PCEP Extensions for Establishing Relationships Between Sets of LSPs
draft-ietf-pce-association-group-04

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (pce WG)
Last updated 2017-08-31
Replaces draft-minei-pce-association-group
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
PCE Working Group                                               I. Minei
Internet-Draft                                              Google, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track                               E. Crabbe
Expires: March 5, 2018                            Individual Contributor
                                                            S. Sivabalan
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                      H. Ananthakrishnan
                                                           Packet Design
                                                                D. Dhody
                                                                  Huawei
                                                               Y. Tanaka
                                          NTT Communications Corporation
                                                       September 1, 2017

  PCEP Extensions for Establishing Relationships Between Sets of LSPs
                  draft-ietf-pce-association-group-04

Abstract

   This document introduces a generic mechanism to create a grouping of
   LSPs in the context of a PCE.  This grouping can then be used to
   define associations between sets of LSPs or between a set of LSPs and
   a set of attributes (such as configuration parameters or behaviors),
   and is equally applicable to stateful PCE (active and passive modes)
   and stateless PCE.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

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

Minei, et al.             Expires March 5, 2018                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft            PCE association group           September 2017

   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 March 5, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

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

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Architectural Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Motivation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  Operation Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.3.  Operator-configured Association Range . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Operator-configured Association Range TLV . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.1.  Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  ASSOCIATION Object  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.1.  Object Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       5.1.1.  Global Association Source TLV . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       5.1.2.  Extended Association ID TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.2.  Object Encoding in PCEP messages  . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       5.2.1.  Stateful PCEP messages  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       5.2.2.  Request Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     5.3.  Processing Rules  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     6.1.  PCEP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     6.2.  PCEP TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
Show full document text