSP is the designated backup of
   another P2MP LSP.  In this case,  path diversity for these dependent
   LSPs may need to be considered during the path computation.

   The synchronization can be done by just using the existing SVEC
   functionality.

   An example of synchronizing two P2MP LSPs, each has two leaves for
   Path Computation Request Messages is illustrated as below:

           Common Header
           SVEC for sync of LSP1 and LSP2
           OF (optional)
           END-POINTS1 for P2MP
            RRO1 list
           END-POINTS2 for P2MP
            RRO2 list

           Figure 17: PCReq Message Example for Synchronization

   This specification also defines two new flags to the SVEC object
   for P2MP path dependent computation requests. The first new flag is
   to allow the PCC to request that the PCE should compute a secondary
   P2MP pathtree with partial path diversity for specific leaves or a
   specific S2L sub-path to the primary P2MP path tree. The second flag,
   would allow the PCC to request that partial paths should be link
   direction diverse.

   The following flags are added to the SVEC object body in this
   document:

   o  P ( Partial Path Diversity bit - 1 bit):

        When set this would indicate a request for path diversity
        for a specific leaf, a set of leaves or all leaves.

   o  D ( Link Direction Diverse bit - 1 bit):

        When set this would indicate a request that a partial path or
        paths should be link direction diverse.

   The IANA request is referenced in Section 6.2 of this document.

3.13. Request and Response Fragmentation

   The total PCEP message-length, including the common header, is 16
   bytes. In certain scenarios the P2MP computation request may not fit
   into a single request or response message. For example, if a tree has
   many hundreds or thousands of leaves. Then the request or response
   may need to be fragmented into multiple messages.

   The F bit has been outlined in the Extension of the RP Object section
   (Section 3.3.1) of this document. The F bit is used in the RP object
   header to signal that the initial request or response was too large
   to fit into a single message and will be fragmented into multiple
   messages. In order to indentify the single request or response, each
   message will use the same request ID.

3.13.1 Request Fragmentation Procedure

   If the initial request is too large to fit into a single request
   message the PCC will split the request over multiple messages. Each
   message sent to the PCE, except the last one, will have the F bit set
   in the RP object to signify that the request has been fragmented
   into multiple messages. In order to indentify that a series of
   request messages represents a single request, each message will
   use the same request ID.

   The assumption is that request messages are reliably delivered
   and in sequence since PCEP relies on TCP.

3.13.2 Response Fragmentation Procedure

   Once the PCE computes a path based on the initial request, a response
   is sent back to the PCC. If the response is too large to fit into a
   single response message the PCE will split the request over multiple
   messages. Each message sent to the PCE, except the last one, will
   have the F bit set in the RP object to signify that the response
   has been fragmented into multiple messages. In order to identify
   that a series of response messages represents a single request,
   each message will use the same request ID.

   Again, the assumption is that response messages are reliably
   delivered and in sequence since PCEP relies on TCP.

3.13.3 Fragmentation Examples

  The following example illustrates the PCC sending a request message
  with Req-ID1 to the PCE, in order to add one leaf to an existing tree
  with 1200 leaves. The assumption is that the one request message can
  hold up to 800 leaves. In this scenario, the original single message
  needs to be fragmented and sent using two smaller messages, which
  have the Req-ID1 specified in the RP object, and with the F bit set on
  the first message.

           Common Header
           RP1 with Req-ID1 and P2MP flag and F bit set
           OF (optional)
           END-POINTS1 for P2MP
            RRO1 list

           Common Header
           RP2 with Req-ID1 and P2MP flag and F bit cleared
           OF (optional)
           END-POINTS1 for P2MP
            RRO1 list

           Figure 18: PCReq Message Fragmentation Example

   To handle the scenario that the last fragmented message piece is
   lost, the receiver side of the fragmented message may start a timer
   once it receives the first piece of the fragmented message. When
   the timer expires and it has not received the last piece of the
   fragmented message, it should send an error message to the sender
   to signal that it has received an incomplete message.

3.14. UNREACH-DESTINATION Object

   The PCE path computation request may fail because all or a subset of
   the destinations are unreachable.

   In such a case, the UNREACH-DESTINATION object allows the PCE to
   optionally specify the list of unreachable destinations.

   This object can be present in PCRep messages.  There can be up to one
   such object per RP.

   The following UNREACH-DESTINATION objects will be required:

   UNREACH-DESTINATION Object-Class is to be assigned by IANA.
   UNREACH-DESTINATION Object-Type for IPv4 is to be assigned by IANA
   UNREACH-DESTINATION Object-Type for IPv6 is to be assigned by IANA.

   The format of the UNREACH-DESTINATION object body for IPv4 (Object-
   Type=1) 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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                  Destination IPv4 address                     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      ~                           ...                                 ~
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                  Destination IPv4 address                     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

            Figure 19: UNREACH-DESTINATION Object Body for IPv4

   The format of the UNREACH-DESTINATION object body for IPv6 (Object-
   Type=2) 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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      |            Destination IPv6 address (16 bytes)                |
      |                                                               |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      ~                          ...                                  ~
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      |              Destination IPv6 address (16 bytes)              |
      |                                                               |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

            Figure 20: UNREACH-DESTINATION Object Body for IPv6

3.15. P2MP PCEP Error Objects and Types

   To indicate errors associated with the P2MP path request, a new
   Error-Type (16) and subsequent error-values are defined as follows
   for inclusion in the PCEP-ERROR object:

   Error-Type=16 and Error-Value=1: if a PCE receives a P2MP path
   request and the PCE is not capable to satisfy the request due to
   insufficient memory, the PCE MUST send a PCErr message with a PCEP
   ERROR object (Error-Type=16) and an Error-Value(Error-Value=1).  The
   corresponding P2MP path computation request MUST also be cancelled.

   Error-Type=16; Error-Value=2: if a PCE receives a P2MP path request
   and the PCE is not capable of P2MP computation, the PCE MUST send a
   PCErr message with a PCEP-ERROR Object (Error-Type=16) and an Error-
   Value (Error-Value=2).  The corresponding P2MP path computation
   request MUST be also cancelled.

   To indicate an error associated with policy violation, a new error
   value "P2MP Path computation not allowed" should be added to the
   existing error code for policy violation (Error-Type=5) as defined
   in [RFC5440]:

   Error-Type=5; Error-Value=6: if a PCE receives a P2MP path
   computation request which is not compliant with administrative
   privileges (i.e., "The PCE policy does not support P2MP path
   computation"), the PCE MUST send a PCErr message with a PCEP-ERROR
   Object (Error-Type=5) and an Error-Value (Error-Value=6).  The
   corresponding P2MP path computation request MUST also be cancelled.

3.16. PCEP NO-PATH Indicator

   To communicate the reasons for not being able to find P2MP path
   computation, the NO-PATH object can be used in the PCRep message.

   One new bit is defined in the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV carried in
   the NO-PATH Object:

   0x24: when set, the PCE indicates that there is a reachability
   problem with all or a subset of the P2MP destinations.  Optionally
   the PCE can specify the destination or list of destinations that are
   not reachable using the new UNREACH-DESTINATION object defined in
   section 3.6.

4. Manageability Considerations

   [PCE-P2MP-REQ] describes various manageability requirements in
   support of P2MP path computation when applying PCEP.  This section
   describes how manageability requirements mentioned in [PCE-P2MP-REQ]
   are supported in the context of PCEP extensions specified in this
   document.

   Note that [RFC5440] describes various manageability considerations in
   PCEP, and most of manageability requirements mentioned in [PCE-P2MP
   P2MP] are already covered there.

4.1.  Control of Function and Policy

   In addition to configuration parameters listed in [RFC5440], the
   following parameters MAY be required.

   o  P2MP path computations enabled or disabled.

   o  Advertisement of P2MP path computation capability enabled or
      disabled (discovery protocol, capability exchange).

4.2. Information and Data Models

   As described in [PCE-P2MP-REQ], MIB objects MUST be supported for
   PCEP extensions specified in this document.

4.3.  Liveness Detection and Monitoring

   There are no additional considerations beyond those expressed in
   [RFC5440], since [PCE-P2MP-REQ] does not address any additional
   requirements.

4.4.  Verifying Correct Operation

   There are no additional considerations beyond those expressed in
   [RFC5440], since [PCE-P2MP-REQ] does not address any additional
   requirements.

4.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components

   As described in [PCE-P2MP-REQ], the PCE MUST obtain information
   about the P2MP signaling and branching capabilities of each LSR in
   the network.

   Protocol extensions specified in this document does not provide such
   capability.  Other mechanisms MUST be present.

   The PCE Discovery mechanisms ([RFC5088] and [RFC5089]) can be used to
   advertise capabilities to PCCs.  A new flag (value=10) could be
   defined in PCE-CAP-FLAGs Sub-TLV to indicate P2MP path computation
   capability. Extensions for PCE discovery are out of scope of this
   document.

4.6. Impact on Network Operation

   It is expected that use of PCEP extensions specified in this document
   does not have significant impact on network operations.

5. Security Considerations

   As described in [PCE-P2MP-REQ], P2MP path computation requests are
   more CPU-intensive and also use more link bandwidth.  Therefore, it
   may be more vulnerable to denial of service attacks. Therefore it is
   more important that implementations conform to security requirements
   of [RFC5440], and the implementer utilize those security features.

6. IANA Considerations

   IANA maintains a registry of PCEP parameters. A number of IANA
   considerations have been highlighted in previous sections of this
   document. IANA is requested to make the following allocations.

6.1 P2MP Capability TLV

   As described in Section 3.1.2, the newly defined P2MP capability TLV
   allows the PCE to advertize its P2MP path computation capability.
   IANA is requested to make the following allocation from the "PCEP
   TLV Type Indicators" sub-registry.

   Value       Description          Reference
   6           P2MP capability      This.I-D

6.2 Request Parameter Bit Flags

   As described in Section 3.3.1., three new RP Object Flags have
   been defined. IANA is requested to make the following allocations
   from the "RP Object Flag Field" Sub-Registry:

      Bit      Description                         Reference

      18       Fragmentation(F-bit)                This.I-D
      19       P2MP (N-bit)                        This.I-D
      20       ERO-compression (E-bit)             This.I-D

6.3 Objective Functions

   As described in Section 3.6.1., two new Objective Functions have been
   defined. IANA is requested to make the following allocations from the
   "Objective Function" sub-registry:

      Code Point        Name        Reference

      7                 SPT         This.I-D
      8                 MCT         This.I-D

6.4 Metric Object Types

   As described in Section 3.6.2., three new metric object T fields have
   been defined. IANA is requested to make the following allocations
   from the "METRIC Object T Field" sub-registry:

      Value           Description               Reference

      8               P2MP IGP metric           This.I-D
      9               P2MP TE metric            This.I-D
      10              P2MP hop count metric     This.I-D

6.5 PCEP Objects

   As described in Section 3.2, 3.4 and 3.11.1, six PCE Objects have
   been defined. IANA is requested to make the following allocations
   from the "PCEP Objects" sub-registry

  Object-Class Value    25
  Name                  UNREACH-DESTINATION
  Object-Type           1: IPv4
                        2: IPv6
                        3-15: Unassigned
  Reference             This.I-D

  Object-Class Value    26
  Name                  SERO
  Object-Type           1: SERO
                        2-15: Unassigned
  Reference             This.I-D

  Object-Class Value    27
  Name                  SRRO
  Object-Type           1: SRRO
                        2-15: Unassigned
  Reference             This.I-D

  Object-Class Value    28
  Name                  Branch Node Capability Object
  Object-Type           1: Branch node list
                        2: Non-branch node list
                        3-15: Unassigned
  Reference             This.I-D

6.6 PCEP Error Objects and Types

   As described in Section 3.15., a number of new PCEP-ERROR Object
   Error Types and Values have been defined. IANA is requested to
   make the following allocations from the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error
   Type and Value" sub-registry:

   Error
   Type    Meaning                                            Reference

   5      Policy violation
            Error-value=6:                                    This.I-D
              P2MP Path computation is not allowed

   16     P2MP Error                                          This.I-D
            Error-Value=0: Unassigned
            Error-Value=1:                                    This.I-D
              The PCE is not capable to satisfy the request
              due to insufficient memory
            Error-Value=2:                                    This.I-D
             The PCE is not capable of P2MP computation

   17     P2MP Error                                          This.I-D
           Error-Value=0: Unassigned
           Error-Value=1:                                     This.I-D
             The PCE is not capable to satisfy the request
             due to no END-POINTS with leaf type 2
           Error-Value=2:                                     This.I-D
             The PCE is not capable to satisfy the request
             due to no END-POINTS with leaf type 3
           Error-Value=3:                                     This.I-D
             The PCE is not capable to satisfy the request
             due to no END-POINTS with leaf type 4

6.7 PCEP NO-PATH Indicator

   As discussed in Section 3.16, a new NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Flag Field
   has been defined. IANA is requested to make the following
   allocation from the "NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Flag Field" sub-registry:

      Bit    Description                               Reference

      24     P2MP Reachability Problem                This.I-D

7. Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Young Lee, Dan
   Tappan, Autumn Liu, Huaimo Chen, Eiji Okim, Nick Neate, Suresh
   Babu K,Dhruv Dhody, Udayasree Palle, Gaurav Agrawal and Vishwas
   Manral for their valuable comments and input on this draft.

8. References

8.1. Normative References

   [RFC5440]  Ayyangar, A., Farrel, A., Oki, E., Atlas, A., Dolganow,
              A., Ikejiri, Y., Kumaki, K., Vasseur, J., and J. Roux,
              "Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol
              (PCEP)", RFC 5440, March 2009.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3209]  Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
              and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
              Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.

   [RFC3473]  Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
              (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
              Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.

   [RFC4873]  Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., and A. Farrel,
              "GMPLS Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, May 2007

   [RFC4875]  Aggarwal, R., Papadimitriou, D., and S. Yasukawa,
              "Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic
              Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE Label
              Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875, May 2007.

   [RFC4970]  Lindem A., et al.
              "Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional Router
              Capabilities', RFC 4970, July 2007

   [RFC5073]  Vasseur, JP., Le Roux, JL., "IGP Routing Protocol
              Extensions for Discovery of Traffic Engineering Node
              Capabilities", RFC 5073, December 2007.

   [RFC5088]  Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., Ikejiri, Y., and R. Zhang,
              "OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element
              (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5088, January 2008.

   [RFC5089]  Le Roux, JL., Ed., Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R.
              Zhang, "IS-IS Protocol Extensions for Path Computation
              Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5089, January 2008.

   [RFC5511]  Farrel, F., "Routing Backus-Naur Form (RBNF): A Syntax
              Used to Form Encoding Rules in Various Routing Protocol
              Specifications", RFC 5511, April 2009.

   [RFC5541]
              Roux, J., Vasseur, J., and Y. Lee, "Encoding of Objective
              Functions in the Path Computation Element  Communication
              Protocol (PCEP)", RFC5541, December 2008.

8.2. Informative References

   [RFC4655]  Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
              Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006.

   [RFC5671]  Yasukawa, S. and A. Farrel, "Applicability of the Path
              Computation Element (PCE) to Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP)
              MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)" RFC 5671,
              October 2009.

   [PCE-P2MP-REQ]
              Yasukawa, S. and A. Farrel, "PCC-PCE Communication
              Requirements for Point to Multipoint Multiprotocol  Label
              Switching Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE)",
              draft-ietf-pce-p2mp-req-05 (work in progress),
              December 2009.

   [RFC5394]  Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., Berger, L., and Ash,
              J., "Policy-Enabled Path Computation Framework",
              RFC 5394, December 2008.

9. Authors' Addresses

   Quintin Zhao (editor)
   Huawei Technology
   125 Nagog Technology Park
   Acton, MA  01719
   US
   Email: qzhao@huawei.com

   Daniel King (editor)
   Old Dog Consulting
   UK
   Email: daniel@olddog.co.uk

   Fabien Verhaeghe
   Thales Communication France
   160 Bd Valmy 92700 Colombes
   France
   Email: fabien.verhaeghe@gmail.com

   Tomonori Takeda
   NTT Corporation
   3-9-11, Midori-Cho
   Musashino-Shi, Tokyo 180-8585
   Japan
   Email: takeda.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp
   Zafar Ali
   Cisco systems, Inc.
   2000 Innovation Drive
   Kanata, Ontario  K2K 3E8
   Canada
   Email: zali@cisco.com

   Julien Meuric
   France Telecom
   2, avenue Pierre-Marzin
   22307 Lannion Cedex,
   julien.meuric@orange-ftgroup.com

9.1 Contributors

   Jean-Louis Le Roux
   France Telecom
   2, avenue Pierre-Marzin
   22307 Lannion Cedex,
   France
   Email: jeanlouis.leroux@orange-ftgroup.com

   Mohamad Chaitou
   France
   Email: mohamad.chaitou@gmail.com

Appendix A. RBNF Code Fragments

   This appendix contains the full set of code fragments defined in this
   document.

   Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as authors
   of the code.  All rights reserved.

   Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
   modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
   are met:

   o Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
     notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

   o Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
     notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
     documentation and/or other materials provided with the
     distribution.

   o Neither the name of Internet Society, IETF or IETF Trust, nor the
     names of specific contributors, may be used to endorse or promote
     products derived from this software without specific prior written
     permission.

   THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
   LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR
   A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED.  IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT
   OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
   SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT
   LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE,
   DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY
   THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
   (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE
   OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

    Below is the message format for the request message:

           <PCReq Message>::= <Common Header>
                                 <request>
        where:
                <request>::= <RP>
                                <end-point-rro-pair-list>
                                [<OF>]
                                [<LSPA>]
                                [<BANDWIDTH>]
                                [<metric-list>]
                                [<IRO>]
                                [<LOAD-BALANCING>]

        where:

                <end-point-rro-pair-list>::=
                                   <END-POINTS>[<RRO-List>][<BANDWIDTH>]
                                   [<end-point-rro-pair-list>]

                <RRO-List>::=<RRO>[<BANDWIDTH>][<RRO-List>]
                <metric-list>::=<METRIC>[<metric-list>]

    Below is the message format for the reply message:

       Below is the message format for the reply message:

          <PCRep Message>::= <Common Header>
                                <response>
          <response>::=<RP>
                          [<end-point-path-pair-list>]
                          [<NO-PATH>]
                          [<attribute-list>]

        where:

           <end-point-path-pair-list>::=
                   [<END-POINTS>]<path>[<end-point-path-pair-list>]

          <path> ::=(ERO)|(SERO)|<path>]

          <attribute-list>::=[<OF>]
                               [<LSPA>]
                               [<BANDWIDTH>]
                               [<metric-list>]
                               [<IRO>]