Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Topology Filter
draft-xpbs-pce-topology-filter-03
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 | 2025-02-23 | ||
| 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-03
PCE Q. Xiong
Internet-Draft S. Peng
Intended status: Standards Track ZTE Corporation
Expires: 27 August 2025 V. Beeram
T. Saad
Juniper Networks
M. Koldychev
Cisco Systems
23 February 2025
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for
Topology Filter
draft-xpbs-pce-topology-filter-03
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 27 August 2025.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2025 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 27 August 2025 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for Topology Filter February 2025
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. TOPOLOGY-FILTER Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.1. IGP Domain Identifier TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.2. TE Topology Identifier TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.3. Filtering Rules TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.3.1. Link ID sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.3.2. Admin Group sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.3.3. Source Protocol sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. TOPOLOGY-FILTER Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
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.
A PCE always 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 some 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
Xiong, et al. Expires 27 August 2025 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for Topology Filter February 2025
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.
3. PCEP Extensions
Xiong, et al. Expires 27 August 2025 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for Topology Filter February 2025
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.
3.1.1. IGP Domain Identifier TLV
As defined in [RFC9552], the IGP domain has a unique IGP
representation by using the combination of OSPF Area-ID, Router-ID,
Protocol-ID, Multi-Topology Identifier (MT-ID), and BGP-LS Instance-
ID. This document defines a new IGP Domain Identifier TLV for
topology filter to identify a IGP domain within a referenced
topology.
The IGP Domain Identifier TLV is optional and the format is as
following shown:
Xiong, et al. Expires 27 August 2025 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for Topology Filter February 2025
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=24 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Protocol-ID | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Instance-ID |
| (64 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OSPF Area-ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Algorithm-ID | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Multi-Topology-ID | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: IGP Domain Identifier TLV
The code point for the TLV type is TBD3. The TLV length is 24
octets.
Protocol-ID (8 bits): defined in [RFC9552] section 5.2.
Instance-ID (64 bits): defined in [RFC9552] section 5.2.
OSPF Area-ID (32 bits): defined in [RFC9552] section 5.2.1.4.
Algorithm-ID (8 bits): defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-sid-algo] section
3.4.
Multi-Topology-ID (16 bits): defined in [RFC9552] section 5.2.2.1.
Reserved: This fields MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be
ignored on receipt.
3.1.2. TE Topology Identifier TLV
This document defines a new TE Topology Identifier TLV for topology
filter to identify a predefined TE topology within a referenced
topology.
The TE Topology Identifier TLV is optional and the format is as
following shown:
Xiong, et al. Expires 27 August 2025 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for Topology Filter February 2025
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=12 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Provider ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Client ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Topology ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: TE Topology Identifier TLV
The code point for the TLV type is TBD4. The TLV length is 12
octets.
Provider ID (32 bits): defined in [RFC8776].
Client ID (32 bits): defined in [RFC8776].
Topology ID (32 bits): 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 :
Xiong, et al. Expires 27 August 2025 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for Topology Filter February 2025
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Include-any |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Include-all |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Exclude |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Optional sub-TLVs //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Filtering Rules TLV
The code point for the TLV type is TBD5. The TLV length is variable.
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=TBD6 | Length | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: Link ID sub-TLV
The code point for the TLV type is TBD6. The TLV length is 6 octets.
Link ID (32bits ): defined in IS-IS [RFC5307] and OSPF [RFC3630].
Xiong, et al. Expires 27 August 2025 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for Topology Filter February 2025
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=TBD7 | Length | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Extended Admin Group |
+- -+
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: Admin Group sub-TLV
The code point for the sub-TLV type is TBD7. The length is variable.
Extended Administrative Group: Extended Administrative Group as
defined in [RFC7308].
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=TBD8 | Length | Reserved | Protocol-ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Instance-ID |
| (64 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7: Source Protocol sub-TLV
The code point for the TLV type is TBD8. 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.
Xiong, et al. Expires 27 August 2025 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for Topology Filter February 2025
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.
TOPOLOGY-FILTER Object-Type is TBD2.
The TLVs for Topology Filter Object is as follows:
+======+============================+=================+
| Type | TLV | Reference |
+======+============================+=================+
| TBD3 | IGP Domain Identifier TLV | [this document] |
+------+----------------------------+-----------------+
| TBD4 | TE Topology Identifier TLV | [this document] |
+------+----------------------------+-----------------+
| TBD5 | Filtering Rules TLV | [this document] |
+------+----------------------------+-----------------+
Table 1: TLVs for Topology Filter Object
IANA is requested to make allocations for sub-TLVs from the registry,
as follows:
Xiong, et al. Expires 27 August 2025 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for Topology Filter February 2025
+======+==================================+=================+
| Type | sub-TLVs for Filtering Rules TLV | Reference |
+======+==================================+=================+
| TBD6 | Link ID sub-TLV | [this document] |
+------+----------------------------------+-----------------+
| TBD7 | Admin Group sub-TLV | [this document] |
+------+----------------------------------+-----------------+
| TBD8 | Source Protocol sub-TLV | [this document] |
+------+----------------------------------+-----------------+
Table 2: Sub-TLVs
5. Acknowledgements
TBA
6. Security Considerations
TBA
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-17, 13 January
2025, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-
pce-sid-algo-17>.
[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-00,
11 October 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-teas-yang-topology-filter-00>.
[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>.
Xiong, et al. Expires 27 August 2025 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for Topology Filter February 2025
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC5521] Oki, E., Takeda, T., and A. Farrel, "Extensions to the
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for
Route Exclusions", RFC 5521, DOI 10.17487/RFC5521, April
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5521>.
[RFC6549] Lindem, A., Roy, A., and S. Mirtorabi, "OSPFv2 Multi-
Instance Extensions", RFC 6549, DOI 10.17487/RFC6549,
March 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6549>.
[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>.
Xiong, et al. Expires 27 August 2025 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for Topology Filter February 2025
[RFC8202] Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and W. Henderickx, "IS-IS
Multi-Instance", RFC 8202, DOI 10.17487/RFC8202, June
2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8202>.
[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>.
[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>.
[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
Xiong, et al. Expires 27 August 2025 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for Topology Filter February 2025
Tarek Saad
Juniper Networks
Email: tsaad@juniper.net
Mike Koldychev
Cisco Systems
Canada
Email: mkoldych@cisco.com
Xiong, et al. Expires 27 August 2025 [Page 13]