draft-ietf-pce-pcep-xro-03.txt   draft-ietf-pce-pcep-xro-04.txt 
Network Working Group E. Oki Network Working Group E. Oki
Internet Draft NTT Internet Draft T. Takeda
Category: Standards Track A. Farrel Category: Standards Track NTT
Expires: August 2008 Old Dog Consulting Expires: September 2008 A. Farrel
Old Dog Consulting
February 2008
Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
(PCEP) for Route Exclusions (PCEP) for Route Exclusions
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-xro-03.txt draft-ietf-pce-pcep-xro-04.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
skipping to change at line 76 skipping to change at line 74
2.1.2. Processing Rules..........................................8 2.1.2. Processing Rules..........................................8
2.2. Explicit Route Exclusion....................................9 2.2. Explicit Route Exclusion....................................9
2.2.1. Definition..................................................9 2.2.1. Definition..................................................9
2.2.2. Processing Rules...........................................10 2.2.2. Processing Rules...........................................10
3. Exclude Route with Confidentiality............................11 3. Exclude Route with Confidentiality............................11
3.1. Exclude Route Object (XRO) Carrying Path Key...............11 3.1. Exclude Route Object (XRO) Carrying Path Key...............11
3.1.1. Definition.................................................11 3.1.1. Definition.................................................11
3.1.2. Processing Rules...........................................11 3.1.2. Processing Rules...........................................11
4. IANA Considerations...........................................12 4. IANA Considerations...........................................12
4.1. PCEP Objects...............................................12 4.1. PCEP Objects...............................................12
4.2. Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject (EXRS)..................13 4.2. Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject (EXRS)..................12
4.3. Error Object Field Values..................................13 4.3. Error Object Field Values..................................13
5. Manageability Considerations..................................13 5. Manageability Considerations..................................13
6. Security Considerations.......................................13 6. Security Considerations.......................................13
7. References....................................................14 7. References....................................................14
7.1. Normative Reference........................................14 7.1. Normative Reference........................................14
7.2. Informative Reference......................................14 7.2. Informative Reference......................................14
8. Acknowledgements..............................................15 8. Acknowledgements..............................................15
9. Authors' Addresses............................................15 9. Authors' Addresses............................................15
10. Intellectual Property Statement.............................15 10. Intellectual Property Statement.............................15
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Oki, Takeda and Farrel Expires September 2008 2
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
Oki and Farrel Expires August 2008 2
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.
When a PCC requests a PCE for a route, it may be useful for the PCC When a PCC requests a PCE for a route, it may be useful for the PCC
to specify abstract nodes, resources, and Shared Risk Link Groups to specify abstract nodes, resources, and Shared Risk Link Groups
(SRLGs) that are to be explicitly excluded from the route. (SRLGs) that are to be explicitly excluded from the route.
For example, disjoint paths for inter-domain LSPs may be computed by For example, disjoint paths for inter-domain LSPs may be computed by
cooperation between PCEs, each of which computes segments of the cooperation between PCEs, each of which computes segments of the
paths across one domain. In order to achieve path computation for a paths across one domain. In order to achieve path computation for a
skipping to change at line 140 skipping to change at line 137
2. Protocol Procedures and Extensions 2. Protocol Procedures and Extensions
This section describes the procedures adopted by a PCE handling a This section describes the procedures adopted by a PCE handling a
request for path computation with route exclusions received from a request for path computation with route exclusions received from a
PCC, and defines how those exclusions are encoded. PCC, and defines how those exclusions are encoded.
There are two types of route exclusion described in [RFC4874]. There are two types of route exclusion described in [RFC4874].
1. Exclusion of certain abstract nodes or resources from the whole 1. Exclusion of certain abstract nodes or resources from the whole
path. This set of abstract nodes is referred to as the Exclude path. This set of abstract nodes is referred to as the Exclude
Oki, Takeda and Farrel Expires September 2008 3
Route List. Route List.
2. Exclusion of certain abstract nodes or resources between a 2. Exclusion of certain abstract nodes or resources between a
Oki and Farrel Expires August 2008 3
specific pair of abstract nodes present in an explicit path. Such specific pair of abstract nodes present in an explicit path. Such
specific exclusions are referred to as an Explicit Route specific exclusions are referred to as an Explicit Route
Exclusion. Exclusion.
This document defines protocol extensions to allow a PCC to specify This document defines protocol extensions to allow a PCC to specify
both types of route exclusions to a PCE on a path computation both types of route exclusions to a PCE on a path computation
request. request.
A new PCEP object, the Exclude Route Object (XRO), is defined to A new PCEP object, the Exclude Route Object (XRO), is defined to
convey the Exclude Route List. The existing Include Route Object convey the Exclude Route List. The existing Include Route Object
skipping to change at line 185 skipping to change at line 182
indicate the set of elements of the original XRO that prevented the indicate the set of elements of the original XRO that prevented the
PCE from finding a path. PCE from finding a path.
The XRO MAY also be used on a PCRep message for a successful path The XRO MAY also be used on a PCRep message for a successful path
computation when the PCE wishes to provide a set of exclusions to be computation when the PCE wishes to provide a set of exclusions to be
signaled during LSP setup using the extensions to RSVP-TE [RFC4874]. signaled during LSP setup using the extensions to RSVP-TE [RFC4874].
The XRO Object-Class is to be assigned by IANA (recommended The XRO Object-Class is to be assigned by IANA (recommended
value=17) value=17)
Oki and Farrel Expires August 2008 4 Oki, Takeda and Farrel Expires September 2008 4
The XRO Object-Type is to be assigned by IANA (recommended value=1) The XRO Object-Type is to be assigned by IANA (recommended value=1)
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Flags |F| | Reserved | Flags |F|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
// (Subobjects) // // (Subobjects) //
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: XRO body format Figure 1: XRO body format
Reserved: 16 bits MUST be set to zero on transmission and SHOULD Reserved: 16 bits MUST be set to zero on transmission and SHOULD
be ignored on receipt. be ignored on receipt.
Flags: 16 bits - The following flags are currently defined: Flags: 16 bits - The following flags are currently defined:
F (Fail - 1 bit): when set, the requesting PCC requires the F (Fail - 1 bit): when set, the requesting PCC requires the
computation of a new path for an existing TE LSP that has failed. computation of a new path for an existing TE LSP that has failed.
If the F bit is set, the path of the existing TE LSP MUST be If the F bit is set, the path of the existing TE LSP MUST be
provided in the PCReq message by means of an RRO object defined in provided in the PCReq message by means of an RRO object defined in
[PCEP]. This allows the path computation to take into account the [PCEP]. This allows the path computation to take into account the
previous path and reserved resources to avoid double bandwidth previous path and reserved resources to avoid double bandwidth
skipping to change at line 232 skipping to change at line 229
X X
The X-bit indicates whether the exclusion is mandatory or The X-bit indicates whether the exclusion is mandatory or
desired. 0 indicates that the resource specified MUST be desired. 0 indicates that the resource specified MUST be
excluded from the path computed by the PCE. 1 indicates that excluded from the path computed by the PCE. 1 indicates that
the the
resource specified SHOULD be excluded from the path computed by resource specified SHOULD be excluded from the path computed by
the PCE, but MAY be included subject to PCE policy and the the PCE, but MAY be included subject to PCE policy and the
absence of a viable path that meets the other constraints and absence of a viable path that meets the other constraints and
excludes the resource. excludes the resource.
Oki, Takeda and Farrel Expires September 2008 5
Type Type
The type of the subobject. The following subobject types are The type of the subobject. The following subobject types are
defined. defined.
Oki and Farrel Expires August 2008 5
Type Subobject Type Subobject
-------------+------------------------------- -------------+-------------------------------
1 IPv4 prefix 1 IPv4 prefix
2 IPv6 prefix 2 IPv6 prefix
3 Unnumbered Interface ID 3 Unnumbered Interface ID
4 Autonomous system number 4 Autonomous system number
5 SRLG 5 SRLG
Length Length
The length of the subobject including the Type and Length The length of the subobject including the Type and Length
skipping to change at line 283 skipping to change at line 280
value is valid only for subobject types 1, 2, 3, and 4. value is valid only for subobject types 1, 2, 3, and 4.
2 SRLG 2 SRLG
The subobject identifies an SRLG explicitly or indicates all The subobject identifies an SRLG explicitly or indicates all
of the SRLGs associated with the resource or resources of the SRLGs associated with the resource or resources
identified by the subobject. Resources that share any SRLG identified by the subobject. Resources that share any SRLG
with those identified are to be excluded from the computed with those identified are to be excluded from the computed
path according to the setting of the X-bit. This value is path according to the setting of the X-bit. This value is
valid for all subobjects. valid for all subobjects.
Oki, Takeda and Farrel Expires September 2008 6
Reserved Reserved
Reserved fields within subobjects MUST be transmitted as zero Reserved fields within subobjects MUST be transmitted as zero
Oki and Farrel Expires August 2008 6
and SHOULD be ignored on receipt. and SHOULD be ignored on receipt.
The subobjects are encoded as follows: The subobjects are encoded as follows:
IPv4 prefix Subobject IPv4 prefix Subobject
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|X| Type = 1 | Length | IPv4 address (4 bytes) | |X| Type = 1 | Length | IPv4 address (4 bytes) |
skipping to change at line 332 skipping to change at line 328
|X| Type = 3 | Length | Reserved | Attribute | |X| Type = 3 | Length | Reserved | Attribute |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TE Router ID | | TE Router ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interface ID | | Interface ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The TE Router ID and Interface ID fields are as defined in The TE Router ID and Interface ID fields are as defined in
[RFC3477]. [RFC3477].
Oki and Farrel Expires August 2008 7 Oki, Takeda and Farrel Expires September 2008 7
Autonomous System Number Subobject Autonomous System Number Subobject
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|X| Type = 4 | Length | Reserved | Attribute | |X| Type = 4 | Length | 2-Octet AS Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Optional AS Number High Octets| 2-Octet AS Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
If a two-octet AS number is used, the optional AS Number High
Octets MUST be set to zero.
SRLG Subobject SRLG Subobject
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|X| Type = 5 | Length | SRLG Id (4 bytes) | |X| Type = 5 | Length | SRLG Id (4 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SRLG Id (continued) | Reserved | Attribute | | SRLG Id (continued) | Reserved | Attribute |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at line 382 skipping to change at line 373
use the first one in the message and MUST ignore subsequent use the first one in the message and MUST ignore subsequent
instances. instances.
If the PCE does not recognize the XRO it MUST return a PCErr message If the PCE does not recognize the XRO it MUST return a PCErr message
with Error-Type "Unknown Object" as described in [PCEP]. with Error-Type "Unknown Object" as described in [PCEP].
If the PCE is unwilling on unable to process the XRO it MUST return If the PCE is unwilling on unable to process the XRO it MUST return
a PCErr message with the Error-Type "Not supported object" and a PCErr message with the Error-Type "Not supported object" and
follow the relevant procedures described in [PCEP]. follow the relevant procedures described in [PCEP].
Oki and Farrel Expires August 2008 8
If the PCE processes the XRO and attempts to compute a path, it MUST If the PCE processes the XRO and attempts to compute a path, it MUST
adhere to the requested exclusions as expressed in the XRO. That is, adhere to the requested exclusions as expressed in the XRO. That is,
Oki, Takeda and Farrel Expires September 2008 8
the returned path MUST NOT include any resources encoded with the X- the returned path MUST NOT include any resources encoded with the X-
bit clear, and SHOULD NOT include any with the X-bit set unless bit clear, and SHOULD NOT include any with the X-bit set unless
alternate paths that match the other constraints expressed in the alternate paths that match the other constraints expressed in the
PCReq are unavailable. PCReq are unavailable.
When a PCE returns a path in a PCRep it MAY also supply an XRO. An When a PCE returns a path in a PCRep it MAY also supply an XRO. An
XRO in a PCRep message with the NO-PATH object indicates that the XRO in a PCRep message with the NO-PATH object indicates that the
set of elements of the original XRO prevented the PCE from finding a set of elements of the original XRO prevented the PCE from finding a
path. On the other hand, if an XRO is present in a PCRep message path. On the other hand, if an XRO is present in a PCRep message
without a NO-PATH object, the PCC SHOULD apply the contents using without a NO-PATH object, the PCC SHOULD apply the contents using
the same rules as in [RFC4874] and the PCC or a corresponding LSR the same rules as in [RFC4874] and the PCC or a corresponding LSR
SHOULD signal an RSVP-TE XRO to indicate the exclusions that SHOULD signal an RSVP-TE XRO to indicate the exclusions that
downstream LSRs should apply. This may be particularly useful in downstream LSRs should apply. This may be particularly useful in
per-domain path computation scenarios [PD-PATH]. per-domain path computation scenarios [RFC5152].
2.2. Explicit Route Exclusion 2.2. Explicit Route Exclusion
2.2.1. Definition 2.2.1. Definition
Explicit Route Exclusion defines network elements that must not or Explicit Route Exclusion defines network elements that must not or
should not be used on the path between two abstract nodes or should not be used on the path between two abstract nodes or
resources explicitly indicated in the Include Route Object (IRO) resources explicitly indicated in the Include Route Object (IRO)
[PCEP]. This information is encoded by defining a new subobject for [PCEP]. This information is encoded by defining a new subobject for
the IRO. the IRO.
skipping to change at line 431 skipping to change at line 423
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
// One or more EXRS subobjects // // One or more EXRS subobjects //
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
L L
MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on
receipt. receipt.
Oki and Farrel Expires August 2008 9
Reserved Reserved
MUST be set to zero on transmission and SHOULD be ignored on MUST be set to zero on transmission and SHOULD be ignored on
Oki, Takeda and Farrel Expires September 2008 9
receipt. receipt.
The EXRS subobject may carry any of the subobjects defined for The EXRS subobject may carry any of the subobjects defined for
inclusion in the XRO by this document or by future documents. The inclusion in the XRO by this document or by future documents. The
meanings of the fields of the XRO subobjects are unchanged when the meanings of the fields of the XRO subobjects are unchanged when the
subobjects are included in an EXRS, except that scope of the subobjects are included in an EXRS, except that scope of the
exclusion is limited to the single hop between the previous and exclusion is limited to the single hop between the previous and
subsequent elements in the IRO. subsequent elements in the IRO.
2.2.2. Processing Rules 2.2.2. Processing Rules
skipping to change at line 480 skipping to change at line 473
the EXRS subobject in the path between the previous abstract node in the EXRS subobject in the path between the previous abstract node in
the IRO and the next abstract node in the IRO unless it is not the IRO and the next abstract node in the IRO unless it is not
possible to construct a path that avoids that resource while still possible to construct a path that avoids that resource while still
complying with the other constraints expressed in the PCReq message. complying with the other constraints expressed in the PCReq message.
A successful path computation reported in a PCRep message MUST A successful path computation reported in a PCRep message MUST
include an ERO to specify the path that has been computed as include an ERO to specify the path that has been computed as
specified in [PCEP]. That ERO MAY contain specific route exclusions specified in [PCEP]. That ERO MAY contain specific route exclusions
using the EXRS as specified in [RFC4874]. using the EXRS as specified in [RFC4874].
Oki and Farrel Expires August 2008 10
If the path computation fails and a PCErr is returned with a NO-PATH If the path computation fails and a PCErr is returned with a NO-PATH
object, the PCE MAY include an IRO to report the hops that could not object, the PCE MAY include an IRO to report the hops that could not
Oki, Takeda and Farrel Expires September 2008 10
be complied with as described in [PCEP], and that IRO MAY include be complied with as described in [PCEP], and that IRO MAY include
EXRSes. EXRSes.
3. Exclude Route with Confidentiality 3. Exclude Route with Confidentiality
3.1. Exclude Route Object (XRO) Carrying Path Key 3.1. Exclude Route Object (XRO) Carrying Path Key
3.1.1. Definition 3.1.1. Definition
In PCE-based inter-domain diverse path computation, an XRO may be In PCE-based inter-domain diverse path computation, an XRO may be
skipping to change at line 527 skipping to change at line 521
L L
The L bit MUST be ignored. The L bit MUST be ignored.
3.1.2. Processing Rules 3.1.2. Processing Rules
Consider that BRPC is applied for both working and backup path Consider that BRPC is applied for both working and backup path
computation in a sequential manner. First, PCC requests PCE for the computation in a sequential manner. First, PCC requests PCE for the
computation of a working path. After BRPC processing has completed, computation of a working path. After BRPC processing has completed,
the PCC receives the results of the working-path computation the PCC receives the results of the working-path computation
Oki and Farrel Expires August 2008 11
expressed in an ERO in a PCRep message. The ERO may include PKSs if expressed in an ERO in a PCRep message. The ERO may include PKSs if
certain segments of the path are to be kept confidential. certain segments of the path are to be kept confidential.
Oki, Takeda and Farrel Expires September 2008 11
For backup path computation, when the PCC constructs a PCReq Message, For backup path computation, when the PCC constructs a PCReq Message,
it includes the entire working-path in the XRO so that the computed it includes the entire working-path in the XRO so that the computed
path is node/link disjoint from the working path. The XRO may also path is node/link disjoint from the working path. The XRO may also
include SRLGs to ensure SRLG diversity from the working path. If the include SRLGs to ensure SRLG diversity from the working path. If the
working path ERO includes PKS subobjects, these are also included in working path ERO includes PKS subobjects, these are also included in
the XRO to allow the PCE to ensure diversity. the XRO to allow the PCE to ensure diversity.
A set of PCEs for backup path computation may be the same as ones A set of PCEs for backup path computation may be the same as ones
for working path computation, or they may be different. for working path computation, or they may be different.
skipping to change at line 578 skipping to change at line 571
4.1. PCEP Objects 4.1. PCEP Objects
The "PCEP Parameters" registry contains a subregistry "PCEP Objects". The "PCEP Parameters" registry contains a subregistry "PCEP Objects".
IANA is requested to make the following allocations from this IANA is requested to make the following allocations from this
registry. registry.
Object Name Object Name Object Name Object Name
Class Type Class Type
17 XRO 1 Route exclusion 17 XRO 1 Route exclusion
Oki and Farrel Expires August 2008 12
4.2. Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject (EXRS) 4.2. Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject (EXRS)
Oki, Takeda and Farrel Expires September 2008 12
The "PCEP Parameters" registry contains a subregistry 的RO The "PCEP Parameters" registry contains a subregistry 的RO
subobject・ IANA is requested to make the following allocation from subobject・ IANA is requested to make the following allocation from
this registry for the Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject (EXRS). this registry for the Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject (EXRS).
Subobject Name Subobject Name
Type 33 EXRS Type 33 EXRS
4.3. Error Object Field Values. 4.3. Error Object Field Values.
The "PCEP Parameters" registry contains a subregistry "PCEP Errors". The "PCEP Parameters" registry contains a subregistry "PCEP Errors".
skipping to change at line 627 skipping to change at line 620
available for examination by an operator and may be configurable. available for examination by an operator and may be configurable.
Second, the behavior on receipt of an unrecognized XRO or EXRS Second, the behavior on receipt of an unrecognized XRO or EXRS
subobject with the X-bit set should be configurable and must be subobject with the X-bit set should be configurable and must be
available for inspection. The inspection and control of these local available for inspection. The inspection and control of these local
policy choices may be part of the PCEP MIB module. policy choices may be part of the PCEP MIB module.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
The new exclude route mechanisms defined in this document allow The new exclude route mechanisms defined in this document allow
finer and more specific control of the path computed by a PCE. Such finer and more specific control of the path computed by a PCE. Such
Oki and Farrel Expires August 2008 13
control increases the risk if a PCEP message is intercepted, control increases the risk if a PCEP message is intercepted,
Oki, Takeda and Farrel Expires September 2008 13
modified, or spoofed. Therefore, the security techniques described modified, or spoofed. Therefore, the security techniques described
in [PCEP] are considered more important. in [PCEP] are considered more important.
Note, however, that the roue exclusion mechanisms also provide the Note, however, that the roue exclusion mechanisms also provide the
operator with the ability to route around vulnerable parts of the operator with the ability to route around vulnerable parts of the
network and may be used to increase overall network security. network and may be used to increase overall network security.
7. References 7. References
7.1. Normative Reference 7.1. Normative Reference
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to indicate
requirements levels", RFC 2119, March 1997. requirements levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
[PCEP] JP. Vasseur et al, "Path Computation Element (PCE) [PCEP] JP. Vasseur et al, "Path Computation Element (PCE)
communication Protocol (PCEP) - Version 1 -" draft-ietf-pce-pcep communication Protocol (PCEP) - Version 1 -" draft-ietf-pce-pcep
(work in progress). (work in progress).
[INTER-DOMAIN-REC-ANA] T. Takeda et al., "Analysis of Inter-domain
Label Switched Path (LSP) Recovery" draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-
recovery-analysis (work in progress).
[PCE-PATH-KEY] R. Bradford, JP Vasseur, and A. Farrel, 撤reserving [PCE-PATH-KEY] R. Bradford, JP Vasseur, and A. Farrel, 撤reserving
Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path Computation using a Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path Computation using a
key based mechanism・ draft-ietf-pce-path-key (work in progress). key based mechanism・ draft-ietf-pce-path-key (work in progress).
[BRPC] JP. Vasseur et al, "A Backward Recursive PCE-based [BRPC] JP. Vasseur et al, "A Backward Recursive PCE-based
Computation (BRPC) procedure to compute shortest inter-domain Computation (BRPC) procedure to compute shortest inter-domain
Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths", draft-ietf-pce-brpc (work Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths", draft-ietf-pce-brpc (work
in progress). in progress).
[PD-PATH] JP. Vasseur et al, " A Per-domain path computation method [RFC5152] JP. Vasseur et al, " A Per-domain path computation method
for establishing Inter-domain Traffic Engineering (TE) Label for establishing Inter-domain Traffic Engineering (TE) Label
Switched Paths (LSPs)", draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-pd-path-comp Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 5152.February 2008.
(work in progress).
7.2. Informative Reference 7.2. Informative Reference
[RFC3477] K. Kompella and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered Links [RFC3477] K. Kompella and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered Links
in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)", in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)",
RFC 3477, January 2003. RFC 3477, January 2003.
[RFC3812] Srinivasan, C., Viswanathan, A., and T. Nadeau, [RFC3812] Srinivasan, C., Viswanathan, A., and T. Nadeau,
"Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)
Management Information Base (MIB)", RFC 3812, June 2004. Management Information Base (MIB)", RFC 3812, June 2004.
[RFC4655] A. Farrel, JP. Vasseur and J. Ash, "A Path Computation [RFC4655] A. Farrel, JP. Vasseur and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, September 2006. Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, September 2006.
Oki and Farrel Expires August 2008 14
[RFC4657] J. Ash and J.L. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element (PCE) [RFC4657] J. Ash and J.L. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element (PCE)
Communication Protocol Generic Requirements", RFC 4657, September Communication Protocol Generic Requirements", RFC 4657, September
2006. 2006.
Oki, Takeda and Farrel Expires September 2008 14
[RFC4874] Lee et al, "Exclude Routes - Extension to Resource [RFC4874] Lee et al, "Exclude Routes - Extension to Resource
ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 4874, April ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 4874, April
2007. 2007.
[INTER-DOMAIN-REC-ANA] T. Takeda et al., "Analysis of Inter-domain
Label Switched Path (LSP) Recovery" draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-
recovery-analysis (work in progress).
8. Acknowledgements 8. Acknowledgements
Authors would like to thank Tomonori Takeda for valuable comments on Authors would like to thank Fabien Verhaeghe for valuable comments
inter-domain path computation. on subobject formats.
9. Authors' Addresses 9. Authors' Addresses
Eiji Oki Eiji Oki
NTT NTT
3-9-11 Midori-cho, 3-9-11 Midori-cho,
Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180-8585, Japan Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180-8585, Japan
Email: oki.eiji@lab.ntt.co.jp Email: oki.eiji@lab.ntt.co.jp
Tomonori Takeda
NTT
3-9-11 Midori-cho,
Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180-8585, Japan
Email: takeda.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp
Adrian Farrel Adrian Farrel
Old Dog Consulting Old Dog Consulting
Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk
10. Intellectual Property Statement 10. Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed
to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described
in this document or the extent to which any license under such in this document or the extent to which any license under such
skipping to change at line 723 skipping to change at line 721
Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC
documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use
of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository
at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
Oki, Takeda and Farrel Expires September 2008 15
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
Oki and Farrel Expires August 2008 15
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org. ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on This document and the information contained herein are provided on
an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE
IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL
WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY
skipping to change at line 750 skipping to change at line 747
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights. retain all their rights.
Oki and Farrel Expires August 2008 16 Oki, Takeda and Farrel Expires September 2008 16
 End of changes. 40 change blocks. 
45 lines changed or deleted 42 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.34. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/