Conveying path setup type in PCEP messages
draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-04

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (pce WG)
Last updated 2017-05-16 (latest revision 2017-04-27)
Replaces draft-sivabalan-pce-lsp-setup-type
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Proposed Standard
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Stream WG state Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead
Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC
Document shepherd Julien Meuric
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Yes
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to Julien Meuric <julien.meuric@orange.com>
PCE Working Group                                           S. Sivabalan
Internet-Draft                                       Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track                             J. Tantsura
Expires: October 27, 2017                                     Individual
                                                                I. Minei
                                                            Google, Inc.
                                                                R. Varga
                                               Pantheon Technologies SRO
                                                             J. Hardwick
                                                     Metaswitch Networks
                                                          April 25, 2017

               Conveying path setup type in PCEP messages
                    draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-04

Abstract

   A Path Computation Element can compute traffic engineering paths (TE
   paths) through a network that are subject to various constraints.
   Currently, TE paths are label switched paths (LSPs) which are set up
   using the RSVP-TE signaling protocol.  However, other TE path setup
   methods are possible within the PCE architecture.  This document
   proposes an extension to PCEP to allow support for different path
   setup methods over a given PCEP session.

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].

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 October 27, 2017.

Sivabalan, et al.       Expires October 27, 2017                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft             PCE path setup type                April 2017

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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Path Setup Type TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     6.1.  PCEP TLV Type Indicators  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     6.2.  New Path Setup Type Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     6.3.  PCEP-Error Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   8.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   9.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7

1.  Introduction

   [RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) for
   communication between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a Path
   Control Element (PCE) or between one a pair of PCEs.  A PCC requests
   a path subject to various constraints and optimization criteria from
   a PCE.  The PCE responds to the PCC with a hop-by-hop path in an
   Explicit Route Object (ERO).  The PCC uses the ERO to set up the path
   in the network.

   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] specifies extensions to PCEP that allow a
   PCC to delegate its LSPs to a PCE.  The PCE can then update the state
Show full document text