Network Working Group C. Margaria, Ed.
Internet-Draft Nokia Siemens Networks
Intended status: Standards Track O. Gonzalez de Dios, Ed.
Expires: September 9, 2012 Telefonica Investigacion y
Desarrollo
F. Zhang, Ed.
Huawei Technologies
March 8, 2012
PCEP extensions for GMPLS
draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-05
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 September 9, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 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 September 9, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2012
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. PCEP objects and extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1. RP object extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2. Traffic parameters encoding, GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH . . . . 8
2.3. Traffic parameters encoding, GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING . 10
2.4. END-POINTS Object extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.4.1. Generalized Endpoint Object Type . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.4.2. END-POINTS TLVs extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.5. IRO TLV extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.6. XRO TLV extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.4. RP Object Flag Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.5. New PCEP Error Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.6. New NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5.7. New Subobject for the Include Route Object . . . . . . . . 32
5.8. New Subobject for the Exclude Route Object . . . . . . . . 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 September 9, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2012
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
The document [I-D.ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req] describe what are the set
of PCEP PCEP requirements to support GMPLS TE-LSPs. When requesting
a path computation (PCReq) to PCE, the PCC should be able to indicate
the following additional information:
Which data flow is switched by the LSP: a combination of Switching
capability (for instance L2SC or TDM), Switching Encoding (e.g.,
Ethernet, SONET/SDH) and sometime Signal Type (in case of TDM/LSC
switching capability)
Data flow specific traffic parameter, which can vary a lot, for
instance In SDH/SONET and G.709 OTN networks the Concatenation
Type, Concatenation Number have influence on the switched data and
on which link it can be supported
Support for asymmetric bandwidth requests.
Support for unnumbered interfaces: as defined in [RFC3477]
Label information and technology specific label(s) such as
wavelength label as defined in [RFC6205]. PCC should also be able
to specify Label restriction similar to the one supported by RSVP.
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.
Margaria, et al. Expires September 9, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2012
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)
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
includes 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.
Margaria, et al. Expires September 9, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2012
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.
The IRO/XRO objects do not allow to include/exclude labels
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,
A new object type is introduced for the END-POINTS object
(generalized-endpoint),
A new TLV is added to the LSPA object.
A new TLV type is allowed in IRO
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 RFC 2119.
Margaria, et al. Expires September 9, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2012
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>]
[<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>]
[<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>...]
[<GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING>...]
[<metric-list>]
[<IRO>]
For point-to-multipoint(P2MP) computations, the proposed grammar is:
Margaria, et al. Expires September 9, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2012
<segment-computation> ::=
<end-point-rro-pair-list>
[<LSPA>]
[<BANDWIDTH>]
[<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>...]
[<metric-list>]
[<IRO>]
[<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 September 9, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2012
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 it 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 September 9, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2012
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 September 9, 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2012
Object Type Name Reference
0 Reserved
1 Reserved
2 Intserv [RFC2210]
3 Re served
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 September 9, 2012 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2012
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 September 9, 2012 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2012
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 September 9, 2012 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2012
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 September 9, 2012 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2012
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. Old Label.
Margaria, et al. Expires September 9, 2012 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2012
8. Old Upstream label.
9. Label set.
10. 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 Old Label and Old Upstream Labels are used to represent existing
label(s) when requesting a re-optimization. The Old Label and Old
upstream Label MAY be present only when the Reoptimization flag (R)
of the RP object is set. The label range restrictions 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 September 9, 2012 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2012
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 September 9, 2012 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2012
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>|
<OLD-LABEL>|<OLD-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, OLD-LABEL,
OLD-UPSTREAM-LABEL, LABEL-SET or SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET TLV. If the TLV
OLD-LABEL or OLD-UPSTREAM-LABEL are present the R bit of the RP
object MUST be set or a PCErr message with error type="Reception of
an invalid object" error value="OLD-LABEL or OLD-UPSTREAM-LABEL TLV
present without R bit set in RP" 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 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 September 9, 2012 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2012
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 September 9, 2012 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2012
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 OLD-LABEL TLV, Type=TBA. The TLV Length is variable, the value is
the same as [RFC3471] Section 3.2 Generalized label. This
represent the old downstream label in case of re-optimization.
This Label MAY be reused. The R bit of the RP object MUST be set
o OLD-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 old upstream label in case of re-optimization.
This Label MAY be reused. The R bit of the RP object MUST be set
Margaria, et al. Expires September 9, 2012 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2012
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.
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. IRO TLV extension
The IRO as defined in [RFC5440] is used to include specific objects
in the path. RSVP allows to include label definition, in order to
fulfill requirement 13 the IRO should support the new TLV Type as
defined in [RFC3473]:
Margaria, et al. Expires September 9, 2012 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2012
Type Sub-object
3 LABEL
The L bit of such sub-object has no meaning within an IRO.
The Label subobject MUST follow a subobject identifying a link ,
currently an IP address subobject (Type 1 or 2) or an interface id
(type 4) subobject. The procedure associated with this subobject is
as follow
If the PCE allocate labels the PCE MUST allocate one label of within
the set of label values for the given link. If the PCE does not
assign labels an error
2.6. XRO TLV extension
The XRO as defined in [RFC5521] is used to exclude specific objects
in the path. RSVP allows to exclude labels ([RFC6001], in order to
fulfill requirement 13 the XRO should support a new TLV for the label
exclusion.
The encoding of the XRO Label subobject is identical follow the
encoding of the Label ERO subobject defined in [RFC3473] and XRO TLVs
defined in [RFC5521]. The XRO Label subobject is defined as follows:
XRO Subobject Type 3: Label Subobject.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|X| Type=3 | Length |U| Reserved | C-Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label |
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
X (1 bit)
See [RFC5521].
Type (7 bits)
Margaria, et al. Expires September 9, 2012 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2012
The Type of the XRO Label subobject is 3.
Length (8 bits)
See [RFC5521],The total length of the subobject in bytes
(including the Type and Length fields). The Length is always
divisible by 4.
U (1 bit)
See [RFC3471].
C-Type (8 bits)
The C-Type of the included Label Object. Copied from the Label
Object (see [RFC3471]).
Label
See [RFC3471].
XRO Label subobjects MUST follow the numbered or unnumbered interface
subobjects to which they refer. Several XRO Labels subobject MAY be
present.
Type Sub-object
3 LABEL
The L bit of such sub-object has no meaning within an XRO.
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
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
Margaria, et al. Expires September 9, 2012 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2012
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.
Bit number TBA - No Resource (1-bit). Specifies that the
resources are not currently sufficient to provide the path.
Margaria, et al. Expires September 9, 2012 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2012
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.
Margaria, et al. Expires September 9, 2012 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2012
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.
Error-value=TBA: OLD-LABEL or OLD-UPSTREAM-LABEL TLV
present without R bit set in RP.
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.
Margaria, et al. Expires September 9, 2012 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2012
Error-value=TBA: Unsupported endpoint type in END-POINTS
Generalized Endpoint object type
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 September 9, 2012 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2012
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 September 9, 2012 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2012
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)
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)
Margaria, et al. Expires September 9, 2012 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2012
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):
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
Margaria, et al. Expires September 9, 2012 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2012
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)
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 Old Requested GMPLS Label This document (section
Section 2.4.2.5)
16 Old Requested GMPLS Upstream This document (section
Label 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.
Margaria, et al. Expires September 9, 2012 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2012
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.
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
Value=8: OLD-LABEL or OLD-UPSTREAM-LABEL TLV present This
without R bit set in RP. 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
Margaria, et al. Expires September 9, 2012 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2012
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
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.
5.7. New Subobject for the Include Route Object
The "PCEP Parameters" registry contains a subregistry "PCEP Objects"
with an entry for the Include Route Object (IRO).
IANA is requested to add a further subobject that can be carried in
the IRO as follows:
Margaria, et al. Expires September 9, 2012 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2012
Subobject type Reference
3 Label suboject [RFC3473]
5.8. New Subobject for the Exclude Route Object
The "PCEP Parameters" registry contains a subregistry "PCEP Objects"
with an entry for the XRO object (Exclude Route Object).
IANA is requested to add a further subobject that can be carried in
the XRO as follows:
Subobject type Reference
3 Label suboject [RFC3473]
Margaria, et al. Expires September 9, 2012 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2012
6. Security Considerations
None.
Margaria, et al. Expires September 9, 2012 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2012
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 September 9, 2012 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2012
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 September 9, 2012 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2012
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 Program FP7/2007-2013 under grant agreement no 247674.
The authors would like to thank Lyndon Ong for his useful comments to
the document.
Margaria, et al. Expires September 9, 2012 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2012
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 September 9, 2012 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2012
"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.
[RFC6001] Papadimitriou, D., Vigoureux, M., Shiomoto, K., Brungard,
D., and JL. Le Roux, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Protocol
Extensions for Multi-Layer and Multi-Region Networks (MLN/
MRN)", RFC 6001, October 2010.
[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.
[RFC6387] Takacs, A., Berger, L., Caviglia, D., Fedyk, D., and J.
Meuric, "GMPLS Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional Label
Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 6387, September 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.
Margaria, et al. Expires September 9, 2012 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2012
[I-D.ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req]
Caviglia, D., Zhang, F., Ogaki, K., and T. Otani,
"Document:", draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-05 (work in
progress), January 2012.
[I-D.ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext]
Oki, E., Takeda, T., Farrel, A., and F. Zhang, "Extensions
to the Path Computation Element communication Protocol
(PCEP) for Inter-Layer MPLS and GMPLS Traffic
Engineering", draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext-06 (work in
progress), January 2012.
[I-D.ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength]
Bernstein, G., Martensson, J., Dios, O., Tsuritani, T.,
Takeda, T., and Y. Lee, "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.
Margaria, et al. Expires September 9, 2012 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2012
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 September 9, 2012 [Page 41]
