Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Topology Filter
draft-xpbs-pce-topology-filter-05
This document is an Internet-Draft (I-D).
Anyone may submit an I-D to the IETF.
This I-D is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the
IETF standards process.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Quan Xiong , Shaofu Peng , Vishnu Pavan Beeram , Tarek Saad , Mike Koldychev | ||
| Last updated | 2026-01-08 | ||
| Replaces | draft-peng-pce-te-constraints | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-xpbs-pce-topology-filter-05
PCE Q. Xiong
Internet-Draft S. Peng
Intended status: Standards Track ZTE Corporation
Expires: 12 July 2026 V. Beeram
T. Saad
Juniper Networks
M. Koldychev
Ciena Corporation
8 January 2026
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for
Topology Filter
draft-xpbs-pce-topology-filter-05
Abstract
This document proposes a set of extensions for Path Computation
Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) to support the topology filter
during path computation.
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 https://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 12 July 2026.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2026 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 (https://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
Xiong, et al. Expires 12 July 2026 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for Topology Filter January 2026
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Topology Filter with PCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. PCEP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. TOPOLOGY-FILTER Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.1. IGP Domain Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.1.1. Protocol ID TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.1.2. Multi-topology ID TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.1.3. Algorithm ID TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.1.4. Domain ID TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.2. TE Topology Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.2.1. Provider ID TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.2.2. Client ID TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.2.3. Topology ID TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.3. Filtering Rules TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.3.1. Link ID sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1.3.2. Admin Group sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1.3.3. Source Protocol sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1. TOPOLOGY-FILTER Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
[RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element Computation Protocol
(PCEP) which is used between a Path Computation Element (PCE) and a
Path Computation Client (PCC) (or other PCE) to enable computation of
Multi-protocol Label Switching (MPLS) for Traffic Engineering Label
Switched Path (TE LSP). PCEP Extensions for the Stateful PCE Model
[RFC8231] describes a set of extensions to PCEP to enable active
control of MPLS-TE and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) tunnels. As depicted
in [RFC4655], a PCE MUST be able to compute the path of a TE LSP by
operating on the TED and considering bandwidth and other constraints
applicable to the TE LSP service request.
Xiong, et al. Expires 12 July 2026 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for Topology Filter January 2026
A PCE may perform path computation based on the network topology
information collected through BGP-LS [RFC9552]. BGP-LS can get
multiple link-state data from multiple IGP instance, or multiple
virtual topologies from a single IGP instance. In other cases, as
per [I-D.ietf-teas-yang-topology-filter], a path may be computed
within a network topology such as a specified topology, a topology
associated with a specific IGP domain, a topology learnt from a
specific TE information source, a topology defined by the application
of one or more topology filters, a topology associated with an
Network Resource Partition (NRP) and so on. The PCE MUST take the
topology related constraints into consideration during the path
computation.
As defined in [I-D.ietf-teas-yang-topology-filter], a topology filter
is a data construct that is used to filter network topologies. This
document proposes a set of extensions for PCEP to support the
topology filter during path computation.
1.1. Terminology
The terminology is defined as [RFC5440], [RFC9552] and [RFC8795].
1.2. 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].
2. Topology Filter with PCE
As defined in [I-D.ietf-teas-yang-topology-filter], a topology filter
specifies the topology reference or a set of filtering rules. The
topology filters carry a list of topology filters and a topology
filter-set constitutes a list of topology filter references.
The topology reference indicates a predefined TE topology or a
specific IGP domain. A TE topology can be identified from a global
scope such as a provider ID, a client ID or a topology ID. And a
specific IGP domain can be identified by protocol ID, instance ID,
division ID, algo ID and MT ID. The PCE should consider these
identifiers as topology constraints during path computation.
The filtering rules specify a set of constraints on the topology
including include-any, include-all and exclude. A set of attributes
that can be used as rules to filter the topology such as link
affinity, link name, node prefix, AS number and TE information
source. The filtering rules of these attributes can be used to
compute path at PCE.
Xiong, et al. Expires 12 July 2026 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for Topology Filter January 2026
3. PCEP Extensions
3.1. TOPOLOGY-FILTER Object
This document defines a new TOPOLOGY-FILTER object to carry the
topology filter. The TOPOLOGY-FILTER object is optional and
specifies the specific topology to be taken into account by the PCE
during path computation. The TOPOLOGY-FILTER object can be carried
within a PCReq message, or a PCRep message in case of unsuccessful
path computation.
TOPOLOGY-FILTER Object-Class is TBD1.
TOPOLOGY-FILTER Object-Type is TBD2.
The format of the TOPOLOGY-FILTER object body is:
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 | Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Optional TLVs //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: TOPOLOGY-FILTER Body Object Format
Reserved (24 bits): This field MUST be set to zero on transmission
and MUST be ignored on receipt.
Flags (8 bits): No flags are currently defined. Unassigned flags
MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
The format of optional TLVs is defined in [RFC5440] and may be used
to carry topology filter information as defined in section. The
existing topology constraints TLVs could also be reused such as
Algorithm ID TLV and Domain ID TLV.
3.1.1. IGP Domain Identifier
As defined in [RFC9552], the IGP domain has a unique IGP
representation by using the combination of Area-ID, Router-ID,
Protocol-ID, Multi-Topology Identifier (MT-ID), and BGP-LS Instance-
ID. This document defines some TLVs for topology filter to identify
a IGP domain within a referenced topology. The Protocol ID TLV is
mandatory to identify a IGP domain and others are optional to carry
Xiong, et al. Expires 12 July 2026 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for Topology Filter January 2026
the additional information to further filter permitted resources
within the domain. These TLVs can be carried but each type can only
be presented once. And it MUST be applied to filter the resources
that match all presenting TLVs at the same time.
3.1.1.1. Protocol ID TLV
The Protocol ID TLV is mandatory to identify a IGP domain and the
format is as following shown:
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=TBD3 | Length=12 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Protocol-ID | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Instance-ID |
| (64 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Protocol ID TLV
The code point for the TLV type is TBD3. The TLV length is 12
octets.
Protocol-ID (8 bits): defined in [RFC9552] section 5.2.
Instance-ID (64 bits): defined in [RFC9552] section 5.2.
Reserved: This fields MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be
ignored on receipt.
3.1.1.2. Multi-topology ID TLV
The Multi-topology ID TLV is optional and is defined to carry the
multi-topology-ID.
The format of the Multi-topology ID TLV is :
Xiong, et al. Expires 12 July 2026 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for Topology Filter January 2026
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=TBD4 | Length=4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|R R R R| Multi-Topology-ID | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Multi-topology TLV
The code point for the TLV type is TBD4. The TLV length is 4 octets.
Multi-Topology-ID (12 bits): Semantics of the IS-IS MT-ID are defined
in Section 7.2 of [RFC5120]. Semantics of the OSPF MT-ID are defined
in Section 3.7 of [RFC4915]. As defined in section 3.2.1.5 of
[RFC7752], if the value is derived from OSPF, then the upper 9 bits
MUST be set to 0. Bits R are reserved and SHOULD be set to 0 when
originated and ignored on receipt.
Reserved (16 bits): This field MUST be set to zero on transmission
and MUST be ignored on receipt.
3.1.1.3. Algorithm ID TLV
The Algorithm ID TLV is optional and is defined to carry the
Algorithm-ID.
The Algorithm ID TLV MAY be inserted so as to provide the Flex-algo
plane information for the computed path. The format of the TLV is
defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-sid-algo] section 4.4.
3.1.1.4. Domain ID TLV
The Domain ID TLV is optional and is defined to carry the Domain-ID.
The Domain ID TLV MAY be inserted so as to identify the domains
served by the PCE. The format of the TLV is defined in [RFC8685]
section 3.2.2.
3.1.2. TE Topology Identifier
This document defines some TE Topology Identifier TLVs for topology
filter to identify a predefined TE topology within a referenced
topology.
Xiong, et al. Expires 12 July 2026 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for Topology Filter January 2026
3.1.2.1. Provider ID TLV
The Provider ID TLV is optional and the format is as following shown:
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=TBD5 | Length=4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Provider-ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Provider ID TLV
The code point for the TLV type is TBD5. The TLV length is 4 octets.
Provider-ID (32 bits): an identifier to uniquely identify a provider
as defined in [RFC8776].
3.1.2.2. Client ID TLV
The Client ID TLV is optional and the format is as following shown:
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=TBD6 | Length=4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Client-ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: Client ID TLV
The code point for the TLV type is TBD6. The TLV length is 4 octets.
Client-ID (32 bits): an identifier to uniquely identify a client as
defined in [RFC8776].
3.1.2.3. Topology ID TLV
The Topology ID TLV is optional and the format is as following shown:
Xiong, et al. Expires 12 July 2026 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for Topology Filter January 2026
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=TBD7 | Length=4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Topology-ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: Topology ID TLV
The code point for the TLV type is TBD7. The TLV length is 4 octets.
Topology-ID (32 bits): an identifier for a topology as defined in
[RFC8776].
3.1.3. Filtering Rules TLV
This document defines a new Filtering Rules TLV for topology filter
to carry a set of constrains on the topology by include-any, include-
all and exclude.
The Filtering Rules TLV is optional and the format is as following
shown :
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=TBD8 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Include-any |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Include-all |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Exclude |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Optional sub-TLVs //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7: Filtering Rules TLV
The code point for the TLV type is TBD8. The TLV length is variable.
Xiong, et al. Expires 12 July 2026 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for Topology Filter January 2026
The sub-TLVs carry the attributes that can be used as rules to filter
the topology.
3.1.3.1. Link ID sub-TLV
The Link ID is used to identify the link that is used during the path
calculation.
The Link ID sub-TLV is defined:
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=TBD9 | Length | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link-ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 8: Link ID sub-TLV
The code point for the TLV type is TBD9. The TLV length is 6 octets.
Link-ID (32bits ): defined in IS-IS [RFC5307] and OSPF [RFC3630].
3.1.3.2. Admin Group sub-TLV
The Admin Group is used to include the links that is used during the
path calculation.
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=TBD10 | Length | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Extended Admin Group |
+- -+
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 9: Admin Group sub-TLV
The code point for the sub-TLV type is TBD10. The length is
variable.
Extended Administrative Group: Extended Administrative Group as
defined in [RFC7308].
Xiong, et al. Expires 12 July 2026 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for Topology Filter January 2026
3.1.3.3. Source Protocol sub-TLV
The format of the Source Protocol sub-TLV is:
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=TBD11 | Length | Reserved | Protocol-ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Instance-ID |
| (64 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 10: Source Protocol sub-TLV
The code point for the TLV type is TBD11. The TLV length is 10
octets.
Protocol-ID (8 bits): defined in [RFC9552] section 5.2.
Instance-ID (64 bits): defined in [RFC9552] section 5.2.
3.2. Procedures
A PCC MAY insert a TOPOLOGY-FILTER object in PCReq message to
indicate the specific topology that MUST be considered by the PCE
during path computation. The PCE will compute the path with the
constrains with the filtering rules and reply the result to the PCC
with a PCRep message.
The PCE could perform path computation based on the topology
identified by the topology filter rules that can be applied on either
the native topology or a user specified topology. The absence of the
IGP Domain Identifier TLV and TE Topology Identifier TLV indicate
that the PCE should compute within a native topology and only
Filtering Rules TLV is applied as the filtering rules.
4. IANA Considerations
4.1. TOPOLOGY-FILTER Object
IANA is requested to make allocations for Topology Filter Object from
the registry, as follows:
TOPOLOGY-FILTER Object-Class is TBD1.
Xiong, et al. Expires 12 July 2026 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for Topology Filter January 2026
TOPOLOGY-FILTER Object-Type is TBD2.
The TLVs for Topology Filter Object is as follows:
+======+=======================+=================+
| Type | TLV | Reference |
+======+=======================+=================+
| TBD3 | Protocol ID TLV | [this document] |
+------+-----------------------+-----------------+
| TBD4 | Multi-topology ID TLV | [this document] |
+------+-----------------------+-----------------+
| TBD5 | Provider ID TLV | [this document] |
+------+-----------------------+-----------------+
| TBD6 | Client ID TLV | [this document] |
+------+-----------------------+-----------------+
| TBD7 | Topology ID TLV | [this document] |
+------+-----------------------+-----------------+
| TBD8 | Filtering Rules TLV | [this document] |
+------+-----------------------+-----------------+
Table 1: TLVs for Topology Filter Object
IANA is requested to make allocations for sub-TLVs from the Filtering
Rules TLV registry, as follows:
+=======+==================================+=================+
| Type | sub-TLVs for Filtering Rules TLV | Reference |
+=======+==================================+=================+
| TBD9 | Link ID sub-TLV | [this document] |
+-------+----------------------------------+-----------------+
| TBD10 | Admin Group sub-TLV | [this document] |
+-------+----------------------------------+-----------------+
| TBD11 | Source Protocol sub-TLV | [this document] |
+-------+----------------------------------+-----------------+
Table 2: Sub-TLVs
5. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dhruv Dhody, Andrew Stone for their
review, suggestions and comments to this document.
6. Security Considerations
This document defines a new Topology Filter Object, which do not
introduce any new security considerations beyond those already listed
in [RFC4655], [RFC5440], [RFC8231], [RFC8685] and
[I-D.ietf-pce-sid-algo].
Xiong, et al. Expires 12 July 2026 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for Topology Filter January 2026
The security considerations described in [RFC8795] and
[I-D.ietf-teas-yang-topology-filter] apply to the topology filter
described in this document as well.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-pce-sid-algo]
Sidor, S., Rose, Z., Peng, S., Peng, S., and A. Stone,
"Carrying SR-Algorithm in Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCEP)", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo-29, 15 October
2025, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-
pce-sid-algo-29>.
[I-D.ietf-teas-yang-topology-filter]
Beeram, V. P., Saad, T., Gandhi, R., and X. Liu, "YANG
Data Model for Topology Filter", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-teas-yang-topology-filter-02,
19 October 2025, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-teas-yang-topology-filter-02>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3630>.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and J. Ash, "A Path
Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[RFC4915] Psenak, P., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Nguyen, L., and P.
Pillay-Esnault, "Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF",
RFC 4915, DOI 10.17487/RFC4915, June 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4915>.
[RFC5120] Przygienda, T., Shen, N., and N. Sheth, "M-ISIS: Multi
Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to
Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)", RFC 5120,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5120, February 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5120>.
Xiong, et al. Expires 12 July 2026 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for Topology Filter January 2026
[RFC5307] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "IS-IS Extensions
in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 5307, DOI 10.17487/RFC5307, October 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5307>.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
[RFC7308] Osborne, E., "Extended Administrative Groups in MPLS
Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE)", RFC 7308,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7308, July 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7308>.
[RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
[RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>.
[RFC8685] Zhang, F., Zhao, Q., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Casellas, R.,
and D. King, "Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for the Hierarchical Path
Computation Element (H-PCE) Architecture", RFC 8685,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8685, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8685>.
[RFC8776] Saad, T., Gandhi, R., Liu, X., Beeram, V., and I. Bryskin,
"Common YANG Data Types for Traffic Engineering",
RFC 8776, DOI 10.17487/RFC8776, June 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8776>.
[RFC8795] Liu, X., Bryskin, I., Beeram, V., Saad, T., Shah, H., and
O. Gonzalez de Dios, "YANG Data Model for Traffic
Engineering (TE) Topologies", RFC 8795,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8795, August 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8795>.
Xiong, et al. Expires 12 July 2026 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for Topology Filter January 2026
[RFC9552] Talaulikar, K., Ed., "Distribution of Link-State and
Traffic Engineering Information Using BGP", RFC 9552,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9552, December 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9552>.
Authors' Addresses
Quan Xiong
ZTE Corporation
China
Email: xiong.quan@zte.com.cn
Shaofu Peng
ZTE Corporation
No.50 Software Avenue
Nanjing
Jiangsu, 210012
China
Email: peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn
Vishnu Pavan Beeram
Juniper Networks
Email: vbeeram@juniper.net
Tarek Saad
Juniper Networks
Email: tsaad@juniper.net
Mike Koldychev
Ciena Corporation
385 Terry Fox Dr.
Kanata Ontario K2K 0L1
Canada
Email: mkoldych@proton.me
Xiong, et al. Expires 12 July 2026 [Page 14]