draft-ietf-pce-pcep-p2mp-extensions-11.txt   rfc6006.txt 
Internet Engineering Task Force Q. Zhao, Ed.
Internet-Draft Huawei Technology
Intended Status: Standards Track Daniel King, Ed.
Expires: November 25, 2010 Old Dog Consulting
May 25, 2010
Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Q. Zhao, Ed.
(PCEP) for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths Request for Comments: 6006 Huawei Technology
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-p2mp-extensions-11.txt Category: Standards Track D. King, Ed.
ISSN: 2070-1721 Old Dog Consulting
F. Verhaeghe
Thales Communication France
T. Takeda
NTT Corporation
Z. Ali
Cisco Systems, Inc.
J. Meuric
France Telecom
September 2010
Extensions to
the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths
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 point-to-multipoint (P2MP) TE LSPs.
This document describes extensions to the PCE communication Protocol This document describes extensions to the PCE communication Protocol
(PCEP) to handle requests and responses for the computation of paths (PCEP) to handle requests and responses for the computation of paths
for P2MP TE LSPs. for P2MP TE LSPs.
Status of this Memo 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 This is an Internet Standards Track document.
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 25, 2010. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6006.
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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
languages other than English. 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 Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
1.1 Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 1. Introduction ....................................................3
2. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 1.1. Terminology ................................................4
3. Protocol Procedures and Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 1.2. Requirements Language ......................................5
3.1. P2MP Capability Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 2. PCC-PCE Communication Requirements ..............................5
3.1.1. P2MP Computation TLV in the Existing PCE Discovery 3. Protocol Procedures and Extensions ..............................6
Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 3.1. P2MP Capability Advertisement ..............................6
3.1.2. Open Message Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 3.1.1. P2MP Computation TLV in the Existing PCE
3.2. Efficient Presentation of P2MP TE LSPs . . . . . . . . . .7 Discovery Protocol ..................................6
3.3. P2MP Path Computation Request/Reply Message Extensions . .8 3.1.2. Open Message Extension ..............................7
3.3.1. The Extension of the RP Object . . . . . . . . . . . .8 3.2. Efficient Presentation of P2MP LSPs ........................7
3.3.2. The New P2MP END-POINTS Object . . . . . . . . . . . .9 3.3. P2MP Path Computation Request/Reply Message Extensions .....8
3.4. Request Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 3.3.1. The Extension of the RP Object ......................8
3.5. Reply Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 3.3.2. The New P2MP END-POINTS Object ......................9
3.6. P2MP Objective Functions and Metric Types . . . . . . . .12 3.4. Request Message Format ....................................12
3.6.1. New Objective Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 3.5. Reply Message Format ......................................12
3.6.2. New Metric Object Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 3.6. P2MP Objective Functions and Metric Types .................13
3.7. Non-Support of P2MP Path Computation. . . . . . . . . . .13 3.6.1. New Objective Functions ............................13
3.8. Non-Support by Back-Level PCE Implementations. . . . . . .13 3.6.2. New Metric Object Types ............................14
3.9. P2MP TE Path Reoptimization Request . . . . . . . . . . .14 3.7. Non-Support of P2MP Path Computation ......................14
3.10. Adding and Pruning Leaves to the P2MP Tree . . . . . . . .14 3.8. Non-Support by Back-Level PCE Implementations .............15
3.11. Discovering Branch Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 3.9. P2MP TE Path Reoptimization Request .......................15
3.11.1 Branch Node Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 3.10. Adding and Pruning Leaves to/from the P2MP Tree ..........16
3.12. Synchronization of P2MP TE Path Computation Requests . . .18 3.11. Discovering Branch Nodes .................................19
3.13. Request and Response Fragmentation . . . . . . . . . . . .19 3.11.1. Branch Node Object ................................19
3.13.1. Request Fragmentation Procedure . . . . . . . . . . .19 3.12. Synchronization of P2MP TE Path Computation Requests .....19
3.13.2. Response Fragmentation Procedure . . . . . . . . . . .19 3.13. Request and Response Fragmentation .......................20
3.13.3. Fragmentation Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 3.13.1. Request Fragmentation Procedure ...................21
3.14. UNREACH-DESTINATION Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 3.13.2. Response Fragmentation Procedure ..................21
3.15. P2MP PCEP Error Object and Types . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 3.13.3. Fragmentation Examples ............................21
3.16. PCEP NO-PATH Indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 3.14. UNREACH-DESTINATION Object ...............................22
4. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 3.15. P2MP PCEP-ERROR Objects and Types ........................23
4.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 3.16. PCEP NO-PATH Indicator ...................................24
4.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 4. Manageability Considerations ...................................25
4.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . .23 4.1. Control of Function and Policy ............................25
4.4. Verifying Correct Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 4.2. Information and Data Models ...............................25
4.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional 4.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring .........................25
Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 4.4. Verifying Correct Operation ...............................25
4.6. Impact on Network Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 4.5. Requirements for Other Protocols and Functional
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Components ................................................26
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 4.6. Impact on Network Operation ...............................26
6.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 5. Security Considerations ........................................26
6.2. Request Parameter Bit Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 6. IANA Considerations ............................................27
6.3. Objective Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 6.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators ..................................27
6.4. Metric Object Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 6.2. Request Parameter Bit Flags ...............................27
6.5. PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 6.3. Objective Functions .......................................27
6.6. PCEP Error Objects and Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 6.4. Metric Object Types .......................................27
6.7. PCEP NO-PATH Indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 6.5. PCEP Objects ..............................................28
6.8. SVEC Object Flag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 6.6. PCEP-ERROR Objects and Types ..............................29
6.9. OSPF PCE Capability Flag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 6.7. PCEP NO-PATH Indicator ....................................30
7. Acknowledgement's . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 6.8. SVEC Object Flag ..........................................30
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 6.9. OSPF PCE Capability Flag ..................................30
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 7. Acknowledgements ...............................................30
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29 8. References .....................................................30
9. Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 8.1. Normative References ......................................30
9.1. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 8.2. Informative References ....................................32
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The Path Computation Element (PCE) defined in [RFC4655] is an entity The Path Computation Element (PCE) defined in [RFC4655] is an entity
that is capable of computing a network path or route based on a that is capable of computing a network path or route based on a
network graph, and applying computational constraints. A Path network graph, and applying computational constraints. A Path
Computation Client (PCC) may make requests to a PCE for paths to be Computation Client (PCC) may make requests to a PCE for paths to be
computed. computed.
[RFC4875] describes how to set up point-to-multipoint (P2MP) Traffic [RFC4875] describes how to set up point-to-multipoint (P2MP) Traffic
Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) for use in Multiprotocol Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) for use in Multiprotocol
Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks. Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks.
The PCE has been identified as a suitable application for the The PCE has been identified as a suitable application for the
computation of paths for P2MP TE LSPs [RFC5671]. computation of paths for P2MP TE LSPs [RFC5671].
The PCE communication protocol (PCEP) is designed as a communication The PCE communication Protocol (PCEP) is designed as a communication
protocol between PCCs and PCEs for point-to-point (P2P) path protocol between PCCs and PCEs for point-to-point (P2P) path
computations and is defined in [RFC5440]. However, that computations and is defined in [RFC5440]. However, that
specification does not provide a mechanism to request path specification does not provide a mechanism to request path
computation of P2MP TE LSPs. computation of P2MP TE LSPs.
A P2MP LSP is comprised of multiple source-to-leaf (S2L) sub-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 These S2L sub-LSPs are set up between ingress and egress Label
appropriately overlaid to construct a P2MP TE LSP. During path Switching Routers (LSRs) and are appropriately overlaid to construct
computation, the P2MP TE LSP may be determined as a set of S2L sub- a P2MP TE LSP. During path computation, the P2MP TE LSP may be
LSPs that are computed separately and combined to give the path of determined as a set of S2L sub-LSPs that are computed separately and
the P2MP LSP, or the entire P2MP TE LSP may be determined as a P2MP combined to give the path of the P2MP LSP, or the entire P2MP TE LSP
tree in a single computation. may be determined as a P2MP tree in a single computation.
This document relies on the mechanisms of PCEP to request path This document relies on the mechanisms of PCEP to request path
computation for P2MP TE LSPs. One path computation request message computation for P2MP TE LSPs. One path computation request message
from a PCC may request the computation of the whole P2MP TE LSP, or 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 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 extreme case, the PCC may request the S2L sub-LSPs to be computed
individually with it being the PCC's responsibility to decide whether individually with it being the PCC's responsibility to decide whether
to signal individual S2L sub-LSPs or combine the computation results 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 to signal the entire P2MP TE LSP. Hence the PCC may use one path
computation request message or may split the request across multiple computation request message or may split the request across multiple
path computation messages. path computation messages.
1.1 Terminology 1.1. Terminology
Terminology used in this document. Terminology used in this document:
TE LSP: Traffic Engineered Label Switched Path. TE LSP: Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path.
LSR: Label Switching Router. LSR: Label Switching Router.
OF: Objective Function: A set of one or more optimization criteria OF: Objective Function: A set of one or more optimization criteria
used for the computation of a single path (e.g., path cost used for the computation of a single path (e.g., path cost
minimization), or for the synchronized computation of a set of paths minimization), or for the synchronized computation of a set of
(e.g., aggregate bandwidth consumption minimization). paths (e.g., aggregate bandwidth consumption minimization).
P2MP: Point-to-Multipoint. P2MP: Point-to-Multipoint.
P2P: Point-to-Point. P2P: Point-to-Point.
This document also uses the terminology defined in [RFC4655], This document also uses the terminology defined in [RFC4655],
[RFC4875], and [RFC5440]. [RFC4875], and [RFC5440].
2. Requirements 1.2. Requirements Language
This section summarizes the PCC-PCE Communication Requirements for The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
P2MP MPLS-TE LSPs described in [PCE-P2MP-REQ]. The numbering system "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
corresponds to the requirement numbers used in [PCE-P2MP-REQ]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
1. The PCC MUST be able to specify that the request is a P2MP path 2. PCC-PCE Communication Requirements
computation request.
2. The PCC MUST be able to specify that objective functions are to be This section summarizes the PCC-PCE communication requirements for
applied to the P2MP path computation request. P2MP MPLS-TE LSPs described in [RFC5862]. The numbering system
corresponds to the requirement numbers used in [RFC5862].
3. The PCE MUST have the capability to reject a P2MP path request 1. The PCC MUST be able to specify that the request is a P2MP path
and indicate non-support of P2MP path computation. computation request.
4. The PCE MUST provide an indication of non-support of P2MP path 2. The PCC MUST be able to specify that objective functions are to
computation by back-level PCE implementations. be applied to the P2MP path computation request.
5. A P2MP path computation request MUST be able to list multiple 3. The PCE MUST have the capability to reject a P2MP path request
destinations. and indicate non-support of P2MP path computation.
6. A P2MP path computation response MUST be able to carry the path 4. The PCE MUST provide an indication of non-support of P2MP path
of a P2MP LSP. computation by back-level PCE implementations.
7. It MUST be possible for a single P2MP path computation request or 5. A P2MP path computation request MUST be able to list multiple
response to be conveyed by a sequence of messages. destinations.
8. It MUST NOT be possible for a single P2MP path computation 6. A P2MP path computation response MUST be able to carry the path
request to specify a set of different constraints, traffic of a P2MP LSP.
parameters, or quality-of-service requirements for different
destinations of a P2MP LSP.
9. P2MP path modification and P2MP path diverse MUST be supported. 7. By default, the path returned by the PCE SHOULD use the
compressed format.
10. It MUST be possible to reoptimize existing P2MP TE LSPs. 8. It MUST be possible for a single P2MP path computation request or
response to be conveyed by a sequence of messages.
11. It MUST be possible to add and remove P2MP destinations 9. It MUST NOT be possible for a single P2MP path computation
from existing paths. request to specify a set of different constraints, traffic
parameters, or quality-of-service requirements for different
destinations of a P2MP LSP.
12. It MUST be possible to specify a list of applicable branch 10. P2MP path modification and P2MP path diversity MUST be supported.
nodes to use when computing the P2MP path.
13. It MUST be possible for a PCC to discover P2MP path computation 11. It MUST be possible to reoptimize existing P2MP TE LSPs.
12. It MUST be possible to add and remove P2MP destinations from
existing paths.
13. It MUST be possible to specify a list of applicable branch nodes
to use when computing the P2MP path.
14. It MUST be possible for a PCC to discover P2MP path computation
capability. capability.
14. The PCC MUST be able to request diverse paths when requesting a 15. The PCC MUST be able to request diverse paths when requesting a
P2MP path. P2MP path.
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 Section 2. (Requirements) satisfy the requirements specified in Section 2 ("PCC-PCE
of this document. Communication Requirements") 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
[RFC5088] defines a PCE Discovery (PCED) TLV carried in an OSPF [RFC5088] defines a PCE Discovery (PCED) TLV carried in an OSPF
Router Information LSA defined in [RFC4970] to facilitate PCE Router Information Link State Advertisement (LSA) defined in
discovery using OSPF. [RFC5088] specifies that no new sub-TLVs may be [RFC4970] to facilitate PCE discovery using OSPF. [RFC5088]
added to the PCED TLV. This document defines a new flag in the OSPF specifies that no new sub-TLVs may be added to the PCED TLV. This
PCE Capability Flags to indicate the capability of P2MP computation. document defines a new flag in the OSPF PCE Capability Flags to
indicate the capability of P2MP computation.
Similarly, [RFC5089] defines the PCED sub-TLV for use in PCE Similarly, [RFC5089] defines the PCED sub-TLV for use in PCE
Discovery using IS-IS. This document will use the same flag Discovery using IS-IS. This document will use the same flag
requested for the OSPF PCE Capability Flags sub-TLV requested for the OSPF PCE Capability Flags sub-TLV to allow IS-IS to
to allow IS-IS to indicate the capability of P2MP computation. indicate the capability of P2MP computation.
The IANA request for a shared OSPF and IS-IS P2MP capability flag The IANA assignment for a shared OSPF and IS-IS P2MP Capability Flag
is documented in Section 6.9. (OSPF PCE Capability Flag) of this is documented in Section 6.9 ("OSPF PCE Capability Flag") of this
document. document.
PCEs wishing to advertise that they support P2MP path computation PCEs wishing to advertise that they support P2MP path computation
would set the bit (to be assigned by IANA) accordingly. PCCs that would set the bit (10) accordingly. PCCs that do not understand this
do not understand this bit will ignore it (per [RFC5088] and bit will ignore it (per [RFC5088] and [RFC5089]). PCEs that do not
[RFC5089]). PCEs that do not support P2MP will leave the bit clear support P2MP will leave the bit clear (per the default behavior
(per the default behavior defined in [RFC5088] and [RFC5089]). defined in [RFC5088] and [RFC5089]).
PCEs that set the bit to indicate support of P2MP path computation PCEs that set the bit to indicate support of P2MP path computation
MUST follow the procedures in Section 3.1.2. (The New P2MP END-POINTS MUST follow the procedures in Section 3.3.2 ("The New P2MP END-POINTS
Object)to further qualify the level of support Object") to further qualify the level of support.
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 [RFC5862], if a PCE does not advertise its P2MP capability during
during discovery, PCEP should be used to allow a PCC to discover discovery, PCEP should be used to allow a PCC to discover, during the
during the Open Message Exchange, which PCEs are capable of Open Message Exchange, which PCEs are capable of supporting P2MP path
supporting P2MP path computation. 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. perform P2MP path computations.
The allocation from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" sub-registry will IANA has allocated value 6 from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" sub-
be assigned by IANA and the request is documented in Section 6.1. registry, as documented in Section 6.1 ("PCEP TLV Type Indicators").
(PCEP TLV Type Indicators). The description is "P2MP capable", the The description is "P2MP capable", and the length value is 2 bytes.
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.
The capability TLV is meaningful only for a PCE so it will typically 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 appear only in one of the two Open messages during PCE session
establishment. However, in case of PCE cooperation (e.g., 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
it SHOULD also indicate its path computation capabilities. it SHOULD also indicate its path computation capabilities.
3.2. Efficient Presentation of P2MP LSPs 3.2. Efficient Presentation of P2MP LSPs
When specifying additional leaves, or optimizing existing P2MP TE When specifying additional leaves, or optimizing existing P2MP TE
LSPs as specified in [PCE-P2MP-REQ], it may be necessary to pass LSPs as specified in [RFC5862], it may be necessary to pass existing
existing P2MP LSP route information between the PCC and PCE in the P2MP LSP route information between the PCC and PCE in the request and
request and reply message. In each of these scenarios, we need new reply messages. In each of these scenarios, we need new path objects
path objects for efficiently passing the existing P2MP LSP between for efficiently passing the existing P2MP LSP between the PCE and
the PCE and PCC. PCC.
We specify the use of the Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering We specify the use of the Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic
Extensions (RSVP-TE) Explicit Route Object (ERO) to encode the Engineering (RSVP-TE) extensions Explicit Route Object (ERO) to
explicit route of a TE LSP through the network. PCEP ERO sub-object encode the explicit route of a TE LSP through the network. PCEP ERO
types correspond to RSVP-TE ERO sub-object types. The format and sub-object types correspond to RSVP-TE ERO sub-object types. The
content of the ERO object are defined in [RFC3209] and [RFC3473]. format and content of the ERO object are defined in [RFC3209] and
[RFC3473].
The Secondary Explicit Route Object (SERO) is used to specify the The Secondary Explicit Route Object (SERO) is used to specify the
explicit route of a S2L sub-LSP. The path of each subsequent S2L 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. 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] The format of the SERO is the same as an ERO defined in [RFC3209] and
and [RFC3473]. [RFC3473].
The Secondary Recorded Route Object (SRRO) is used to record The Secondary Record Route Object (SRRO) is used to record the
the explicit route of the S2L sub-LSP. The class of the P2MP SRRO explicit route of the S2L sub-LSP. The class of the P2MP SRRO is the
is the same as the SRRO defined in [RFC4873]. same as the SRRO defined in [RFC4873].
The SERO and SRRO are used to report the route of an existing TE The SERO and SRRO are used to report the route of an existing TE LSP
LSP for which a reoptimization is desired. The format and content for which a reoptimization is desired. The format and content of the
of the SERO and SRRO are defined in [RFC4875]. SERO and SRRO are defined in [RFC4875].
A new PCEP object class and type are requested for SERO and SRRO. A new PCEP object class and type are requested for SERO and SRRO.
Object-Class Value 26 Object-Class Value 29
Name SERO Name SERO
Object-Type 1: SERO Object-Type 1: SERO
2-15: Unassigned 2-15: Unassigned
Reference This.I-D Reference RFC 6006
Object-Class Value 27
Object-Class Value 30
Name SRRO Name SRRO
Object-Type 1: SRRO Object-Type 1: SRRO
2-15: Unassigned 2-15: Unassigned
Reference This.I-D Reference RFC 6006
The IANA request is referenced in Section 6.5. (PCEP Objects). The IANA assignment is documented in Section 6.5 ("PCEP Objects").
Since the explicit path is available for immediate signaling by the Since the explicit path is available for immediate signaling by the
MPLS or GMPLS control plane, the meanings of all of the sub-objects 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. and fields in this object are identical to those defined for the ERO.
3.3. P2MP Path Computation Request/Reply Message Extensions 3.3. P2MP Path Computation Request/Reply Message Extensions
This document extends the existing P2P RP (Request Parameters) object This document extends the existing P2P RP (Request Parameters) object
so that a PCC can signal a P2MP path computation request to the PCE 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 receiving the PCEP request. The END-POINTS object is also extended
to improve the efficiency of the message exchange between PCC and PCE to improve the efficiency of the message exchange between PCC and PCE
in the case of P2MP path computation. in the case of P2MP path computation.
3.3.1. The Extension of the RP Object 3.3.1. The Extension of the RP Object
The PCE path computation request and reply message will need the The PCE path computation request and reply messages will need the
following additional parameters to allow a receiving PCE to following additional parameters to indicate to the receiving PCE that
identify that the request and reply message has been fragmented the request and reply messages have been fragmented across multiple
across multiple messages, has been requested for a P2MP path and to messages, that they have been requested for a P2MP path, and whether
specify if the route is represented in the compressed or uncompressed the route is represented in the compressed or uncompressed format.
format.
This document adds the following flags to the RP Object: This document adds the following flags to the RP Object:
The F bit is added to the flag bits of the RP object to indicate The F-bit is added to the flag bits of the RP object to indicate to
to the receiver that the request is part of a fragmented request, or the receiver that the request is part of a fragmented request, or is
is not a fragmented request. not a fragmented request.
o F ( RP fragmentation bit - 1 bit): o F (RP fragmentation bit - 1 bit):
0: This indicates that the RP is not fragmented or it is the 0: This indicates that the RP is not fragmented or it is the last
last piece of the fragmented RP. piece of the fragmented RP.
1: This indicates that the RP is fragmented and this is not 1: This indicates that the RP is fragmented and this is not the
the last piece of the fragmented RP. The receiver last piece of the fragmented RP. The receiver needs to wait
needs to wait for additional fragments until it receives for additional fragments until it receives an RP with the same
an RP with the same RP-ID and with the F bit is set to 0. RP-ID and with the F-bit set to 0.
The N bit is added in the flag bits field of the RP object to signal 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 the receiver of the message that the request/reply is for P2MP or is
not. not for P2MP.
o N ( P2MP bit - 1 bit): o N (P2MP bit - 1 bit):
0: This indicates that this is not PCReq/PCRep for P2MP. 0: This indicates that this is not a PCReq or PCRep message for
P2MP.
1: This indicates that this is PCReq or PCRep message for P2MP. 1: This indicates that this is a PCReq or PCRep message for P2MP.
The E bit is added in the flag bits field of the RP object to signal 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 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 format or is not in the compressed format. By default, the path
compressed format. returned by the PCE SHOULD use the compressed format.
o E ( ERO-compression bit - 1 bit): o E (ERO-compression bit - 1 bit):
0: This indicates that the route is not in the compressed 0: This indicates that the route is not in the compressed format.
format.
1: This indicates that the route is in the compressed format. 1: This indicates that the route is in the compressed format.
The IANA request is referenced in Section 6.2 (Request Parameter Bit The IANA assignment is documented in Section 6.2 ("Request Parameter
Flags) of this document. Bit Flags") of this document.
3.3.2. The New P2MP END-POINTS Object 3.3.2. The New P2MP END-POINTS Object
The END-POINTS object is used in a PCReq message to specify the The END-POINTS object is used in a PCReq message to specify the
source IP address and the destination IP address of the path for source IP address and the destination IP address of the path for
which a path computation is requested. To represent the end points which a path computation is requested. To represent the end points
for a P2MP path efficiently, we define two new types of end-point for a P2MP path efficiently, we define two new types of END-POINTS
objects for the P2MP path: objects for the P2MP path:
o Old leaves whose path can be modified/reoptimized; o Old leaves whose path can be modified/reoptimized;
o Old leaves whose path must be left unchanged. o Old leaves whose path must be left unchanged.
With the new END-POINTS object, the PCE path computation request With the new END-POINTS object, the PCE path computation request
message is expanded in a way which allows a single request message is expanded in a way that allows a single request message to
message to list multiple destinations. list multiple destinations.
In total there are now 4 possible types of leaves in a P2MP request: In total, there are now 4 possible types of leaves in a P2MP request:
o New leaves to add (leaf type = 1) o New leaves to add (leaf type = 1)
o Old leaves to remove (leaf type = 2)
o Old leaves whose path can be modified/reoptimized (leaf type = 3) o Old leaves to remove (leaf type = 2)
o Old leaves whose path must be left unchanged (leaf type = 4)
o Old leaves whose path can be modified/reoptimized (leaf type = 3)
o Old leaves whose path must be left unchanged (leaf type = 4)
A given END-POINTS object gathers the leaves of a given type. The 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- type of leaf in a given END-POINTS object is identified by the END-
POINTS object leaf type field. POINTS object leaf type field.
Using the new END-POINTS object, the END-POINTS portion of a request Using 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 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 a P2MP path where a single source address has a very large number of
destinations. destinations.
Note that a P2MP path computation request can mix the different types Note that a P2MP path computation request can mix the different types
of leaves by including several END-POINTS object per RP object as of leaves by including several END-POINTS objects per RP object as
shown in the PCReq Routing Backus-Naur Format (RBNF) [RFC5511] format shown in the PCReq Routing Backus-Naur Form (RBNF) [RFC5511] format
in Section 3.4. (Request Message Format). in Section 3.4 ("Request Message Format").
The format of the new END-POINTS object body for IPv4 (Object-Type 3) The format of the new END-POINTS object body for IPv4 (Object-Type 3)
is as follows: is as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Leaf type | | Leaf type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source IPv4 address | | Source IPv4 address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Destination IPv4 address | | Destination IPv4 address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ... ~ ~ ... ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Destination IPv4 address | | Destination IPv4 address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: The New P2MP END-POINTS Object Body Format for IPv4 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 The format of the END-POINTS object body for IPv6 (Object-Type 4) is
as follows: as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Leaf type | | Leaf type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
skipping to change at page 10, line 52 skipping to change at page 11, line 47
| Destination IPv6 address (16 bytes) | | Destination 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 Figure 2. The New P2MP END-POINTS Object Body Format for IPv6
The END-POINTS object body has a variable length. These are The END-POINTS object body has a variable length. These are
multiples of 4 bytes for IPv4, and multiples of 16 bytes, plus 4 multiples of 4 bytes for IPv4, and multiples of 16 bytes, plus 4
bytes, for IPv6. bytes, for IPv6.
3.4. Request Message Format 3.4. Request Message Format
The PCReq message is encoded as follows using RBNF as defined in The PCReq message is encoded as follows using RBNF as defined in
[RFC5511]. [RFC5511].
Below is the message format for the request message: Below is the message format for the request message:
skipping to change at page 11, line 37 skipping to change at page 12, line 33
where: where:
<end-point-rro-pair-list>::= <end-point-rro-pair-list>::=
<END-POINTS>[<RRO-List>][<BANDWIDTH>] <END-POINTS>[<RRO-List>][<BANDWIDTH>]
[<end-point-rro-pair-list>] [<end-point-rro-pair-list>]
<RRO-List>::=<RRO>[<BANDWIDTH>][<RRO-List>] <RRO-List>::=<RRO>[<BANDWIDTH>][<RRO-List>]
<metric-list>::=<METRIC>[<metric-list>] <metric-list>::=<METRIC>[<metric-list>]
Figure 3: The Message Format for the Request Message Figure 3. The Message Format for the Request Message
Note we preserve compatibility with the [RFC5440] definition of Note that we preserve compatibility with the [RFC5440] definition of
<request>. At least one instance of <endpoints> MUST be present <request>. At least one instance of <endpoints> MUST be present in
in this message. this message.
We have documented the IANA request for additional END-POINTS We have documented the IANA assignment of additional END-POINTS
Object-Types in Section 6.5 (PCEP Objects) of this document. Object-Types in Section 6.5 ("PCEP Objects") of this document.
3.5. Reply Message Format 3.5. Reply Message Format
The PCRep message is encoded as follows using RBNF as defined in The PCRep message is encoded as follows using RBNF as defined in
[RFC5511]. [RFC5511].
Below is the message format for the reply message: Below is the message format for the reply message:
<PCRep Message>::= <Common Header> <PCRep Message>::= <Common Header>
<response> <response>
skipping to change at page 12, line 25 skipping to change at page 13, line 27
[<END-POINTS>]<path>[<end-point-path-pair-list>] [<END-POINTS>]<path>[<end-point-path-pair-list>]
<path> ::= (<ERO>|<SERO>) [<path>] <path> ::= (<ERO>|<SERO>) [<path>]
<attribute-list>::=[<OF>] <attribute-list>::=[<OF>]
[<LSPA>] [<LSPA>]
[<BANDWIDTH>] [<BANDWIDTH>]
[<metric-list>] [<metric-list>]
[<IRO>] [<IRO>]
Figure 4: The Message Format for the Reply Message Figure 4. The Message Format for the Reply Message
The optional END-POINTS in the reply message is used to specify which The optional END-POINTS object in the reply message is used to
paths are removed, changed, not changed, or added for the request. specify which paths are removed, changed, not changed, or added for
The path is only needed for the end points which are added or the request. The path is only needed for the end points that are
changed. added or changed.
If the E bit (ERO-Compress bit) was set to 1 in the request then the 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. path will be formed by an ERO followed by a list of SEROs.
Note that we preserve compatibility with the [RFC5440] definition of Note that we preserve compatibility with the [RFC5440] definition of
<response> and the optional <end-point-path-pair-list> and <path>. <response> and the optional <end-point-path-pair-list> and <path>.
3.6. P2MP Objective Functions and Metric Types 3.6. P2MP Objective Functions and Metric Types
3.6.1. New Objective Functions 3.6.1. New Objective Functions
Six objective functions have been defined in [RFC5541] for P2P path Six objective functions have been defined in [RFC5541] for P2P path
computation. computation.
This document defines two additional objective functions, namely SPT This document defines two additional objective functions -- namely,
(Shortest Path Tree) and MCT (Minimum Cost Tree) that apply to P2MP SPT (Shortest Path Tree) and MCT (Minimum Cost Tree) that apply to
path computation. Hence two new objective function codes have to be P2MP path computation. Hence two new objective function codes have
defined. to be defined.
The description of the two new objective functions is as follows. The description of the two new objective functions is as follows.
Objective Function Code: 7 (suggested value, to be assigned by IANA) Objective Function Code: 7
Name: Shortest Path Tree (SPT) 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) 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).
Name: Minimum Cost Tree (MCT) Objective Function Code: 8
Description: Minimize the total cost of the tree, that is the sum of Name: Minimum Cost Tree (MCT)
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 Description: Minimize the total cost of the tree, that is the sum
specified. 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 Processing these two new objective functions is subject to the rules
defined in [RFC5541]. defined in [RFC5541].
3.6.2. New Metric Object Types 3.6.2. New Metric Object Types
There are three types defined for the <METRIC> object in [RFC5440], There are three types defined for the <METRIC> object in [RFC5440] --
namely, the IGP metric, the TE metric and the Hop Count metric. This namely, the IGP metric, the TE metric, and the hop count metric.
document defines three additional types for the <METRIC> object: the This document defines three additional types for the <METRIC> object:
P2MP IGP metric, the P2MP TE metric, and the P2MP hop count metric. the P2MP IGP metric, the P2MP TE metric, and the P2MP hop count
They encode the sum of the metrics of all links of the tree. We metric. They encode the sum of the metrics of all links of the tree.
propose the following values for these new metric types: 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 IGP metric: T=8
o P2MP TE metric: T=9 (suggested value, to be assigned by IANA) o P2MP TE metric: T=9
o P2MP hop count metric: T=10 (suggested value, to be assigned by o P2MP hop count metric: T=10
IANA)
3.7. Non-Support of P2MP Path Computation. 3.7. Non-Support of P2MP Path Computation
o If a PCE receives a P2MP path request and it understands the P2MP 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 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 computation, the PCE MUST send a PCErr message with a PCEP-ERROR
Object and corresponding Error-Value. The request MUST then be object and corresponding Error-Value. The request MUST then be
cancelled at the PCC. New Error-Types and Error-Values are cancelled at the PCC. New Error-Types and Error-Values are
requested in Section 6. (IANA Considerations) of this document. requested in Section 6 ("IANA Considerations") of this document.
o If the PCE does not understand the P2MP flag in the RP object, o If the PCE does not understand the P2MP flag in the RP object,
then the PCE MUST send a PCErr message with Error-value=2 then the PCE MUST send a PCErr message with Error-value=2
(capability not supported). (capability not supported).
3.8. Non-Support by Back-Level PCE Implementations. 3.8. Non-Support by Back-Level PCE Implementations
If a PCE receives a P2MP request and the PCE does not understand the If a PCE receives a P2MP request and the PCE does not understand the
P2MP flag in the RP object, and therefore the PCEP P2MP extensions, P2MP flag in the RP object, and therefore the PCEP P2MP extensions,
then the PCE SHOULD reject the request. then the PCE SHOULD reject the request.
3.9. P2MP TE Path Reoptimization Request 3.9. P2MP TE Path Reoptimization Request
A reoptimization request for a P2MP TE path is specified by the use 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 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 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 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 after each type of END-POINTS in the PCReq message, as described in
the Request Message Format section (Section 3.4) of this document. the "Request Message Format" section (Section 3.4) of this document.
An example of a reoptimization request and subsequent PCReq message An example of a reoptimization request and subsequent PCReq message
is described below: is described below:
Common Header Common Header
RP with P2MP flag/R bits set RP with P2MP flag/R-bit set
END-POINTS for leaf type 3 END-POINTS for leaf type 3
RRO list RRO list
OF (optional) OF (optional)
Figure 5: PCReq Message Example 1 for Optimization Figure 5. PCReq Message Example 1 for Optimization
In this example, we request reoptimization of the path to all leaves In this example, we request reoptimization of the path to all leaves
without adding or pruning leaves. The reoptimization request would without adding or pruning leaves. The reoptimization request would
use an END-POINT type 3. The RRO list would represent the P2MP LSP use an END-POINT type 3. The RRO list would represent the P2MP LSP
before the optimization and the modifiable path leaves would be before the optimization, and the modifiable path leaves would be
indicated in the END-POINTS object. indicated in the END-POINTS object.
It is also possible to specify specific leaves whose path cannot It is also possible to specify distinct leaves whose path cannot be
be modified. An example of the PCReq message in this scenario would modified. An example of the PCReq message in this scenario would be:
be:
Common Header Common Header
RP with P2MP flag/R bits set RP with P2MP flag/R-bit set
END-POINTS for leaf type 3 END-POINTS for leaf type 3
RRO list RRO list
END-POINTS for leaf type 4 END-POINTS for leaf type 4
RRO list RRO list
OF (optional) OF (optional)
Figure 6: PCReq Message Example 2 for Optimization Figure 6. PCReq Message Example 2 for Optimization
3.10. Adding and Pruning Leaves to the P2MP Tree 3.10. Adding and Pruning Leaves to/from the P2MP Tree
When adding new leaves or removing old leaves to the existing P2MP When adding new leaves to or removing old leaves from the existing
tree, by supplying a list of existing leaves, it SHOULD be possible P2MP tree, by supplying a list of existing leaves, it SHOULD be
to optimize the existing P2MP tree. This section explains the methods possible to optimize the existing P2MP tree. This section explains
to add new leaves or remove old leaves to the existing P2MP tree. the methods for adding new leaves to or removing old leaves from the
existing P2MP tree.
To add new leaves the user MUST build a P2MP request using To add new leaves, the user MUST build a P2MP request using END-
END-POINTS with leaf type 1. POINTS with leaf type 1.
To remove old leaves the user must build a P2MP request using To remove old leaves, the user must build a P2MP request using END-
END-POINTS with leaf type 2. If no type-2 end-points exist, then the POINTS with leaf type 2. If no type-2 END-POINTS exist, then the PCE
PCE MUST send an error type 17, value=1: The PCE is not capable to MUST send an error type 17, value=1: The PCE is not capable of
satisfy the request due to no END-POINTS with leaf type 2. satisfying the request due to no END-POINTS with leaf type 2.
The PCC must also provide the list of old leaves, if any, including When adding new leaves to or removing old leaves from the existing
END-POINTS with leaf type 3, leaf type 4 or both. The error values P2MP tree, the PCC must also provide the list of old leaves, if any,
when the conditions are not satisfied (i.e., when there is no including END-POINTS with leaf type 3, leaf type 4, or both. New
END-POINTS with leaf type 3 or 4, in the presence of END-POINTS with PCEP-ERROR objects and types are necessary for reporting when certain
leaf type 1 or 2). A generic "Inconsistent END-POINT" error is also conditions are not satisfied (i.e., when there are no END-POINTS with
requested if a PCC receives a request that has an inconsistent leaf type 3 or 4, or in the presence of END-POINTS with leaf type 1
END-POINT (i.e., if a leaf specified as type 1 already exists). The or 2). A generic "Inconsistent END-POINT" error will be used if a
The IANA request for all new error values is documented in Section PCC receives a request that has an inconsistent END-POINT (i.e., if a
6.6. (PCEP Error Objects and Types) of this document. leaf specified as type 1 already exists). These IANA assignments are
documented in Section 6.6 ("PCEP-ERROR Objects and Types") of this
document.
For old leaves the user MUST provide the old path as a list of RROs For old leaves, the user MUST provide the old path as a list of RROs
that immediately follows each END-POINTS object. This document that immediately follows each END-POINTS object. This document
specifies error values when specific conditions are not satisfied. specifies error values when specific conditions are not satisfied.
The following examples demonstrate full and partial reoptimization The following examples demonstrate full and partial reoptimization of
of existing P2MP LSPs: existing P2MP LSPs:
Case 1: Adding leaves with full reoptimization of existing paths Case 1: Adding leaves with full reoptimization of existing paths
Common Header Common Header
RP with P2MP flag/R bits set RP with P2MP flag/R-bit set
END-POINTS for leaf type 1 END-POINTS for leaf type 1
RRO list RRO list
END-POINTS for leaf type 3 END-POINTS for leaf type 3
RRO list RRO list
OF (optional) OF (optional)
Case 2: Adding leaves with partial reoptimization of existing paths Case 2: Adding leaves with partial reoptimization of existing paths
Common Header Common Header
RP with P2MP flag/R bits set RP with P2MP flag/R-bit set
END-POINTS for leaf type 1 END-POINTS for leaf type 1
END-POINTS for leaf type 3 END-POINTS for leaf type 3
RRO list RRO list
END-POINTS for leaf type 4 END-POINTS for leaf type 4
RRO list RRO list
OF (optional) OF (optional)
Case 3: Adding leaves without reoptimization of existing paths Case 3: Adding leaves without reoptimization of existing paths
Common Header Common Header
RP with P2MP flag/R bits set RP with P2MP flag/R-bit set
END-POINTS for leaf type 1 END-POINTS for leaf type 1
RRO list RRO list
END-POINTS for leaf type 4 END-POINTS for leaf type 4
RRO list RRO list
OF (optional) OF (optional)
Case 4: Pruning Leaves with Full Reoptimization Case 4: Pruning Leaves with full reoptimization of existing paths
Common Header Common Header
RP with P2MP flag/R bits set RP with P2MP flag/R-bit set
END-POINTS for leaf type 2 END-POINTS for leaf type 2
RRO list RRO list
END-POINTS for leaf type 3 END-POINTS for leaf type 3
RRO list RRO list
OF (optional) OF (optional)
Case 5: Pruning leaves with partial reoptimization of existing paths Case 5: Pruning leaves with partial reoptimization of existing paths
Common Header Common Header
RP with P2MP flag/R bits set RP with P2MP flag/R-bit set
END-POINTS for leaf type 2 END-POINTS for leaf type 2
RRO list RRO list
END-POINTS for leaf type 3 END-POINTS for leaf type 3
RRO list RRO list
END-POINTS for leaf type 4 END-POINTS for leaf type 4
RRO list RRO list
OF (optional) OF (optional)
Case 6: Pruning leaves without reoptimization of existing paths Case 6: Pruning leaves without reoptimization of existing paths
Common Header Common Header
RP with P2MP flag/R bits set RP with P2MP flag/R-bit set
END-POINTS for leaf type 2 END-POINTS for leaf type 2
RRO list RRO list
END-POINTS for leaf type 4 END-POINTS for leaf type 4
RRO list RRO list
OF (optional) OF (optional)
Case 7: Adding and pruning leaves full reoptimization of existing Case 7: Adding and pruning leaves with full reoptimization of
paths existing paths
Common Header Common Header
RP with P2MP flag/R bits set RP with P2MP flag/R-bit set
END-POINTS for leaf type 1 END-POINTS for leaf type 1
END-POINTS for leaf type 2 END-POINTS for leaf type 2
RRO list RRO list
END-POINTS for leaf type 3 END-POINTS for leaf type 3
RRO list RRO list
OF (optional) OF (optional)
Case 8: Adding and pruning leaves with partial reoptimization of Case 8: Adding and pruning leaves with partial reoptimization of
existing paths existing paths
Common Header Common Header
RP with P2MP flag/R bits set RP with P2MP flag/R-bit set
END-POINTS for leaf type 1 END-POINTS for leaf type 1
END-POINTS for leaf type 2 END-POINTS for leaf type 2
RRO list RRO list
END-POINTS for leaf type 3 END-POINTS for leaf type 3
RRO list RRO list
END-POINTS for leaf type 4 END-POINTS for leaf type 4
RRO list RRO list
OF (optional) OF (optional)
Case 9: Adding and pruning leaves without reoptimization of existing Case 9: Adding and pruning leaves without reoptimization of existing
paths paths
Common Header Common Header
RP with P2MP flag/R bits set RP with P2MP flag/R-bit set
END-POINTS for leaf type 1 END-POINTS for leaf type 1
END-POINTS for leaf type 2 END-POINTS for leaf type 2
RRO list RRO list
END-POINTS for leaf type 4 END-POINTS for leaf type 4
RRO list RRO list
OF (optional) OF (optional)
3.11. Discovering Branch Nodes 3.11. Discovering Branch Nodes
Before computing the P2MP path, a PCE may need to be provided means Before computing the P2MP path, a PCE may need to be provided means
to know which nodes in the network are capable of acting as branch to know which nodes in the network are capable of acting as branch
LSRs. A PCE can discover such capabilities by using the mechanisms LSRs. A PCE can discover such capabilities by using the mechanisms
defined in [RFC5073]. defined in [RFC5073].
3.11.1 Branch Node Object 3.11.1. Branch Node Object
The PCC can specify a list of nodes that can be used as branch The PCC can specify a list of nodes that can be used as branch nodes
nodes or a list of nodes that cannot be used as branch nodes by or a list of nodes that cannot be used as branch nodes by using the
using the a BRANCH NODE Capability (BNC) Object. The BNC Object has Branch Node Capability (BNC) Object. The BNC Object has the same
the same format as the IRO object defined in [RFC5440] except that format as the Include Route Object (IRO) defined in [RFC5440], except
it only supports IPv4 and IPv6 prefix sub-objects. Two Object- that it only supports IPv4 and IPv6 prefix sub-objects. Two Object-
types are also defined: types are also defined:
o Branch node list: List of nodes that can be used as branch o Branch node list: List of nodes that can be used as branch nodes.
nodes.
o Non-branch node list: List of nodes that cannot be used as branch o Non-branch node list: List of nodes that cannot be used as branch
nodes. nodes.
The object can only be carried in a PCReq message. A Path Request The object can only be carried in a PCReq message. A Path Request
may carry at most one BRANCH NODE Object. may carry at most one Branch Node Object.
The Object-Class and Object-types will need to allocated by IANA. The The Object-Class and Object-types have been allocated by IANA. The
IANA request is documented in Section 6.5. (PCEP Objects). IANA assignment is documented in Section 6.5 ("PCEP Objects").
3.12. Synchronization of P2MP TE Path Computation Requests 3.12. Synchronization of P2MP TE Path Computation Requests
There are cases when multiple P2MP LSPs computations need to be There are cases when multiple P2MP LSPs' computations need to be
synchronized. For example, one P2MP LSP is the designated backup of synchronized. For example, one P2MP LSP is the designated backup of
another P2MP LSP. In this case, path diverse for these dependent another P2MP LSP. In this case, path diversity for these dependent
LSPs may need to be considered during the path computation. LSPs may need to be considered during the path computation.
The synchronization can be done by using the existing SVEC The synchronization can be done by using the existing Synchronization
functionality defined in [RFC5440] VECtor (SVEC) functionality defined in [RFC5440].
An example of synchronizing two P2MP LSPs, each has two leaves for An example of synchronizing two P2MP LSPs, each having two leaves for
Path Computation Request Messages is illustrated as below: Path Computation Request Messages, is illustrated below:
Common Header Common Header
SVEC for sync of LSP1 and LSP2 SVEC for sync of LSP1 and LSP2
OF (optional) OF (optional)
END-POINTS1 for P2MP END-POINTS1 for P2MP
RRO1 list RRO1 list
END-POINTS2 for P2MP END-POINTS2 for P2MP
RRO2 list RRO2 list
Figure 7: PCReq Message Example for Synchronization Figure 7. PCReq Message Example for Synchronization
This specification also defines two new flags to the SVEC Object Flag This specification also defines two new flags to the SVEC Object Flag
Field for P2MP path dependent computation requests. The first new Field for P2MP path dependent computation requests. The first new
flag is to allow the PCC to request that the PCE should compute a flag is to allow the PCC to request that the PCE should compute a
secondary P2MP path tree with partial path diverse for specific secondary P2MP path tree with partial path diversity for specific
leaves or a specific S2L sub-path to the primary P2MP path tree. leaves or a specific S2L sub-path to the primary P2MP path tree. The
The second flag, would allow the PCC to request that partial paths second flag, would allow the PCC to request that partial paths should
should be link direction diverse. be link direction diverse.
The following flags are added to the SVEC object body in this The following flags are added to the SVEC object body in this
document: document:
o P ( Partial Path Diverse bit - 1 bit): o P (Partial Path Diverse bit - 1 bit):
When set this would indicate a request for path diverse When set, this would indicate a request for path diversity for a
for a specific leaf, a set of leaves or all leaves. specific leaf, a set of leaves, or all leaves.
o D ( Link Direction Diverse bit - 1 bit): o D (Link Direction Diverse bit - 1 bit):
When set this would indicate a request that a partial path or When set, this would indicate a request that a partial path or
paths should be link direction diverse. paths should be link direction diverse.
The IANA request is referenced in Section 6.8. of this document. The IANA assignment is referenced in Section 6.8 of this document.
3.13. Request and Response Fragmentation 3.13. Request and Response Fragmentation
The total PCEP message-length, including the common header, is 16 The total PCEP message length, including the common header, is
bytes. In certain scenarios the P2MP computation request may not fit 16 bytes. In certain scenarios the P2MP computation request may not
into a single request or response message. For example, if a tree has fit into a single request or response message. For example, if a
many hundreds or thousands of leaves, then the request or response tree has many hundreds or thousands of leaves, then the request or
may need to be fragmented into multiple messages. response may need to be fragmented into multiple messages.
The F bit has been outlined in the Extension of the RP Object section The F-bit has been outlined in "The Extension of the RP Object"
(Section 3.3.1) of this document. The F bit is used in the RP object (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 header to signal that the initial request or response was too large
to fit into a single message and will be fragmented into multiple to fit into a single message and will be fragmented into multiple
messages. In order to identify the single request or response, each messages. In order to identify the single request or response, each
message will use the same request ID. message will use the same request ID.
3.13.1 Request Fragmentation Procedure 3.13.1. Request Fragmentation Procedure
If the initial request is too large to fit into a single request 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, 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 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 in the RP object to signify that the request has been fragmented into
into multiple messages. In order to identify that a series of multiple messages. In order to identify that a series of request
request messages represents a single request, each message will messages represents a single request, each message will use the same
use the same request ID. request ID.
The assumption is that request messages are reliably delivered The assumption is that request messages are reliably delivered and in
and in sequence since PCEP relies on TCP. sequence, since PCEP relies on TCP.
3.13.2 Response Fragmentation Procedure 3.13.2. Response Fragmentation Procedure
Once the PCE computes a path based on the initial request, a response 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 is sent back to the PCC. If the response is too large to fit into a
single response message the PCE will split the response over multiple single response message, the PCE will split the response over
messages. Each message sent to the PCE, except the last one, will multiple messages. Each message sent to the PCE, except the last
have the F bit set in the RP object to signify that the response one, will have the F-bit set in the RP object to signify that the
has been fragmented into multiple messages. In order to identify response has been fragmented into multiple messages. In order to
that a series of response messages represents a single response, identify that a series of response messages represents a single
each message will use the same response ID. response, each message will use the same response ID.
Again, the assumption is that response messages are reliably Again, the assumption is that response messages are reliably
delivered and in sequence since PCEP relies on TCP. delivered and in sequence, since PCEP relies on TCP.
3.13.3 Fragmentation Examples 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 The following example illustrates the PCC sending a request message
with 1200 leaves. The assumption used for this example is that one with Req-ID1 to the PCE, in order to add one leaf to an existing tree
request message can hold up to 800 leaves. In this scenario, the with 1200 leaves. The assumption used for this example is that one
original single message needs to be fragmented and sent using two request message can hold up to 800 leaves. In this scenario, the
smaller messages, which have the Req-ID1 specified in the RP object, original single message needs to be fragmented and sent using two
and with the F bit set on the first message, and cleared on the smaller messages, which have the Req-ID1 specified in the RP object,
second message. and with the F-bit set on the first message, and cleared on the
second message.
Common Header Common Header
RP1 with Req-ID1 and P2MP=1 and F-bit=1 RP1 with Req-ID1 and P2MP=1 and F-bit=1
OF (optional) OF (optional)
END-POINTS1 for P2MP END-POINTS1 for P2MP
RRO1 list RRO1 list
Common Header Common Header
RP2 with Req-ID1 and P2MP=1 and F-bit=0 RP2 with Req-ID1 and P2MP=1 and F-bit=0
OF (optional) OF (optional)
END-POINTS1 for P2MP END-POINTS1 for P2MP
RRO1 list RRO1 list
Figure 8: PCReq Message Fragmentation Example Figure 8. PCReq Message Fragmentation Example
To handle the scenario that the last fragmented message piece is To handle a scenario where the last fragmented message piece is lost,
lost, the receiver side of the fragmented message may start a timer the receiver side of the fragmented message may start a timer once it
once it receives the first piece of the fragmented message. When receives the first piece of the fragmented message. When the timer
the timer expires and it has not received the last piece of the expires and it has not received the last piece of the fragmented
fragmented message, it should send an error message to the sender message, it should send an error message to the sender to signal that
to signal that it has received an incomplete message. The relevant it has received an incomplete message. The relevant error message is
error message is document in Section 3.15. (P2MP PCEP Error Objects documented in Section 3.15 ("P2MP PCEP-ERROR Objects and Types").
and Types).
3.14. UNREACH-DESTINATION Object 3.14. UNREACH-DESTINATION Object
The PCE path computation request may fail because all or a subset of The PCE path computation request may fail because all or a subset of
the destinations are unreachable. the destinations are unreachable.
In such a case, the UNREACH-DESTINATION object allows the PCE to In such a case, the UNREACH-DESTINATION object allows the PCE to
optionally specify the list of unreachable destinations. optionally specify the list of unreachable destinations.
This object can be present in PCRep messages. There can be up to one This object can be present in PCRep messages. There can be up to one
such object per RP. such object per RP.
The following UNREACH-DESTINATION objects will be required: The following UNREACH-DESTINATION objects will be required:
UNREACH-DESTINATION Object-Class is to be assigned by IANA. UNREACH-DESTINATION Object-Class is 28.
UNREACH-DESTINATION Object-Type for IPv4 is to be assigned by IANA UNREACH-DESTINATION Object-Type for IPv4 is 1.
UNREACH-DESTINATION Object-Type for IPv6 is to be assigned by IANA. UNREACH-DESTINATION Object-Type for IPv6 is 2.
The format of the UNREACH-DESTINATION object body for IPv4 (Object- The format of the UNREACH-DESTINATION object body for IPv4 (Object-
Type=1) is as follows: Type=1) is as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Destination IPv4 address | | Destination IPv4 address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ... ~ ~ ... ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Destination IPv4 address | | Destination IPv4 address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 9: UNREACH-DESTINATION Object Body for IPv4 Figure 9. UNREACH-DESTINATION Object Body for IPv4
The format of the UNREACH-DESTINATION object body for IPv6 (Object- The format of the UNREACH-DESTINATION object body for IPv6 (Object-
Type=2) is as follows: Type=2) is as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
| Destination IPv6 address (16 bytes) | | Destination IPv6 address (16 bytes) |
| | | |
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ... ~ ~ ... ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
| Destination IPv6 address (16 bytes) | | Destination IPv6 address (16 bytes) |
| | | |
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 10: UNREACH-DESTINATION Object Body for IPv6 Figure 10. UNREACH-DESTINATION Object Body for IPv6
3.15. P2MP PCEP Error Objects and Types 3.15. P2MP PCEP-ERROR Objects and Types
To indicate an error associated with policy violation, a new error To indicate an error associated with policy violation, a new error
value "P2MP Path computation not allowed" should be added to the value "P2MP Path computation not allowed" should be added to the
existing error code for policy violation (Error-Type=5) as defined existing error code for policy violation (Error-Type=5) as defined in
in [RFC5440]: [RFC5440]:
Error-Type=5; Error-Value=7: if a PCE receives a P2MP path Error-Type=5; Error-Value=7: if a PCE receives a P2MP path
computation request which is not compliant with administrative computation request that is not compliant with administrative
privileges (i.e., "The PCE policy does not support P2MP path privileges (i.e., "The PCE policy does not support P2MP path
computation"), the PCE MUST send a PCErr message with a PCEP-ERROR computation"), the PCE MUST send a PCErr message with a PCEP-ERROR
Object (Error-Type=5) and an Error-Value (Error-Value=7). The object (Error-Type=5) and an Error-Value (Error-Value=7). The
corresponding P2MP path computation request MUST also be cancelled. corresponding P2MP path computation request MUST also be cancelled.
To indicate capability errors associated with the P2MP path request, To indicate capability errors associated with the P2MP path request,
a new Error-Type (16) and subsequent error-values are defined as a new Error-Type (16) and subsequent error-values are defined as
follows for inclusion in the PCEP-ERROR object: follows for inclusion in the PCEP-ERROR object:
Error-Type=16 and Error-Value=1: if a PCE receives a P2MP path Error-Type=16; Error-Value=1: if a PCE receives a P2MP path request
request and the PCE is not capable to satisfy the request due to and the PCE is not capable of satisfying the request due to
insufficient memory, the PCE MUST send a PCErr message with a PCEP 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 ERROR object (Error-Type=16) and an Error-Value (Error-Value=1). The
corresponding P2MP path computation request MUST also be cancelled. corresponding P2MP path computation request MUST also be cancelled.
Error-Type=16; Error-Value=2: if a PCE receives a P2MP path request 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 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- PCErr message with a PCEP-ERROR object (Error-Type=16) and an Error-
Value (Error-Value=2). The corresponding P2MP path computation Value (Error-Value=2). The corresponding P2MP path computation
request MUST be also cancelled. request MUST also be cancelled.
To indicate P2MP message fragmentation errors associated with a P2MP To indicate P2MP message fragmentation errors associated with a P2MP
path request, a new Error-Type (17) and subsequent error-values are path request, a new Error-Type (17) and subsequent error-values are
defined as follows for inclusion in the PCEP-ERROR object: defined as follows for inclusion in the PCEP-ERROR object:
Error-Type=18; Error-Value=1: if a PCE has not received the last Error-Type=18; Error-Value=1: if a PCE has not received the last
piece of the fragmented message, it should send an error message piece of the fragmented message, it should send an error message to
to the sender to signal that it has received an incomplete message the sender to signal that it has received an incomplete message
(i.e., "Fragmented request failure"), the PCE MUST send a PCErr (i.e., "Fragmented request failure"). The PCE MUST send a PCErr
message with a PCEP-ERROR Object (Error-Type=18) and an Error-Value message with a PCEP-ERROR object (Error-Type=18) and an Error-Value
(Error-Value=1). (Error-Value=1).
3.16. PCEP NO-PATH Indicator 3.16. PCEP NO-PATH Indicator
To communicate the reasons for not being able to find P2MP path To communicate the reasons for not being able to find P2MP path
computation, the NO-PATH object can be used in the PCRep message. 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 One new bit is defined in the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV carried in the
the NO-PATH Object: NO-PATH Object:
bit 24: when set, the PCE indicates that there is a reachability bit 24: when set, the PCE indicates that there is a reachability
problem with all or a subset of the P2MP destinations. Optionally problem with all or a subset of the P2MP destinations. Optionally,
the PCE can specify the destination or list of destinations that are the PCE can specify the destination or list of destinations that are
not reachable using the new UNREACH-DESTINATION object defined in not reachable using the new UNREACH-DESTINATION object defined in
section 3.6. Section 3.14.
4. Manageability Considerations 4. Manageability Considerations
[PCE-P2MP-REQ] describes various manageability requirements in [RFC5862] describes various manageability requirements in support of
support of P2MP path computation when applying PCEP. This section P2MP path computation when applying PCEP. This section describes how
describes how manageability requirements mentioned in [PCE-P2MP-REQ] manageability requirements mentioned in [RFC5862] are supported in
are supported in the context of PCEP extensions specified in this the context of PCEP extensions specified in this document.
document.
Note that [RFC5440] describes various manageability considerations in Note that [RFC5440] describes various manageability considerations in
PCEP, and most of manageability requirements mentioned in [PCE-P2MP PCEP, and most of the manageability requirements mentioned in
P2MP] are already covered there. [RFC5862] are already covered there.
4.1. Control of Function and Policy 4.1. Control of Function and Policy
In addition to PCE configuration parameters listed in [RFC5440], In addition to PCE configuration parameters listed in [RFC5440], the
the following additional parameters might be required: following additional parameters might be required:
o The ability to enable to disable P2MP path computations on the o The ability to enable or disable P2MP path computations on the
PCE. PCE.
o The PCE may be configured to enable or disable the advertizement o The PCE may be configured to enable or disable the advertisement
of its P2MP path computation capability. A PCE can advertize its of its P2MP path computation capability. A PCE can advertise its
P2MP capability via the IGP discovery mechanism discussed in P2MP capability via the IGP discovery mechanism discussed in
Section 3.1.1. (P2MP Computation TLV in the Existing PCE Discovery Section 3.1.1 ("P2MP Computation TLV in the Existing PCE Discovery
Protocol), or during the Open Message Exchange discussed in Protocol"), or during the Open Message Exchange discussed in
Section 3.1.2. (Open Message Extension). Section 3.1.2 ("Open Message Extension").
4.2. Information and Data Models 4.2. Information and Data Models
A number of MIB objects have been defined for general PCEP control A number of MIB objects have been defined for general PCEP control
and monitoring of P2P computations in [PCEP-MIB]. [PCE-P2MP-REQ] and monitoring of P2P computations in [PCEP-MIB]. [RFC5862]
specifies that MIB objects will be required to support the control specifies that MIB objects will be required to support the control
and monitoring of the protocol extensions defined in this document. and monitoring of the protocol extensions defined in this document.
A new document will be required to define MIB objects for PCEP A new document will be required to define MIB objects for PCEP
control and monitoring of P2MP computations. control and monitoring of P2MP computations.
4.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring 4.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
There are no additional considerations beyond those expressed in There are no additional considerations beyond those expressed in
[RFC5440], since [PCE-P2MP-REQ] does not address any additional [RFC5440], since [RFC5862] does not address any additional
requirements. requirements.
4.4. Verifying Correct Operation 4.4. Verifying Correct Operation
There are no additional requirements beyond those expressed in There are no additional requirements beyond those expressed in
[RFC4657] for verifying the correct operation of the PCEP sessions. [RFC4657] for verifying the correct operation of the PCEP sessions.
It is expected that future MIB objects will facilitate verification It is expected that future MIB objects will facilitate verification
of correct operation and reporting of P2MP PCEP requests, responses of correct operation and reporting of P2MP PCEP requests, responses,
and errors. and errors.
4.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components 4.5. Requirements for Other Protocols and Functional Components
The method for the PCE to obtain information about a PCE capable of The method for the PCE to obtain information about a PCE capable of
P2MP path computations via OSPF and IS-IS is discussed in Section P2MP path computations via OSPF and IS-IS is discussed in
3.1.1 (P2MP Computation TLV in the Existing PCE Discovery Protocol) Section 3.1.1 ("P2MP Computation TLV in the Existing PCE Discovery
of this document. Protocol") of this document.
The subsequent IANA requests are documented in Section 6.9 (PCE The subsequent IANA assignments are documented in Section 6.9 ("OSPF
Capability Flag) of this document. PCE Capability Flag") of this document.
4.6. Impact on Network Operation 4.6. Impact on Network Operation
It is expected that use of PCEP extensions specified in this document It is expected that the use of PCEP extensions specified in this
will not significantly increase the level of operational traffic. document will not significantly increase the level of operational
However, computing a P2MP tree may require more PCE state compared to traffic. However, computing a P2MP tree may require more PCE state
a P2P computation. In the event of a major network failure and compared to a P2P computation. In the event of a major network
multiple recovery P2MP tree computation requests being sent to the failure and multiple recovery P2MP tree computation requests being
PCE, the load on the PCE may also be significantly increased. sent to the PCE, the load on the PCE may also be significantly
increased.
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
As described in [PCE-P2MP-REQ], P2MP path computation requests are As described in [RFC5862], P2MP path computation requests are more
more CPU-intensive and also utilize more link bandwidth. In the CPU-intensive and also utilize more link bandwidth. In the event of
event of an unauthorized P2MP path computation request, or denial of an unauthorized P2MP path computation request, or a denial of service
service attack, the subsequent PCEP requests and processing may be attack, the subsequent PCEP requests and processing may be disruptive
disruptive to the network. Consequently, it is important that to the network. Consequently, it is important that implementations
implementations conform to the relevant security requirements of conform to the relevant security requirements of [RFC5440] that
[RFC5440] that specifically help to minimize or negate unauthorized specifically help to minimize or negate unauthorized P2MP path
P2MP path computation requests and denial of service attacks. These computation requests and denial of service attacks. These mechanisms
mechanisms include: include:
o Securing the PCEP session requests and responses using TCP Security o Securing the PCEP session requests and responses using TCP
Techniques (Section 10.2. [RFC5440]). security techniques (Section 10.2 of [RFC5440]).
o Authenticating the PCEP requests and responses to ensure the o Authenticating the PCEP requests and responses to ensure the
message is intact and sent from an authorized node (Section 10.3. message is intact and sent from an authorized node (Section 10.3
[RFC5440]). of [RFC5440]).
o Providing policy control by explicitly defining which PCCs, via IP o Providing policy control by explicitly defining which PCCs, via IP
access-lists, are allowed to send P2MP path requests to the PCE access-lists, are allowed to send P2MP path requests to the PCE
(Section 10.6. [RFC5440]). (Section 10.6 of [RFC5440]).
PCEP operates over TCP so it is also important to secure the PCE and PCEP operates over TCP, so it is also important to secure the PCE and
PCC against TCP denial of service attacks. Section 10.7.1 of PCC against TCP denial of service attacks. Section 10.7.1 of
[RFC5440] outlines a number of mechanisms for minimizing the risk of [RFC5440] outlines a number of mechanisms for minimizing the risk of
TCP based denial of service attacks against PCEs and PCCs. TCP based denial of service attacks against PCEs and PCCs.
PCEP implementations SHOULD consider the additional security provided PCEP implementations SHOULD consider the additional security provided
by TCP-AO [TCP-AUTH]. by the TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO) [RFC5925].
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
IANA maintains a registry of PCEP parameters. A number of IANA IANA maintains a registry of PCEP parameters. A number of IANA
considerations have been highlighted in previous sections of this considerations have been highlighted in previous sections of this
document. IANA is requested to make the following allocations. document. IANA has made the following allocations.
6.1 PCEP TLV Type Indicators 6.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators
As described in Section 3.1.2., the newly defined 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. allows the PCE to advertise its P2MP path computation capability.
IANA is requested to make the following allocation from the "PCEP IANA has made the following allocation from the "PCEP TLV Type
TLV Type Indicators" sub-registry. Indicators" sub-registry.
Value Description Reference Value Description Reference
6 P2MP capable This.I-D 6 P2MP capable RFC 6006
6.2 Request Parameter Bit Flags 6.2. Request Parameter Bit Flags
As described in Section 3.3.1., three new RP Object Flags have As described in Section 3.3.1, three new RP Object Flags have been
been defined. IANA is requested to make the following allocations defined. IANA has made the following allocations from the PCEP "RP
from the "PCEP RP Object Flag Field" Sub-Registry: Object Flag Field" sub-registry:
Bit Description Reference Bit Description Reference
18 Fragmentation(F-bit) This.I-D 18 Fragmentation (F-bit) RFC 6006
19 P2MP (N-bit) This.I-D 19 P2MP (N-bit) RFC 6006
20 ERO-compression (E-bit) This.I-D 20 ERO-compression (E-bit) RFC 6006
6.3 Objective Functions 6.3. Objective Functions
As described in Section 3.6.1., two new Objective Functions have been As described in Section 3.6.1, two new Objective Functions have been
defined. IANA is requested to make the following allocations from the defined. IANA has made the following allocations from the PCEP
"PCEP Objective Function" sub-registry: "Objective Function" sub-registry:
Code Point Name Reference Code Point Name Reference
7 SPT This.I-D 7 SPT RFC 6006
8 MCT This.I-D 8 MCT RFC 6006
6.4 Metric Object Types 6.4. Metric Object Types
As described in Section 3.6.2., three new metric object T fields have As described in Section 3.6.2, three new metric object T fields have
been defined. IANA is requested to make the following allocations been defined. IANA has made the following allocations from the PCEP
from the "PCEP METRIC Object T Field" sub-registry: "METRIC Object T Field" sub-registry:
Value Description Reference Value Description Reference
8 P2MP IGP metric This.I-D 8 P2MP IGP metric RFC 6006
9 P2MP TE metric This.I-D 9 P2MP TE metric RFC 6006
10 P2MP hop count metric This.I-D 10 P2MP hop count metric RFC 6006
6.5 PCEP Objects 6.5. PCEP Objects
As discussed in Section 3.3.2., two new END-POINTS Object-Types are As discussed in Section 3.3.2, two new END-POINTS Object-Types are
defined. IANA is requested to make the following Object-Type defined. IANA has made the following Object-Type allocations from
allocations from the "PCEP Objects" sub-registry: the "PCEP Objects" sub-registry:
Object-Class Value 4 Object-Class Value 4
Name END-POINTS Name END-POINTS
Object-Type 3: IPv4 Object-Type 3: IPv4
4: IPv6 4: IPv6
5-15: Unassigned 5-15: Unassigned
Reference This.I-D Reference RFC 6006
As described in Section 3.2., Section 3.11.1. and Section 3.14., As described in Section 3.2, Section 3.11.1, and Section 3.14, four
four PCEP Object-Classes and six PCEP Object-Types have been defined. PCEP Object-Classes and six PCEP Object-Types have been defined.
IANA is requested to make the following allocations from the "PCEP IANA has made the following allocations from the "PCEP Objects" sub-
Objects" sub-registry: registry:
Object-Class Value 28 Object-Class Value 28
Name UNREACH-DESTINATION Name UNREACH-DESTINATION
Object-Type 1: IPv4 Object-Type 1: IPv4
2: IPv6 2: IPv6
3-15: Unassigned 3-15: Unassigned
Reference This.I-D Reference RFC 6006
Object-Class Value 29 Object-Class Value 29
Name SERO Name SERO
Object-Type 1: SERO Object-Type 1: SERO
2-15: Unassigned 2-15: Unassigned
Reference This.I-D Reference RFC 6006
Object-Class Value 30 Object-Class Value 30
Name SRRO Name SRRO
Object-Type 1: SRRO Object-Type 1: SRRO
2-15: Unassigned 2-15: Unassigned
Reference This.I-D Reference RFC 6006
Object-Class Value 31 Object-Class Value 31
Name Branch Node Capability Object Name Branch Node Capability Object
Object-Type 1: Branch node list Object-Type 1: Branch node list
2: Non-branch node list 2: Non-branch node list
3-15: Unassigned 3-15: Unassigned
Reference This.I-D Reference RFC 6006
6.6 PCEP Error Objects and Types 6.6. PCEP-ERROR Objects and Types
As described in Section 3.15., a number of new PCEP-ERROR Object As described in Section 3.15, a number of new PCEP-ERROR Object Error
Error Types and Values have been defined. IANA is requested to Types and Values have been defined. IANA has made the following
make the following allocations from the "PCEP PCEP-ERROR Object allocations from the PCEP "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values"
Error Type and Value" sub-registry: sub-registry:
Error Error
Type Meaning Reference Type Meaning Reference
5 Policy violation 5 Policy violation
Error-value=7: This.I-D Error-value=7: RFC 6006
P2MP Path computation is not allowed P2MP Path computation is not allowed
16 P2MP Capability Error This.I-D 16 P2MP Capability Error
Error-Value=0: Unassigned Error-Value=0: Unassigned RFC 6006
Error-Value=1: This.I-D Error-Value=1: RFC 6006
The PCE is not capable to satisfy the request The PCE is not capable to satisfy the request
due to insufficient memory due to insufficient memory
Error-Value=2: This.I-D Error-Value=2: RFC 6006
The PCE is not capable of P2MP computation The PCE is not capable of P2MP computation
17 P2MP END-POINTS Error This.I-D 17 P2MP END-POINTS Error
Error-Value=0: Unassigned Error-Value=0: Unassigned RFC 6006
Error-Value=1: This.I-D Error-Value=1: RFC 6006
The PCE is not capable to satisfy the request The PCE is not capable to satisfy the request
due to no END-POINTS with leaf type 2 due to no END-POINTS with leaf type 2
Error-Value=2: This.I-D Error-Value=2: RFC 6006
The PCE is not capable to satisfy the request The PCE is not capable to satisfy the request
due to no END-POINTS with leaf type 3 due to no END-POINTS with leaf type 3
Error-Value=3: This.I-D Error-Value=3: RFC 6006
The PCE is not capable to satisfy the request The PCE is not capable to satisfy the request
due to no END-POINTS with leaf type 4 due to no END-POINTS with leaf type 4
Error-Value=4: This.I-D Error-Value=4: RFC 6006
The PCE is not capable to satisfy the request The PCE is not capable to satisfy the request
due to inconsistent END-POINTS due to inconsistent END-POINTS
18 P2MP Fragmentation Error This.I-D 18 P2MP Fragmentation Error
Error-Value=0: Unassigned Error-Value=0: Unassigned RFC 6006
Error-Value=1: This.I-D Error-Value=1: RFC 6006
Fragmented request failure Fragmented request failure
6.7 PCEP NO-PATH Indicator 6.7. PCEP NO-PATH Indicator
As discussed in Section 3.16, a new NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Flag Field As discussed in Section 3.16, a new NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Flag Field has
has been defined. IANA is requested to make the following been defined. IANA has made the following allocation from the PCEP
allocation from the "PCEP NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Flag Field" "NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Flag Field" sub-registry:
sub-registry:
Bit Description Reference Bit Description Reference
24 P2MP Reachability Problem This.I-D 24 P2MP Reachability Problem RFC 6006
6.8 SVEC Object Flag 6.8. SVEC Object Flag
As discussed in Section 3.12, two new SVEC Object Flags are As discussed in Section 3.12, two new SVEC Object Flags are defined.
defined. IANA is requested to make the following IANA has made the following allocation from the PCEP "SVEC Object
allocation from the "PCEP SVEC Object Flag Field" sub-registry: Flag Field" sub-registry:
Bit Description Reference Bit Description Reference
19 Partial Path Diverse This.I-D 19 Partial Path Diverse RFC 6006
20 Link Direction Diverse This.I-D 20 Link Direction Diverse RFC 6006
6.9 PCE Capability Flag 6.9. OSPF PCE Capability Flag
As discussed in Section 3.1, a new OSPF Capability Flag is defined As discussed in Section 3.1.1, a new OSPF Capability Flag is defined
to indicate P2MP path computation capability. IANA is requested to to indicate P2MP path computation capability. IANA has made the
make the assignment from the "OSPF Parameters Path Computation following assignment from the OSPF Parameters "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Capability Flags" registry: Element (PCE) Capability Flags" registry:
Bit Description Reference Bit Description Reference
10 P2MP path computation This.I-D 10 P2MP path computation RFC 6006
7. Acknowledgements 7. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Young Lee, Dan The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Young Lee, Dan Tappan,
Tappan, Autumn Liu, Huaimo Chen, Eiji Okim, Nick Neate, Suresh Autumn Liu, Huaimo Chen, Eiji Okim, Nick Neate, Suresh Babu K, Dhruv
Babu K,Dhruv Dhody, Udayasree Palle, Gaurav Agrawal, Vishwas Dhody, Udayasree Palle, Gaurav Agrawal, Vishwas Manral, Dan
Manral, Dan Romascanu, Tim Polk, Stewart Bryant, David Romascanu, Tim Polk, Stewart Bryant, David Harrington, and Sean
Harrington and Sean Turner for their valuable comments and input Turner for their valuable comments and input on this document.
on this draft.
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[RFC5440] Ayyangar, A., Farrel, A., Oki, E., Atlas, A., Dolganow, [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
A., Ikejiri, Y., Kumaki, K., Vasseur, J., and J. Roux, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
"Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol
(PCEP)", RFC 5440, March 2009.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., [RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions",
RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching [RFC4873] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., and A.
(GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Farrel, "GMPLS Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, May 2007.
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC4873] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., and A. Farrel, [RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Ed., and S.
"GMPLS Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, May 2007 Yasukawa, Ed., "Extensions to Resource Reservation
Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-
Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875, May
2007.
[RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Papadimitriou, D., and S. Yasukawa, [RFC4970] Lindem, A., Ed., Shen, N., Vasseur, JP., Aggarwal, R.,
"Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic and S. Shaffer, "Extensions to OSPF for Advertising
Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE Label Optional Router Capabilities", RFC 4970, July 2007.
Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875, May 2007.
[RFC4970] Lindem A., et al. [RFC5073] Vasseur, J., Ed., and J. Le Roux, Ed., "IGP Routing
"Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional Router Protocol Extensions for Discovery of Traffic Engineering
Capabilities', RFC 4970, July 2007 Node Capabilities", RFC 5073, December 2007.
[RFC5073] Vasseur, JP., Le Roux, JL., "IGP Routing Protocol [RFC5088] Le Roux, JL., Ed., Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R.
Extensions for Discovery of Traffic Engineering Node Zhang, "OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path Computation
Capabilities", RFC 5073, December 2007. Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5088, January 2008.
[RFC5088] Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., Ikejiri, Y., and R. Zhang, [RFC5089] Le Roux, JL., Ed., Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R.
"OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element Zhang, "IS-IS Protocol Extensions for Path Computation
(PCE) Discovery", RFC 5088, January 2008. Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5089, January 2008.
[RFC5089] Le Roux, JL., Ed., Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R. [RFC5511] Farrel, A., "Routing Backus-Naur Form (RBNF): A Syntax
Zhang, "IS-IS Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Used to Form Encoding Rules in Various Routing Protocol
Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5089, January 2008. Specifications", RFC 5511, April 2009.
[RFC5511] Farrel, F., "Routing Backus-Naur Form (RBNF): A Syntax [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed., and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path
Used to Form Encoding Rules in Various Routing Protocol Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)",
Specifications", RFC 5511, April 2009. RFC 5440, March 2009.
[RFC5541] [RFC5541] Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., and Y. Lee, "Encoding of
Roux, J., Vasseur, J., and Y. Lee, "Encoding of Objective Objective Functions in the Path Computation Element
Functions in the Path Computation Element Communication Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5541, June 2009.
Protocol (PCEP)", RFC5541, December 2008.
8.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and J. Ash, "A Path
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006. Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
August 2006.
[RFC5671] Yasukawa, S. and A. Farrel, "Applicability of the Path [RFC4657] Ash, J., Ed., and J. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Computation Element (PCE) to Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic
MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)" RFC 5671, Requirements", RFC 4657, September 2006.
October 2009.
[PCE-P2MP-REQ] [RFC5671] Yasukawa, S. and A. Farrel, Ed., "Applicability of the
Yasukawa, S. and A. Farrel, "PCC-PCE Communication Path Computation Element (PCE) to Point-to-Multipoint
Requirements for Point to Multipoint Multiprotocol Label (P2MP) MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)",
Switching Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE)", RFC 5671, October 2009.
draft-ietf-pce-p2mp-req-05 (work in progress),
December 2009.
[PCEP-MIB] Koushik, K., Stephan, E., Zhao, Q., and King, D., [RFC5862] Yasukawa, S. and A. Farrel, "Path Computation Clients
"PCE communication protocol(PCEP) Management (PCC) - Path Computation Element (PCE) Requirements for
Information Base", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-mib-01 (work in Point-to-Multipoint MPLS-TE", RFC 5862, June 2010.
progress), March 2010.
[RFC4657] J. Ash, J.L Le Roux et al., " Path Computation Element [RFC5925] Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP
(PCE) Communication Protocol Generic Requirements", RFC Authentication Option", RFC 5925, June 2010.
4657, September 2006.
[TCP-AUTH] Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP [PCEP-MIB] Koushik, K., Stephan, E., Zhao, Q., and D. King, "PCE
Authentication Option", draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-auth-opt-11 communication protocol (PCEP) Management Information
(work in progress), March 2010. Base", Work in Progress, July 2010.
9. Authors' Addresses 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
Authors' Addresses
Quintin Zhao (editor) Quintin Zhao (editor)
Huawei Technology Huawei Technology
125 Nagog Technology Park 125 Nagog Technology Park
Acton, MA 01719 Acton, MA 01719
US US
Email: qzhao@huawei.com EMail: qzhao@huawei.com
Daniel King (editor) Daniel King (editor)
Old Dog Consulting Old Dog Consulting
UK UK
Email: daniel@olddog.co.uk EMail: daniel@olddog.co.uk
Fabien Verhaeghe Fabien Verhaeghe
Thales Communication France Thales Communication France
160 Bd Valmy 92700 Colombes 160 Bd Valmy 92700 Colombes
France France
Email: fabien.verhaeghe@gmail.com EMail: fabien.verhaeghe@gmail.com
Tomonori Takeda Tomonori Takeda
NTT Corporation NTT Corporation
3-9-11, Midori-Cho 3-9-11, Midori-Cho
Musashino-Shi, Tokyo 180-8585 Musashino-Shi, Tokyo 180-8585
Japan Japan
Email: takeda.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp EMail: takeda.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp
Zafar Ali Zafar Ali
Cisco systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
2000 Innovation Drive 2000 Innovation Drive
Kanata, Ontario K2K 3E8 Kanata, Ontario K2K 3E8
Canada Canada
Email: zali@cisco.com EMail: zali@cisco.com
Julien Meuric Julien Meuric
France Telecom France Telecom
2, avenue Pierre-Marzin 2, Avenue Pierre-Marzin
22307 Lannion Cedex, 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 France
Email: mohamad.chaitou@gmail.com EMail: julien.meuric@orange-ftgroup.com
 End of changes. 276 change blocks. 
687 lines changed or deleted 694 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.39. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/