PCEP extensions for GMPLS
draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-04
The information below is for an old version of the document.
Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 8779.
|
|
---|---|---|---|
Authors | Cyril Margaria , Fatai Zhang , Oscar Gonzalez de Dios | ||
Last updated | 2011-10-31 (Latest revision 2011-07-09) | ||
Replaces | draft-margaria-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions | ||
RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
Formats | |||
Reviews |
GENART Telechat review
(of
-14)
by Elwyn Davies
Almost ready
|
||
Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
Document shepherd | (None) | ||
IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 8779 (Proposed Standard) | |
Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
Telechat date | (None) | ||
Responsible AD | (None) | ||
Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-04
Network Working Group C. Margaria, Ed. Internet-Draft Nokia Siemens Networks Intended status: Standards Track O. Gonzalez de Dios, Ed. Expires: May 2, 2012 Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo F. Zhang, Ed. Huawei Technologies October 30, 2011 PCEP extensions for GMPLS draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-04 Abstract This memo provides extensions for the Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) for the support of GMPLS control plane. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 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." This Internet-Draft will expire on May 2, 2012. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as Margaria, et al. Expires May 2, 2012 [Page 1] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2011 described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. PCEP requirements for GMPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.3. PCEP existing objects related to GMPLS . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.4. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2. PCEP objects and extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.1. RP object extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.2. Traffic parameters encoding, GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH . . . . 9 2.3. Traffic parameters encoding, GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING . 11 2.4. END-POINTS Object extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2.4.1. Generalized Endpoint Object Type . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2.4.2. END-POINTS TLVs extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 2.5. LABEL-SET object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 2.6. SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 2.7. LSPA extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 2.8. NO-PATH Object Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 2.8.1. Extensions to NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3. Additional Error Type and Error Values Defined . . . . . . . . 25 4. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 5.1. PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 5.2. END-POINTS object, Object Type Generalized Endpoint . . . 29 5.3. New PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 5.4. RP Object Flag Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 5.5. New PCEP Error Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 5.6. New NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 7. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Margaria, et al. Expires May 2, 2012 [Page 2] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2011 1. Introduction PCEP RFCs [RFC5440], [RFC5521], [RFC5541], [RFC5520] are focused on path computation requests in MPLS networks. [RFC4655] defines the PCE framework also for GMPLS networks. This document complements these RFCs by providing some consideration of GMPLS applications and routing requests, for example for OTN and WSON networks. The requirements on PCE extensions to support those characteristics are described in [I-D.ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req] and [I-D.ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength]. 1.1. Contributing Authors Elie Sfeir, Franz Rambach (Nokia Siemens Networks) Francisco Javier Jimenez Chico (Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo) Suresh BR, Young Lee, SenthilKumar S, Jun Sun (Huawei Technologies), Ramon Casellas (CTTC) 1.2. PCEP requirements for GMPLS This section provides a set of PCEP requirements to support GMPLS LSPs and assure signal compatibility in the path. When requesting a path computation (PCReq) to PCE, the PCC should be able to indicate, according to [I-D.ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req] and to RSVP procedures like explicit label control (ELC), the following additional attributes: (1) Switching capability: for instance PSC1-4, L2SC, TDM, LSC, FSC (2) Encoding type: as defined in [RFC4202], [RFC4203], e.g., Ethernet, SONET/SDH, Lambda, etc. (3) Signal Type: Indicates the type of elementary signal that constitutes the requested LSP. A lot of signal types with different granularity have been defined in SONET/SDH and G.709 ODUk, such as VC11, VC12, VC2, VC3 and VC4 in SDH, and ODU1, ODU2 and ODU3 in G.709 ODUk [RFC4606], [RFC4328] and other signal types like the one defined in [I-D.ceccarelli-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709] or [I-D.zhang-ccamp-gmpls-evolving-g709] . (4) Concatenation Type: In SDH/SONET and G.709 OTN networks, two kinds of concatenation modes are defined: contiguous concatenation which requires co-route for each member signal and requires all the interfaces along the path to support this capability, and virtual concatenation which allows diverse routes for the member signals and only requires the ingress and egress interfaces to support this capability. Note that for the virtual concatenation, it also may specify co-routed or separated-routed. See [RFC4606] Margaria, et al. Expires May 2, 2012 [Page 3] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2011 and [RFC4328] about concatenation information. (5) Concatenation Number: Indicates the number of signals that are requested to be contiguously or virtually concatenated. See also [RFC4606] and [RFC4328]. (6) Technology specific label(s) such as wavelength label as defined in [RFC6205] (7) e2e Path protection type: as defined in [RFC4872], e.g., 1+1 protection, 1:1 protection, (pre-planned) rerouting, etc. (8) Link Protection type: as defined in [RFC4203] (9) Support for unnumbered interfaces: as defined in [RFC3477] (10) Support for asymmetric bandwidth requests. (11) Ability to indicate the requested granularity for the path ERO: node, link, label. This is to allow the use of the explicit label control of RSVP. (12) In order to support the label control the Path computation response should provide label information matching signaling capabilities (13) The PCC should be able to provide label restrictions similar to RSVP on the requests. We describe in this document a proposal to fulfill those requirements. 1.3. PCEP existing objects related to GMPLS PCEP as of [RFC5440], [RFC5521] and [I-D.ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext], supports the following information (in the PCReq and PCRep) related to the described requirements. From [RFC5440]: o numbered endpoints o bandwidth (encoded as IEEE float) o ERO o LSP attributes (setup and holding priorities) Margaria, et al. Expires May 2, 2012 [Page 4] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2011 o Request attribute (include some LSP attributes) From [RFC5521],Extensions to PCEP for Route Exclusions, definition of a XRO object and a new semantic (F bit): o This object also allows to exclude (strict or not) resources; XRO include the diversity level (node, link, SRLG). The requested diversity is expressed in the XRO o This Object with the F bit set indicates that the existing route is failed and resources present in the RRO can be reused. From [I-D.ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext]: o INTER-LAYER : indicates if inter-layer computation is allowed o SWITCH-LAYER : indicates which layer(s) should be considered, can be used to represent the RSVP-TE generalized label request o REQ-ADAP-CAP : indicates the adaptation capabilities requested, can also be used for the endpoints in case of mono-layer computation The shortcomings of the existing PCEP information are: The BANDWIDTH and LOAD-BALANCING objects do not describe the details of the traffic request (for example NVC, multiplier) in the context of GMPLS networks, for instance TDM or OTN networks. The END-POINTS object does not allow specifying an unnumbered interface, nor the labels on the interface. Those parameters are of interest in case of switching constraints. Current attributes do not allow to express the requested link level protection and end-to-end protection attributes. The covered PCEP extensions are: New objects are introduced (GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH and GENERALIZED- LOAD-BALANCING) for flexible bandwidth encoding, New Objects are introduced (LABEL-SET and SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET) on order to allow the PCC to restrict/influence the range of labels returned A new object type is introduced for the END-POINTS object (generalized-endpoint), Margaria, et al. Expires May 2, 2012 [Page 5] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2011 A new TLV is added to the LSPA object. In order to indicate the mandatory routing granularity in the response, a new flag in the RP object is added. 1.4. 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 [RFC2119]. Margaria, et al. Expires May 2, 2012 [Page 6] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2011 2. PCEP objects and extensions This section describes the required PCEP objects and extensions. The PCReq and PCRep messages are defined in [RFC5440]. The format of the request and response messages with the proposed extensions (GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH, GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING, SUGGESTED-LABEL- SET and LABEL-SET) is as follows: <request>::= <RP> <segment-computation>|<path-key-expansion> <segment-computation> ::= <END-POINTS> [<LSPA>] [<BANDWIDTH>] [<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>...] [<metric-list>] [<OF>] [<RRO> [<BANDWIDTH>] [<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>...]] [<IRO>] [<SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET>] [<LABEL-SET>...] [<LOAD-BALANCING>] [<GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING>...] [<XRO>] <path-key-expansion> ::= <PATH-KEY> <response>::=<RP> [<NO-PATH>] [<attribute-list>] [<path-list>] <path-list>::=<path>[<path-list>] <path>::= <ERO><attribute-list> <metric-list>::=<METRIC>[<metric-list>] Where: <attribute-list>::=[<LSPA>] [<BANDWIDTH>] [<LABEL-SET>...] [<SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET>...] [<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>...] [<GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING>...] [<metric-list>] [<IRO>] Margaria, et al. Expires May 2, 2012 [Page 7] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2011 For point-to-multipoint(P2MP) computations, the proposed grammar is: <segment-computation> ::= <end-point-rro-pair-list> [<LSPA>] [<BANDWIDTH>] [<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>...] [<metric-list>] [<IRO>] [<SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET>] [<LABEL-SET>] [<LOAD-BALANCING>] [<GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING>...] [<XRO>] <end-point-rro-pair-list>::= <END-POINTS>[<RRO-List>][<BANDWIDTH>] [<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>...] [<end-point-rro-pair-list>] <RRO-List>::=<RRO>[<BANDWIDTH>] [< GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>...][<RRO-List>] 2.1. RP object extension Explicit label control (ELC) is a procedure supported by RSVP-TE, where the outgoing label(s) is(are) encoded in the ERO. In consequence, the PCE may be able to provide such label(s) directly in the path ERO. The PCC, depending on policies or switching layer, may be required to use explicit label control or expect explicit link, thus it need to indicate in the PCReq which granularity it is expecting in the ERO. This correspond to requirement 11 of [I-D.ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req] The possible granularities can be node, link, label. The granularities are inter-dependent, in the sense that link granularity imply the presence of node information in the ERO, similarly a label granularity imply that the ERO contain node, link and label information. A new 2-bit routing granularity (RG) flag is defined in the RP object. The values are defined as follows Margaria, et al. Expires May 2, 2012 [Page 8] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2011 0 : node 1 : link 2 : label 3 : reserved When the RP object appears in a request within a PCReq message the flag indicates the requested route granularity. The PCE MAY try to follow this granularity and MAY return a NO-PATH if the requested granularity cannot be provided. The PCE MAY return more details on the route based on its policy. The PCC can decide if the ERO is acceptable based on its content. If a PCE did use the requested routing granularity in a PCReq is MUST indicate the routing granularity in the PCRep. The RG flag is backward-compatible with previous RFCs: the value sent by an implementation not supporting it will indicate a node granularity. This flag is optional for responses. A new capability flag in the PCE-CAP-FLAGS from [RFC5088] and [RFC5089] may be added. 2.2. Traffic parameters encoding, GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH The PCEP BANDWIDTH does not describe the details of the signal (for example NVC, multiplier), hence the bandwidth information should be extended to use the RSVP Tspec object encoding. The PCEP BANDWIDTH object defines two types: 1 and 2. C-Type 2 is representing the existing bandwidth in case of re-optimization. The following possibilities cannot be represented in the BANDWIDTH object: o Asymmetric bandwidth (different bandwidth in forward and reverse direction), as described in [RFC6387] o GMPLS (SDH/SONET, G.709, ATM, MEF etc) parameters are not supported. This correspond to requirement 3,4,5 and 10 of [I-D.ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req]. According to [RFC5440] the BANDWIDTH object has no TLV and has a fixed size of 4 bytes. This definition does not allow extending it with the required information. To express this information, a new object named GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH having the following format is defined: Margaria, et al. Expires May 2, 2012 [Page 9] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2011 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Traffic Spec Length | Reserved |R|O| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Traffic Spec ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Optional TLVs ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH has a variable length. The Traffic spec length field indicates the length of the Traffic spec field. The bits R and O have the following meaning: O bit : when set the value refers to the previous bandwidth in case of re-optimization R bit : when set the value refers to the bandwidth of the reverse direction The Object type determines which type of bandwidth is represented by the object. The following object types are defined: 1. Intserv 2. SONET/SDH 3. G.709 4. Ethernet The encoding of the field Traffic Spec is the same as in RSVP-TE, it can be found in the following references. Margaria, et al. Expires May 2, 2012 [Page 10] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2011 Object Type Name Reference 0 Reserved 1 Reserved 2 Intserv [RFC2210] 3 Reserved 4 SONET/SDH [RFC4606] 5 G.709 [RFC4328] 6 Ethernet [RFC6003] Traffic Spec field encoding The GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH MAY appear more than once in a PCReq message. If more than one GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH have the same Object Type, Reserved, R and O values, only the first one is processed, the others are ignored. a PCE MAY ignore GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH objects, a PCC that requires a GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH to be used can set the P (Processing) bit in the object header. When a PCC needs to get a bi-directional path with asymmetric bandwidth, it SHOULD specify the different bandwidth in forward and reverse directions through two separate GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH objects. If the PCC set the P bit on both object the PCE MUST compute a path that satisfies the asymmetric bandwidth constraint and return the path to PCC if the path computation is successful. If the P bit on the reverse GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH object the PCE MAY ignore this constraint. a PCE MAY include the GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH objects in the response to indicate the GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH of the path Optional TLVs may be included within the object body to specify more specific bandwidth requirements. The specification of such TLVs is outside the scope of this document. 2.3. Traffic parameters encoding, GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING The LOAD-BALANCING object is used to request a set of maximum Max-LSP TE-LSP having in total the bandwidth specified in BANDWIDTH, each TE- LSP having a minimum of min-bandwidth bandwidth. The LOAD-BALANCING Margaria, et al. Expires May 2, 2012 [Page 11] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2011 follows the bandwidth encoding of the BANDWIDTH object, it does not describe enough details for the traffic specification expected by GMPLS. A PCC should be allowed to request a set of TE-LSP also in case of GMPLS traffic specification. According to [RFC5440] the LOAD-BALANCING object has no TLV and has a fixed size of 8 bytes. This definition does not allows extending it with the required information. To express this information, a new Object named GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING is defined. The GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING object, as the LOAD-BALANCING object, allows the PCC to request a set of TE-LSP having in total the GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH traffic specification with potentially Max-Lsp, each TE-LSP having a minimum of Min Traffic spec. The GENERALIZED- LOAD-BALANCING is optional. GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING Object-Class is to be assigned by IANA. The GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING Object type determines which type of minimum bandwidth is represented by the object. The following object types are defined: 1. Intserv 2. SONET/SDH 3. G.709 4. Ethernet The GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING has a variable length. The format of the GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING object body is as follows: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Traffic spec length | Flags |R| Max-LSP | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Min Traffic Spec | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Optional TLVs ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Traffic spec length (16 bits): the total length of the min traffic specification. It should be noted that the RSVP traffic Margaria, et al. Expires May 2, 2012 [Page 12] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2011 specification may also include TLV different than the PCEP TLVs. Flags (8 bits): The undefined Flags field MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt. The following flag is defined: R Flag : (1 bit) set when the value refer to the bandwidth of the reverse direction Max-LSP (8 bits): maximum number of TE LSPs in the set. Min-Traffic spec (variable): Specifies the minimum traffic spec of each element of the set of TE LSPs. The encoding of the field Traffic Spec is the same as in RSVP-TE, it can be found in the following references. Object Type Name Reference 2 Intserv [RFC2210] 4 SONET/SDH [RFC4606] 5 G.709 [RFC4328] 6 Ethernet [RFC6003] Traffic Spec field encoding The GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING MAY appear more than once in a PCReq message. If more than one GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING have the same Object Type, and R Flag, only the first one is processed, the others are ignored. a PCE MAY ignore GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING objects. A PCC that requires a GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING to be used can set the P (Processing) bit in the object header. When a PCC needs to get a bi-directional path with asymmetric bandwidth, it SHOULD specify the different bandwidth in forward and reverse directions through two separate GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING objects with different R Flag. If the PCC set the P bit on both object the PCE MUST compute a path that satisfies the asymmetric bandwidth constraint and return the path to PCC if the path computation is successful. If the P bit on the reverse GENERALIZED- LOAD-BALANCING object the PCE MAY ignore this constraint. Optional TLVs may be included within the object body to specify more Margaria, et al. Expires May 2, 2012 [Page 13] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2011 specific bandwidth requirements. The specification of such TLVs is outside the scope of this document. The GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING object has the same semantic as the LOAD-BALANCING object; If a PCC requests the computation of a set of TE LSPs so that the total of their generalized bandwidth is X, the maximum number of TE LSPs is N, and each TE LSP must at least have a bandwidth of B, it inserts a GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH object specifying X as the required bandwidth and a GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING object with the Max-LSP and Min-traffic spec fields set to N and B, respectively. For example a request for one co-signaled n x VC-4 TE-LSP will not use the GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING. In case the V4 components can use different paths, the GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH will contain a traffic specification indicating the complete n x VC4 traffic specification and the GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING the minimum co-signaled VC4. For a SDH network, a request to have a TE-LSP group with 10 VC4 container, each path using at minimum 2VC4 container, can be represented with a GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH object with OT=4, the content of the Traffic specification is ST=6,RCC=0,NCC=0,NVC=10,MT=1. The GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING, OT=4,R=0,Max-LSP=5, min Traffic spec is (ST=6,RCC=0,NCC=0,NVC=2,MT=1). The PCE can respond with a response with maximum 5 path, each of then having a GENERALIZED- BANDWIDTH OT=4,R=0, and traffic spec matching the minimum traffic spec from the GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING object of the corresponding request. 2.4. END-POINTS Object extensions The END-POINTS object is used in a PCReq message to specify the source and destination of the path for which a path computation is requested. From [RFC3471] the source IP address and the destination IP address are used to identify those. A new Object Type is defined to address the following possibilities: o Different endpoint types. o Label restrictions on the endpoint. o Specification of unnumbered endpoints type as seen in GMPLS networks. The Object encoding is described in the following sections. Margaria, et al. Expires May 2, 2012 [Page 14] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2011 2.4.1. Generalized Endpoint Object Type In GMPLS context the endpoints can: o Be unnumbered o Have label(s) associated to them o May have different switching capabilities The IPv4 and IPv6 endpoints are used to represent the source and destination IP addresses. The scope of the IP address (Node or Link) is not explicitly stated. It should also be possible to request a Path between a numbered link and an unnumbered link, or a P2MP path between different type of endpoints. Since the PCEP END-POINTS object only support endpoints of the same type a new C-Type is proposed that support different endpoint types, including unnumbered. This new C-Type also supports the specification of constraints on the endpoint label to be use. The PCE might know the interface restrictions but this is not a requirement. On the path calculation request only the Tspec and switch layer need to be coherent, the endpoint labels could be different (supporting a different Tspec). Hence the label restrictions include a Generalized label request in order to interpret the labels. This correspond to requirement 6 and 9 of [I-D.ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req]. The proposed object format consists of a body and a list of TLVs, which give the details of the endpoints and are described in Section 2.4.2. For each endpoint type, a different grammar is defined. The TLVs defined to describe an endpoint are: 1. IPv4 address. 2. IPv6 address. 3. Unnumbered endpoint. 4. Label request. 5. Label. 6. Upstream label. 7. Label set. Margaria, et al. Expires May 2, 2012 [Page 15] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2011 8. Suggested label set. The labels TLV are used to restrict the label allocation in the PCE. They follow the set of restrictions provided by signaling with explicit value (label and upstream label), mandatory range restrictions (Label set) and optional range restriction (suggested label set). Single suggested value is using the suggested label set. The label range restriction are valid in GMPLS networks, either by PCC policy or depending on the switching technology used, for instance on given Ethernet or ODU equipment having limited hardware capabilities restricting the label range. Label set restriction also applies to WSON networks where the optical sender and receivers are limited in their frequency tunability ranges, restricting then in GMPLS the possible label ranges on the interface. The END-POINTS Object with Generalized Endpoint object type is encoded as follow: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Reserved | endpoint type | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ TLVs ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Reserved bits should be set to 0 when a message is sent and ignored when the message is received the endpoint type is defined as follow: Margaria, et al. Expires May 2, 2012 [Page 16] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2011 Value Type Meaning 0 Point-to-Point 1 Point-to-Multipoint New leaves to add 2 Old leaves to remove 3 Old leaves whose path can be modified/reoptimized 4 Old leaves whose path must be left unchanged 5-244 Reserved 245-255 Experimental range The endpoint type is used to cover both point-to-point and different point-to-multipoint endpoint semantic. Endpoint type 0 MAY be accepted by the PCE, other endpoint type MAY be supported if the PCE implementation supports P2MP path calculation. A PCE not supporting a given endpoint type MUST respond with a PCErr with error code "Path computation failure", error type "Unsupported endpoint type in END- POINTS Generalized Endpoint object type". The TLVs present in the object body MUST follow the following grammar: <generalized-endpoint-tlvs>::= <p2p-endpoints> | <p2mp-endpoints> <p2p-endpoints> ::= <source-endpoint> <destination-endpoint> <source-endpoint> ::= <endpoint> [<endpoint-restriction-list>] <destination-endpoint> ::= <endpoint> [<endpoint-restriction-list>] <p2mp-endpoints> ::= <endpoint> [<endpoint-restriction-list>] [<endpoint> [<endpoint-restriction-list>]]... For endpoint type Point-to-Multipoint several endpoint objects may be Margaria, et al. Expires May 2, 2012 [Page 17] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2011 present in the message and represent a leave, exact meaning depend on the endpoint type defined of the object. An endpoint is defined as follows: <endpoint>::=<IPV4-ADDRESS>|<IPV6-ADDRESS>|<UNNUMBERED-ENDPOINT> <endpoint-restriction-list> ::= <endpoint-restriction> [<endpoint-restriction-list>] <endpoint-restriction> ::= <LABEL-REQUEST><label-restriction-list> <label-restriction-list> ::= <label-restriction> [<label-restriction-list>] <label-restriction> ::= <LABEL>|<UPSTREAM-LABEL>| <LABEL-SET>| <SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET> The different TLVs are described in the following sections. A PCE MAY support IPV4-ADDRESS,IPV6-ADDRESS or UNNUMBERED-ENDPOINT TLV. A PCE not supporting one of those TLV in a PCReq MUST respond with a PCRep with NO-PATH with the bit "Unknown destination" or "Unknown source" in the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV, the PCRep MUST include the ENDPOINT object in the response with only the TLV it did not understood. A PCE MAY support LABEL-REQUEST, LABEL, UPSTREAM-LABEL, LABEL-SET or SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET TLV. For non supported TLV in the END-POINTS a PCE MUST respond with a PCErr message with error type="Path computation failure" error value="Unsupported TLV present in END- POINTS Generalized Endpoint object type" and the message MUST include the ENDPOINT object in the response with only the endpoint and endpoint restriction TLV it did not understood. A PCE not supporting being able to fulfill the label restriction MUST respond with a PCRep with NO-PATH with the bit "No endpoint label resource" or "No endpoint label resource in range" in the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV, the PCRep MUST include the ENDPOINT object in the response with only the TLV where it could not met the the constraint. 2.4.2. END-POINTS TLVs extensions All endpoint TLVs have the standard PCEP TLV header as defined in [RFC5440] section 7.1 Margaria, et al. Expires May 2, 2012 [Page 18] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2011 2.4.2.1. IPV4-ADDRESS This TLV represent a numbered endpoint using IPv4 numbering, the format of the IPv4-ADDRESS TLV value (TLV-Type=TBA) is as follows: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IPv4 address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ This TLV MAY be ignored, in which case a PCRep with NO-PATH should be responded, as described in Section 2.4.1. 2.4.2.2. IPV6-ADDRESS TLV This TLV represent a numbered endpoint using IPV6 numbering, the format of the IPv6-ADDRESS TLV value (TLV-Type=TBA) is as follows: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IPv6 address (16 bytes) | | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ This TLV MAY be ignored, in which case a PCRep with NO-PATH should be responded, as described in Section 2.4.1. 2.4.2.3. UNNUMBERED-ENDPOINT TLV This TLV represent an unnumbered interface. This TLV has the same semantic as in [RFC3477] The TLV value is encoded as follow (TLV- Type=TBA) 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | LSR's Router ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Interface ID (32 bits) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ This TLV MAY be ignored, in which case a PCRep with NO-PATH should be responded, as described in Section 2.4.1. Margaria, et al. Expires May 2, 2012 [Page 19] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2011 2.4.2.4. LABEL-REQUEST TLV The LABEL-REQUEST TLV indicates the switching capability and encoding type of the label restriction list. Its format is the same as described in [RFC3471] Section 3.1 Generalized label request. The LABEL-REQUEST TLV use TLV-Type=TBA. The fields are encoded as in the RSVP-TE. The Encoding Type indicates the encoding type, e.g., SONET/ SDH/GigE etc., that will be used with the data associated with the LSP. The Switching type indicates the type of switching that is being requested on the link. G-PID identifies the payload of the TE- LSP. This TLV and the following one are introduced to satisfy requirement 13 for the endpoint. This TLV MAY be ignored, in which case a PCRep with NO-PATH should be responded, as described in Section 2.4.1. 2.4.2.5. Labels TLV Label or label range restrictions may be specified for the TE-LSP endpoints. Those are encoded in the TLVs. The label value need to be interpreted with a description on the Encoding and switching type. The REQ-ADAP-CAP object from [I-D.ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext] can be used in case of mono-layer request, however in case of multilayer it is possible to have in the future more than one object, so it is better to have a dedicated TLV for the label and label request (the scope is then more clear). Those TLV MAY be ignored, in which case a PCRep with NO-PATH should be responded, as described in Section 2.4.1. TLVs are encoded as follow (following [RFC5440]) : o LABEL TLV, Type=TBA. The TLV Length is variable, the value is the same as [RFC3471] Section 3.2 Generalized label. This represent the downstream label o UPSTREAM-LABEL TLV, Type=TBA, The TLV Length is variable, the value is the same as [RFC3471] Section 3.2 Generalized label. This represent the upstream label o LABEL-SET TLV, Type=TBA. The TLV Length is variable, Encoding follow [RFC3471] Section 3.5 "Label set" with the addition of a U bit : the U bit is set for upstream direction in case of bidirectional LSP. Margaria, et al. Expires May 2, 2012 [Page 20] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2011 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Action | Reserved |U| Label Type | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Subchannel 1 | | ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ : : : : : : +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Subchannel N | | ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ o SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET TLV Set, Type=TBA. The TLV length is variable, Encoding is as LABEL-SET TLV. A LABEL TLV represent the label used on the unnumbered interface, bit U is used to indicate which exact direction is considered. The label type indicates which type of label is carried. A LABEL-SET TLV represents a set of possible labels that can be used on the unnumbered interface. the label allocated on the first link SHOULD be within the label set range. The action parameter in the Label set indicates the type of list provided. Those parameters are described by [RFC3471] section 3.5.1 A SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET TLV has the same encoding as the LABEL-SET TLV, it indicates to the PCE a set of preferred (ordered) set of labels to be used. the PCE MAY use those labels for label allocation. The U bit has the following meaning: U: Upstream direction: set when the label or label set is in the reverse direction 2.5. LABEL-SET object The LABEL-SET object is carried in a request within a PCReq message to restrict the set of labels to be assigned during the path computation. This is introduced to satisfy requirement 13. When the P bit is set and the object accepted any label allocated by the PCE (and included in the ERO object on the response) MUST be in the range stated in the LABEL-SET. When no path satisfy this constraint a PCRep with a NO-PATH should be responded wit a NO-PATH- VECTOR TLV with the bit "No label resource in range" set and the Margaria, et al. Expires May 2, 2012 [Page 21] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2011 LABEL-SET object MAY be included to indicate the set of constraint that could not be satisfied. When the P bit is not set a PCE MAY consider constraint, the PCC can verify that the constraint was applied by checking the ERO returned The LABEL-SET Object encoding is defined as following 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | // TLVs // | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ where TLVs follow the following grammar <label-set-tlvs> ::= <LABEL-REQUEST><LABEL-SET>[<LABEL-SET>] The LABEL-REQUEST and LABEL-SET TLVs are as defined in Section 2.4.2.5, See also [RFC3471] and [RFC3473] for the definitions of the fields. It is allowed to have more than one LABEL-SET object per request within a PCReq message (for example in case of multiple SWITCH-LAYER present). 2.6. SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET object Similar to the endpoint restriction SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET TLV, but with end-to-end scope the SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET object indicate an optional set of label that the PCE MAY use when selecting the labels. The SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET object is carried within a PCReq or PCRep message to indicate the preferred set of label to be assigned during the path computation. The encoding is the same as the LABEL-SET object. It is allowed to have more than one SUGGESTED LABEL-SET object per PCReq (for example in case of multiple SWITCH-LAYER present). This object is introduced similarly to the LABEl-SET to satisfy the requirement 6 and 13, more specifically the ability to indicate optional preference for the label selection support by RSVP using the SUGGESTED_LABEL. 2.7. LSPA extensions The LSPA carries the LSP attributes. In the end-to-end protection context this also includes the protection state information. This Margaria, et al. Expires May 2, 2012 [Page 22] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2011 object is introduced to fulfill requirement 7 and is used as a policy input for route and label selection. The LSPA object can be extended by a protection TLV type: Type TBA: PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |S|P|N|O| Reserved | LSP Flags | Reserved | Link Flags| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |I|R| Reserved | Seg.Flags | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The content is as defined in [RFC4872], [RFC4873]. LSP Flags can be considered for routing policy based on the protection type. The other attributes are only meaningful for a s_ateful PCE. This TLV is optional and MAY be ignored by the PCE, in which case MUST NOT include the TLV in the LSPA, if present, of the PCRep. When the TLV is used by the PCE, a LSPA object and the PROTECTION- ATTRIBUTE TLV MUST be included in the PCRep. Fields that were not considered MUST be set to 0. 2.8. NO-PATH Object Extension The NO-PATH object is used in PCRep messages in response to an unsuccessful path computation request (the PCE could not find a path satisfying the set of constraints). In this scenario, PCE MUST include a NO-PATH object in the PCRep message. The NO-PATH object may carries the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV that specifies more information on the reasons that led to a negative reply. In case of GMPLS networks there could be some more additional constraints that led to the failure like protection mismatch, lack of resources, and so on. Few new flags have been introduced in the 32-bit flag field of the NO- PATH-VECTOR TLV and no modifications have been made in the NO-PATH object. 2.8.1. Extensions to NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV The modified NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV carrying the additional information is as follows: Bit number TBA - Protection Mismatch (1-bit). Specifies the mismatch of the protection type in the PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV in the request. Margaria, et al. Expires May 2, 2012 [Page 23] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2011 Bit number TBA - No Resource (1-bit). Specifies that the resources are not currently sufficient to provide the path. Bit number TBA - Granularity not supported (1-bit). Specifies that the PCE is not able to provide a route with the requested granularity. Bit number TBA - No endpoint label resource (1-bit). Specifies that the PCE is not able to provide a route because of the endpoint label restriction. Bit number TBA - No endpoint label resource in range (1-bit). Specifies that the PCE is not able to provide a route because of the endpoint label set restriction. Bit number TBA - No label resource in range (1-bit). Specifies that the PCE is not able to provide a route because of the label set restriction. Margaria, et al. Expires May 2, 2012 [Page 24] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2011 3. Additional Error Type and Error Values Defined A PCEP-ERROR object is used to report a PCEP error and is characterized by an Error-Type that specifies the type of error while Error-value that provides additional information about the error type. An additional error type and few error values are defined to represent some of the errors related to the newly identified objects related to SDH networks. For each PCEP error, an Error-Type and an Error-value are defined. Error-Type 1 to 10 are already defined in [RFC5440]. Additional Error- values are defined for Error-Type 10 and A new Error-Type is introduced (value TBA). Error-Type Error-value 10 Reception of an invalid object Error-value=TBA: Bad Generalized Bandwidth Object value. Error-value=TBA: Unsupported LSP Protection Type in PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. Error-value=TBA: Unsupported LSP Protection Flags in PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. Error-value=TBA: Unsupported Secondary LSP Protection Flags in PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. Error-value=TBA: Unsupported Link Protection Type in PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. Error-value=TBA: Unsupported Link Protection Type in PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. TBA Path computation failure Error-value=TBA: Unacceptable request message. Error-value=TBA: Generalized bandwidth object not supported. Error-value=TBA: Label Set constraint could not be met. Error-value=TBA: Label constraint could not be met. Error-value=TBA: Unsupported endpoint type in END-POINTS Generalized Endpoint object type Margaria, et al. Expires May 2, 2012 [Page 25] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2011 Error-value=TBA: Unsupported TLV present in END-POINTS Generalized Endpoint object type Error-value=TBA: Unsupported granularity in the RP object flags Margaria, et al. Expires May 2, 2012 [Page 26] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2011 4. Manageability Considerations Liveness Detection and Monitoring This document makes no change to the basic operation of PCEP and so there are no changes to the requirements for liveness detection and monitoring set out in [RFC4657] and [RFC5440]. Margaria, et al. Expires May 2, 2012 [Page 27] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2011 5. IANA Considerations IANA assigns values to the PCEP protocol objects and TLVs. IANA is requested to make some allocations for the newly defined objects and TLVs introduced in this document. Also, IANA is requested to manage the space of flags that are newly added in the TLVs. 5.1. PCEP Objects As described in Section 2.2 and Section 2.3new Objects are defined IANA is requested to make the following Object-Type allocations from the "PCEP Objects" sub-registry. Object Class to be assigned Name GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH Object-Type 0 to 6 Reference This document (section Section 2.2) Object Class to be assigned Name GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING Object-Type 0 to 6 Reference This document (section Section 2.3) Object Class to be assigned Name LABEL-SET Object-Type 0 Reference This document (section Section 2.5) Margaria, et al. Expires May 2, 2012 [Page 28] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2011 Object Class to be assigned Name SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET Object-Type 0 Reference This document (section Section 2.6) As described in Section 2.4.1 a new Object type is defined IANA is requested to make the following Object-Type allocations from the "PCEP Objects" sub-registry. The values here are suggested for use by IANA. Object Class 4 Name END-POINTS Object-Type 5 : Generalized Endpoint 6-15 : unassigned Reference This document (section Section 2.2) 5.2. END-POINTS object, Object Type Generalized Endpoint IANA is requested to create a registry to manage the endpoint type field of the END-POINTS object, Object Type Generalized Endpoint and manage the code space. New endpoint type in the Reserved range may be allocated by an IETF consensus action. Each endpoint type should be tracked with the following qualities: o endpoint type o Description o Defining RFC New endpoint type in the Experimental range are for experimental use; these will not be registered with IANA and MUST NOT be mentioned by RFCs. The following values have been defined by this document. (Section 2.4.1, Table 4): Margaria, et al. Expires May 2, 2012 [Page 29] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2011 Value Type Meaning 0 Point-to-Point 1 Point-to-Multipoint New leaves to add 2 Old leaves to remove 3 Old leaves whose path can be modified/reoptimized 4 Old leaves whose path must be left unchanged 5-244 Reserved 245-255 Experimental range 5.3. New PCEP TLVs IANA manages the PCEP TLV code point registry (see [RFC5440]). This is maintained as the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" sub-registry of the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry. This document defines new PCEP TLVs, to be carried in the END-POINTS object with Generalized Endpoint object Type. IANA is requested to do the following allocation. The values here are suggested for use by IANA. Value Meaning Reference 7 IPv4 endpoint This document (section Section 2.4.2.1) 8 IPv6 endpoint This document (section Section 2.4.2.2) 9 Unnumbered endpoint This document (section Section 2.4.2.3) 10 Label request This document (section Section 2.4.2.4) 11 Requested GMPLS Label This document (section Section 2.4.2.5) 12 Requested GMPLS Upstream This document (section Label Section 2.4.2.5) Margaria, et al. Expires May 2, 2012 [Page 30] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2011 13 Requested GMPLS Label Set This document (section Section 2.4.2.5) 14 Suggested GMPLS Label Set This document (section Section 2.4.2.5) 15 LSP Protection Information This document (section Section 2.7) 5.4. RP Object Flag Field As described in Section 2.1 new flag are defined in the RP Object Flag IANA is requested to make the following Object-Type allocations from the "RP Object Flag Field" sub-registry. The values here are suggested for use by IANA. Bit Description Reference bit 17-16 routing granularity (RG) This document, Section 2.1 5.5. New PCEP Error Codes As described in Section Section 3, new PCEP Error-Type and Error Values are defined. IANA is requested to make the following allocation in the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" registry. The values here are suggested for use by IANA. Margaria, et al. Expires May 2, 2012 [Page 31] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2011 Error name Reference Type=10 Reception of an invalid object [RFC5440] Value=2: Bad Generalized Bandwidth Object value. This Document Value=3: Unsupported LSP Protection Type in This PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. Document Value=4: Unsupported LSP Protection Flags in This PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. Document Value=5: Unsupported Secondary LSP Protection Flags in This PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. Document Value=6: Unsupported Link Protection Type in This PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. Document Value=7: Unsupported Link Protection Type in This PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. Document Type=14 Path computation failure This Document Value=1: Unacceptable request message. This Document Value=2: Generalized bandwidth object not supported. This Document Value=3: Label Set constraint could not be met. This Document Value=4: Label constraint could not be met. This Document Value=5: Unsupported endpoint type in END-POINTS This Generalized Endpoint object type Document Value=6: Unsupported TLV present in END-POINTS Generalized This Endpoint object type Document Value=7: Unsupported granularity in the RP object flags This Document Margaria, et al. Expires May 2, 2012 [Page 32] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2011 5.6. New NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Fields As described in Section Section 2.8.1, new NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Flag Fields have been defined. IANA is requested to do the following allocations in the "NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Flag Field" sub-registry. The values here are suggested for use by IANA. Bit number 23 - Protection Mismatch (1-bit). Specifies the mismatch of the protection type of the PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV in the request. Bit number 22 - No Resource (1-bit). Specifies that the resources are not currently sufficient to provide the path. Bit number 21 - Granularity not supported (1-bit). Specifies that the PCE is not able to provide a route with the requested granularity. Bit number 20 - No endpoint label resource (1-bit). Specifies that the PCE is not able to provide a route because of the endpoint label restriction. Bit number 19 - No endpoint label resource in range (1-bit). Specifies that the PCE is not able to provide a route because of the endpoint label set restriction. Bit number 18 - No label resource in range (1-bit). Specifies that the PCE is not able to provide a route because of the label set restriction. Bit number 17 - Not supported endpoint restriction (1-bit). Specifies that the PCE is not able to provide a route because of a not supported endpoint restriction. Margaria, et al. Expires May 2, 2012 [Page 33] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2011 6. Security Considerations None. Margaria, et al. Expires May 2, 2012 [Page 34] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2011 7. Contributing Authors Nokia Siemens Networks: Elie Sfeir St Martin Strasse 76 Munich, 81541 Germany Phone: +49 89 5159 16159 Email: elie.sfeir@nsn.com Franz Rambach St Martin Strasse 76 Munich, 81541 Germany Phone: +49 89 5159 31188 Email: franz.rambach@nsn.com Francisco Javier Jimenez Chico Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo C/ Emilio Vargas 6 Madrid, 28043 Spain Phone: +34 91 3379037 Email: fjjc@tid.es Huawei Technologies Suresh BR Shenzhen China Email: sureshbr@huawei.com Young Lee 1700 Alma Drive, Suite 100 Plano, TX 75075 USA Phone: (972) 509-5599 (x2240) Email: ylee@huawei.com SenthilKumar S Shenzhen China Email: senthilkumars@huawei.com Margaria, et al. Expires May 2, 2012 [Page 35] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2011 Jun Sun Shenzhen China Email: johnsun@huawei.com CTTC - Centre Tecnologic de Telecomunicacions de Catalunya Ramon Casellas PMT Ed B4 Av. Carl Friedrich Gauss 7 08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona) Spain Phone: (34) 936452916 Email: ramon.casellas@cttc.es Margaria, et al. Expires May 2, 2012 [Page 36] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2011 8. Acknowledgments The research of Ramon Casellas, Francisco Javier Jimenez Chico, Oscar Gonzalez de Dios, Cyril Margaria, and Franz Rambach leading to these results has received funding from the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme FP7/2007-2013 under grant agreement no 247674. Margaria, et al. Expires May 2, 2012 [Page 37] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2011 9. References 9.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC2210] Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated Services", RFC 2210, September 1997. [RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, January 2003. [RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. [RFC3477] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered Links in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, January 2003. [RFC4202] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Routing Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005. [RFC4203] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005. [RFC4328] Papadimitriou, D., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328, January 2006. [RFC4606] Mannie, E. and D. Papadimitriou, "Generalized Multi- Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control", RFC 4606, August 2006. [RFC4872] Lang, J., Rekhter, Y., and D. Papadimitriou, "RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End Generalized Multi- Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery", RFC 4872, May 2007. [RFC4873] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., and A. Farrel, "GMPLS Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, May 2007. [RFC5088] Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., Ikejiri, Y., and R. Zhang, Margaria, et al. Expires May 2, 2012 [Page 38] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2011 "OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5088, January 2008. [RFC5089] Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., Ikejiri, Y., and R. Zhang, "IS-IS Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5089, January 2008. [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP. and JL. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, March 2009. [RFC5520] Bradford, R., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel, "Preserving Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path Computation Using a Path-Key-Based Mechanism", RFC 5520, April 2009. [RFC5521] Oki, E., Takeda, T., and A. Farrel, "Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for Route Exclusions", RFC 5521, April 2009. [RFC5541] Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., and Y. Lee, "Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5541, June 2009. [RFC6003] Papadimitriou, D., "Ethernet Traffic Parameters", RFC 6003, October 2010. [RFC6205] Otani, T. and D. Li, "Generalized Labels for Lambda- Switch-Capable (LSC) Label Switching Routers", RFC 6205, March 2011. 9.2. Informative References [I-D.ceccarelli-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709] Ceccarelli, D., Caviglia, D., Zhang, F., Li, D., Belotti, S., Grandi, P., Rao, R., Pithewan, K., and J. Drake, "Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF for Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Control of Evolving G.709 OTN Networks", draft-ceccarelli-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709-07 (work in progress), September 2011. [I-D.ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req] Otani, T., Ogaki, K., Caviglia, D., and F. Zhang, "Requirements for GMPLS applications of PCE", draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-04 (work in progress), June 2011. [I-D.ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext] Oki, E., Takeda, T., Roux, J., Farrel, A., and F. Zhang, Margaria, et al. Expires May 2, 2012 [Page 39] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2011 "Extensions to the Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) for Inter-Layer MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering", draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext-05 (work in progress), June 2011. [I-D.ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength] Lee, Y., Bernstein, G., Martensson, J., Takeda, T., Tsuritani, T., and O. Dios, "PCEP Requirements for WSON Routing and Wavelength Assignment", draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-06 (work in progress), October 2011. [I-D.zhang-ccamp-gmpls-evolving-g709] Zhang, F., Zhang, G., Belotti, S., Ceccarelli, D., and K. Pithewan, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for the evolving G.709 Optical Transport Networks Control", draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-evolving-g709-09 (work in progress), August 2011. [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006. [RFC4657] Ash, J. and J. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic Requirements", RFC 4657, September 2006. [RFC6387] Takacs, A., Berger, L., Caviglia, D., Fedyk, D., and J. Meuric, "GMPLS Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 6387, September 2011. Margaria, et al. Expires May 2, 2012 [Page 40] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2011 Authors' Addresses Cyril Margaria (editor) Nokia Siemens Networks St Martin Strasse 76 Munich, 81541 Germany Phone: +49 89 5159 16934 Email: cyril.margaria@nsn.com Oscar Gonzalez de Dios (editor) Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo C/ Emilio Vargas 6 Madrid, 28043 Spain Phone: +34 91 3374013 Email: ogondio@tid.es Fatai Zhang (editor) Huawei Technologies F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base Bantian, Longgang District Shenzhen, 518129 P.R.China Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com Margaria, et al. Expires May 2, 2012 [Page 41]