Internet Engineering Task Force Q. Zhao, Ed.
Internet-Draft Huawei Technology
Intended Status: Standards Track Daniel King, Ed.
Created: October 25, 2009 Old Dog Consulting
Expires: March 25, 2010
Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
(PCEP) for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-p2mp-extensions-05.txt
Abstract
Point-to-point Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized
MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) may
be established using signaling techniques, but their paths may first
need to be determined. The Path Computation Element (PCE) has been
identified as an appropriate technology for the determination of the
paths of P2MP TE LSPs.
This document describes extensions to the PCE communication Protocol
(PCEP) to handle requests and responses for the computation of paths
for P2MP TE LSPs.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 28, 2010.
Zhao and King [Page 1]
Internet-Draft October 2009
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
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 [RFC2119].
Zhao and King [Page 2]
Internet-Draft October 2009
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1 Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3. Protocol Procedures and Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1. P2MP Capability Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.1. P2MP Computation TLV in the Existing PCE Discovery
Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.2. Open Message Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2. Efficient Presentation of P2MP TE LSPs . . . . . . . . . .
3.3. P2MP Path Computation Request/Reply Message Extensions . .
3.3.1. The Extension of the RP Object . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.2. The New P2MP END-POINTS Object . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4. Request Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.5. Reply Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.6. P2MP Objective Functions and Metric Types . . . . . . . .
3.6.1. New Object Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.6.2. New Metric Object Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.7. Non-Support of P2MP Path Computation. . . . . . . . . . .
3.8. Non-Support by Back-Level PCE Implementations. . . . . . .
3.9. P2MP TE Path Reoptimization Request . . . . . . . . . . .
3.10. Adding and Pruning Leaves to the P2MP Tree . . . . . . . .
3.11. Discovering Branch Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.12. Synchronization of P2MP TE Path Computation Requests . . .
3.13. Request and Response Fragmentation . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.13.1 Request Fragmentation Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.13.2 Response Fragmentation Procedure . . . . . . . . . . .
3.13.3 Fragmentation Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.14. UNREACH-DESTINATION Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.15. P2MP PCEP Error Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.16. PCEP NO-PATH Indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4. Verifying Correct Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional
Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.6. Impact on Network Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1. P2MP Capability TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2. Request Parameter Bit Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.3. Object Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.4. Metric Object Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.5. PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.6. PCEP Error Objects and Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.7. PCEP NO-PATH Indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Zhao and King [Page 3]
Internet-Draft October 2009
7. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9. Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.1. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix A. RBNF Code Fragments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. Introduction
The Path Computation Element (PCE) defined in [RFC4655] is an entity
that is capable of computing a network path or route based on a
network graph, and applying computational constraints. A Path
Computation Client (PCC) may make requests to a PCE for paths to be
computed.
[RFC4875] describes how to set up point-to-multipoint (P2MP) Traffic
Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) for use in Multiprotocol
Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks.
The PCE has been identified as a suitable application for the
computation of paths for P2MP TE LSPs [PCE-P2MP-APP].
The PCE communication protocol (PCEP) is designed as a communication
protocol between PCCs and PCEs for point-to-point (P2P) path
computations and is defined in [RFC5440]. However, that
specification does not provide a mechanism to request path
computation of P2MP TE LSPs.
This document presents extensions to PCEP to support P2MP path
computation satisfying the set of requirements described in [PCE-
P2MP-REQ].
This document relies on the mechanisms of PCEP for requesting path
computation for P2MP TE LSPs. A P2MP LSP is comprised of multiple
source-to-leaf (S2L) sub-LSPs. These S2L sub-LSPs are set up between
ingress and egress LSRs and are appropriately combined by the branch
LSRs using computation results from the PCE to determine the path of
a P2MP TE LSP.
One request message from a PCC may signal one or more S2L sub-LSP
path computation requests to the PCE for a single P2MP LSP with
certain constraints. Hence the S2L sub-LSPs belonging to a P2MP LSP
can use one path computation request message or be split across
multiple path computation messages.
Zhao and King [Page 4]
Internet-Draft October 2009
1.1 Terminology
Terminology used in this document.
TE LSP: Traffic Engineered Label Switched Path.
LSR: Label Switch Router.
OF: Objective Function: A set of one or more optimization criterion
(criteria) used for the computation of a single path (e.g. path cost
minimization), or the synchronized computation of a set of paths
(e.g. aggregate bandwidth consumption minimization, etc.).
P2MP: Point-to-Multipoint.
P2P: Point-to-Point.
This document also uses the terminology defined in [RFC4655],
[RFC4875], and [RFC5440].
2. Requirements
This section summarizes the PCC-PCE Communication Requirements for
P2MP MPLS-TE LSPs described in [PCE-P2MP-REQ]:
1. Indication of P2MP Path Computation Request
2. Indication of P2MP Objective Functions
3. Non-Support of P2MP Path Computation.
4. Non-Support by Back-Level PCE Implementations.
5. Specification of Destinations
6. Indication of P2MP Paths
7. Multi-Message Requests and Responses
8. Non-Specification of Per-Destination Constraints and Parameters
9. Path Modification and Path Diversity
10. Reoptimization of P2MP TE LSPs
11. Addition and Removal of Destinations from Existing Paths
12. Specification of Applicable Branch Nodes
Zhao and King [Page 5]
Internet-Draft October 2009
13. Capabilities Exchange
14. Path-Tree Diversity
3. Protocol Procedures and Extensions
The following section describes the protocol extensions required to
satisfy the requirements specified in the Requirements section
(Section 2) of this document.
3.1. P2MP Capability Advertisement
3.1.1. P2MP Computation TLV in the Existing PCE Discovery Protocol
Since [RFC5088] has specified that we cannot add an additional
sub-TLV (type-length-value) to the PCEP TLV, we will define a new
bit to go in the existing 32 bit PCE capabilities flags to indicate
the capability of P2MP computation.
3.1.2. Open Message Extension
Based on the Capabilities Exchange requirement described in
[PCE-P2MP-REQ], if a PCE does not advertise its P2MP capability
during discovery, PCEP should be used to allow a PCC to discover
which PCEs are capable of supporting P2MP path computation.
To satisfy this requirement, we extend the OPEN object format by
including a new defined TLV for the capability of P2MP in the
optional field. The new defined capability TLV allows the PCE to
advertise its P2MP path computation capability.
The TLV type number will be assigned by IANA and is requested in the
IANA Considerations section (Section 6) of this document. The length
value is 2 bytes. The value field is set to default value 0.
Note that the capability TLV is meaningful only for a PCE so it will
typically appear only in one of the two Open messages during PCE
session establishment. However, in case of PCE cooperation (e.g.,
inter-domain), when a PCE behaving as a PCC initiates a PCE session
it SHOULD also indicate its path computation capabilities.
3.2. Efficient Presentation of P2MP LSPs
When specifying additional leaves, or optimizing existing P2MP TE
LSPs as specified in [PCE-P2MP-REQ], it may be necessary to pass
existing P2MP LSP route information between the PCC and PCE in the
request and reply message. In each of these scenarios, we need new
path objects for efficiently passing the existing P2MP LSP between
the PCE and PCC.
Zhao and King [Page 6]
Internet-Draft October 2009
We specify the use of the Explicit Route Object (ERO)
to encode the explicit route of a TE LSP through the network. The
Secondary Explicit Route Object (SERO) is used to specify the
explicit route of a S2L sub-LSP. The Reported Route Object (RRO) and
Secondary Reported Route Object (SERO) are used to report
the routes of existing TE LSP for which a reoptimization is
desired. The format and contents of the ERO and RRO are defined in
[RFC5440]. The format and contents of the SERO and SRRO are
defined in [RFC4875]. A new class and type are requested for SERO
and SRRO in the IANA Considerations section of this document.
3.3. P2MP Path Computation Request/Reply Message Extensions
The existing P2P RP (Request Parameters) object is extended so that
it can signal to the receiver of the PCEP request that it is for
P2P or P2MP path computation. Also the END-POINT object is
extended to improve the efficiency of the message exchange between
PCC and PCE in the case of P2MP path computation.
3.3.1. The Extension of the RP Object
The PCE path computation request and reply message will need the
following additional parameters to allow a receiving PCE to
identify that the request and reply message has been fragmented
across multiple messages, has been requested for a P2MP path and to
specify if the route is represented in the compressed or uncompressed
format.
The F bit is added to the flag bits of the RP object to indicate
to the receiver that the request is part of a fragmented request, or
is not a fragmented request.
The M bit is added in the flag bits field of the RP object to signal
the receiver of the message that the request/reply is for P2MP or
not.
The E bit is added in the flag bits field of the RP object to signal
the receiver of the message that the route is in the compress format
or not.
The extended format of the RP object body to include the F bit, M
bit and the E bit is as follows:
Zhao and King [Page 7]
Internet-Draft October 2009
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 |F|N|E| |O|B|R| Pri |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Request-ID-number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Optional TLV(s) //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: RP Object Body Format
The following flags are added in this draft:
o F ( RP fragmentation bit - 1 bit):
0: This indicates that the RP is not fragmented or it is the
last piece of the fragmented RP.
1: This indicates that the RP is fragmented and this is not
the last piece of the fragmented RP and the receiver
needs to wait until it receives an RP with the same RP-ID
and with the F bit is set to 0.
o N ( P2MP bit - 1 bit):
0: This indicates that this is not PCReq/PCRrep for P2MP.
1: This indicates that this is PCReq or PCRep message for P2MP.
o E ( ERO-compression bit - 1 bit):
0: This indicates that the route is not in the compressed
format.
1: This indicates that the route is in the compressed format.
3.3.2. The New P2MP END-POINTS Object
To represent the end points for a P2MP path efficiently, we define a
new type of end-points object for the P2MP path.
With the new END-POINTS object, the PCE path computation request
message is expanded in a way which allows a single request
message to list multiple destinations.
Zhao and King [Page 8]
Internet-Draft October 2009
There are 4 types of leaves in a P2MP request:
o New leaves to add;
o Old leaves to remove;
o Old leaves whose path can be modified/reoptimized;
o Old leaves whose path must be left unchanged.
A given END-POINTS object gathers the leaves of a given type. The
type of leaf in a given END-POINTS object is identified by the END-
POINTS object leaf type field.
Four values are possible for the leaf type field:
1. 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.
With the new END-POINTS object, the END-POINTS portion of a request
message for the multiple destinations can be reduced by up to 50% for
a P2MP path where a single source address has a very large number of
destinations.
Note that a P2MP path computation request can mix the different types
of leaves by including several END-POINTS object per RP object as
shown in PCReq Routing Backus-Naur Format (RBNF) [RFC5511] format in
following Request Message Formats section (Section 3.4).
The format of the new END-POINTS object body for IPv4 (Object-Type 3)
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Leaf type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source IPv4 address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Destination IPv4 address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ... ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Destination IPv4 address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: The New P2MP END-POINTS Object Body Format for IPv4
Zhao and King [Page 9]
Internet-Draft October 2009
The format of the END-POINTS object body for IPv6 (Object-Type 4) 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Leaf type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Source IPv6 address (16 bytes) |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Destination IPv6 address (16 bytes) |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ... ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Destination IPv6 address (16 bytes) |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: The New P2MP END-POINTS Object Body Format for IPv6
The END-POINTS object body has a variable length. These are multiples
of 4 bytes for IPv4, and multiples of 16 bytes for IPv6.
3.4. Request Message Format
As per [RFC5511] the RBNF format of the PCReq message is as follows.
Please see Appendix A for a full set of RBNF fragments defined in
this document and the necessary code license.
Below is the message format for the request message:
<PCReq Message>::= <Common Header>
<request>
where:
<request>::= <RP>
<end-point-rro-pair-list>
[<OF>]
[<LSPA>]
[<BANDWIDTH>]
[<metric-list>]
[<IRO>]
[<LOAD-BALANCING>]
Zhao and King [Page 10]
Internet-Draft October 2009
where:
<end-point-rro-pair-list>::=
<END-POINTS>[<RRO-List>][<BANDWIDTH>]
[<end-point-rro-pair-list>]
<RRO-List>::=<RRO>[<BANDWIDTH>][<RRO-List>]
<metric-list>::=<METRIC>[<metric-list>]
Figure 4: The Message Format for the Request Message
Note we preserve compatibility with the [RFC5440] definition of
<request>. At least one instance of <endpoints> must be present
in this definition.
3.5. Reply Message Format
As per [RFC5511] the RBNF format of the PCRep message is as follows.
Please see Appendix A for a full set of RBNF fragments defined in
this document and the necessary code license.
Below is the message format for the reply message:
<PCRep Message>::= <Common Header>
<response>
<response>::=<RP>
[<end-point-path-pair-list>]
[<NO-PATH>]
[<attribute-list>]
where:
<end-point-path-pair-list>::=
[<END-POINTS>]<path>[<end-point-path-pair-list>]
<path> ::=(ERO)|(SERO)|<path>]
<attribute-list>::=[<OF>]
[<LSPA>]
[<BANDWIDTH>]
[<metric-list>]
[<IRO>]
Figure 5: The Message Format for the Reply Message
The optional END-POINTS in the reply message is used to specify which
paths are removed, changed, not changed, or added for the request.
The path is only needed for the end points which are added or
changed.
Zhao and King [Page 11]
Internet-Draft October 2009
If the ERO-Compress bit was set to 1 in the request then the path
will be formed by an ERO followed by a list of SERO. Otherwise it
is a list of ERO.
Note that we preserve compatibility with the [RFC5440] definition of
<response> and the optional <end-point-pair-list> and <path>.
3.6. P2MP Objective Functions and Metric Types
3.6.1. New Object Functions
Six objective functions have been defined in [RFC5541] for P2P path
computation.
This document defines two additional objective functions, namely SPT
(Shortest Path Tree) and MCT (Minimum Cost Tree) that apply to P2MP
path computation. Hence two new objective function codes have to be
defined.
The description of the two new objective functions is as follows.
Objective Function Code: 7 (suggested value, to be assigned by IANA)
Name: Shortest Path Tree (SPT)
Description: Minimize the maximum source-to-leaf cost with respect to
a specific metric or to the TE metric used as the default metric when
the metric is not specified. (e.g. TE or IGP metric)
Objective Function Code: 8 (suggested value, to be assigned by IANA)
Name: Minimum Cost Tree (MCT)
Description: Minimize the total cost of the tree, that is the sum of
the costs of tree links, with respect to a specific metric or to the
TE metric used as the default metric when the metric is not
specified.
Processing these two new objective functions is subject to the rules
defined in [RFC5541].
3.6.2. New Metric Object Types
There are three types defined for the <METRIC> object in [RFC5440],
namely, the IGP metric, the TE metric and the Hop Count metric. This
document defines three other types for the <METRIC> object: the P2MP
IGP metric, the P2MP TE metric, and the P2MP hop count metric. They
encode the sum of the metrics of all links of the tree. We propose
the following values for these new metric types:
Zhao and King [Page 12]
Internet-Draft October 2009
o P2MP IGP metric: T=8 (suggested value, to be assigned by IANA)
o P2MP TE metric: T=9 (suggested value, to be assigned by IANA)
o P2MP hop count metric: T=10 (suggested value, to be assigned by
IANA)
3.7. Non-Support of P2MP Path Computation.
o If a PCE receives a P2MP path request and it understands the P2MP
flag in the RP object, but the PCE is not capable of P2MP
computation, the PCE MUST send a PCErr message with a PCEP-ERROR
Object and corresponding Error-Value. The original P2MP path
computation request MUST then be cancelled. New Error-Types and
Error-Values are requested in the IANA Considerations section of
this document.
o If the PCE does not understand the P2MP flag in the RP object,
then the PCE MUST send a PCErr message with a new error type
"Unknown RP flag".
3.8. Non-Support by Back-Level PCE Implementations.
If a PCC inadvertently sends a P2MP request to a PCE which does not
support P2MP path computation and therefore the PCEP P2MP extensions,
then the PCE SHOULD reject the request,
because it cannot understand the new P2MP END-POINTS object.
3.9. P2MP TE Path Reoptimization Request
A reoptimization request for a P2MP TE path is specified by the use
of the R bit within the RP object as defined in [RFC5440] and is
similar to the reoptimization request for a P2P TE path. The only
difference is that the user must insert the list of RROs and SRROs
after each type of END-POINTS in the PCReq message, as described in
the Request Message Format section (Section 3.4) of this document.
An example of a reoptimization request and subsequent PCReq message
is described below:
Common Header
RP with P2MP flag/R bits set
END-POINTS for leaf type 3
RRO list
OF (optional)
Figure 6: PCReq Message Example 1 for Optimization
Zhao and King [Page 13]
Internet-Draft October 2009
In this example, we request reoptimization of path to all leaves
without adding or pruning leaves. That is only one END-POINT of type
3. The RRO list is representing the P2MP LSP before the optimization
and the modifiable path leaves are indicated in the END-POINTS
object.
Optionally it is possible to specify specific leaves whose path cannot
be modified. An example of the PCReq message in this scenario would
be:
Common Header
RP with P2MP flag/R bits set
END-POINTS for leaf type 3
RRO list
END-POINTS for leaf type 4
RRO list
OF (optional)
Figure 7: PCReq Message Example 2 for Optimization
3.10. Adding and Pruning Leaves to the P2MP Tree
When adding new leaves or removing old leaves to the existing P2MP
tree, by supplying a list of existing leaves, it SHOULD be possible
to optimize the existing P2MP tree. This section explains the
methods to add new leaves or remove old leaves to the existing
P2MP tree.
To add new leaves the user must build a P2MP request with an END-
POINTS with leaf type 1.
To remove old leaves the user must build a P2MP request with an END-
POINTS with leaf type 2.
The PCC must also provide the list of old leaves and indicate if they
should be reoptimized or not by including END-POINTS with leaf type 3
or 4 or both. The error values when the conditions are not
satisfied (i.e., when there is no END-POINTS with leaf type 3 or
4, in the presence of END-POINTS with leaf type 1 or 2), are
documented in the IANA Considerations section (Section 6) of this
document.
For old leaves the user must provide the old path as list of RROs
that immediately follows each END-POINTS object. This document
specifies error values when specific conditions are not satisfied.
The following examples demonstrate full and partial reoptimization of
existing P2MP LSPs:
Zhao and King [Page 14]
Internet-Draft October 2009
Case 1: Adding leaves with full reoptimization of existing paths
Common Header
RP with P2MP flag/R bits set
END-POINTS for leaf type 1
RRO list
END-POINTS for leaf type 3
RRO list
OF (optional)
Figure 8: Adding Leaves with Full Reoptimization
Case 2: Adding leaves with partial reoptimization of existing paths
Common Header
RP with P2MP flag/R bits set
END-POINTS for leaf type 1
END-POINTS for leaf type 3
RRO list
END-POINTS for leaf type 4
RRO list
OF (optional)
Figure 9: Adding Leaves with Partial Reoptimization
Case 3: Adding leaves without reoptimization of existing paths
Common Header
RP with P2MP flag/R bits set
END-POINTS for leaf type 1
RRO list
END-POINTS for leaf type 4
RRO list
OF (optional)
Figure 10: Adding Leaves without Reoptimization
Common Header
RP with P2MP flag/R bits set
END-POINTS for leaf type 2
RRO list
END-POINTS for leaf type 3
RRO list
OF (optional)
Figure 11: Pruning Leaves with Full Reoptimization
Zhao and King [Page 15]
Internet-Draft October 2009
Case 5: Pruning leaves with partial reoptimization of existing paths
Common Header
RP with P2MP flag/R bits set
END-POINTS for leaf type 2
RRO list
END-POINTS for leaf type 3
RRO list
END-POINTS for leaf type 4
RRO list
OF (optional)
Figure 12: Pruning Leaves with Partial Reoptimization
Case 6: Pruning leaves without reoptimization of existing paths
Common Header
RP with P2MP flag/R bits set
END-POINTS for leaf type 2
RRO list
END-POINTS for leaf type 4
RRO list
OF (optional)
Figure 13: Pruning Leaves without Reoptimization
Case 7: Adding and pruning leaves full reoptimization of existing
paths
Common Header
RP with P2MP flag/R bits set
END-POINTS for leaf type 1
END-POINTS for leaf type 2
RRO list
END-POINTS for leaf type 3
RRO list
OF (optional)
Figure 14: Adding and Pruning Leaves full Reoptimization
Zhao and King [Page 16]
Internet-Draft October 2009
Case 8: Adding and pruning leaves with partial reoptimization of
existing paths
Common Header
RP with P2MP flag/R bits set
END-POINTS for leaf type 1
END-POINTS for leaf type 2
RRO list
END-POINTS for leaf type 3
RRO list
END-POINTS for leaf type 4
RRO list
OF (optional)
Figure 15: Adding and Pruning Leaves with Partial
Reoptimization
Case 9: Adding and pruning leaves without reoptimization of existing
paths
Common Header
RP with P2MP flag/R bits set
END-POINTS for leaf type 1
END-POINTS for leaf type 2
RRO list
END-POINTS for leaf type 4
RRO list
OF (optional)
Figure 16: Adding and Pruning Leaves without Reoptimization
3.11. Discovering Branch Nodes
Before computing the P2MP path, a PCE must be provided means to know
which nodes in the network are capable of acting as branch LSRs. A
PCE can discover such capabilities by using the mechanisms defined in
[PCE-P2MP-REQ.
3.11.1 Branch Node Object
The PCC can specify a list of nodes that can be used as branch
nodes or a list of nodes that cannot be used as branch nodes by
using the a BRANCH NODE Capability (BNC) Object. The BNC Object has
the same format as the IRO object defined in [RFC5440] except that
it only supports IPv4 and IPv6 prefix sub-objects. Two Object-
types are also defined:
Zhao and King [Page 17]
Internet-Draft October 2009
o Branch node list: List of nodes that can be used as branch
nodes.
o Non-branch node list: List of nodes that cannot be used as branch
nodes.
The object can only be carried in a PCReq message. A Path Request
may carry at most one BRANCH NODE Object.
The Object-Class and Object-types will need to allocated by IANA. The
IANA request is documented in Section 6.5.
3.12. Synchronization of P2MP TE Path Computation Requests
There are cases when multiple P2MP LSPs' computations need to be
synchronized. For example, one P2MP LSP is the designated backup of
another P2MP LSP. In this case, path diversity for these dependent
LSPs may need to be considered during the path computation.
The synchronization can be done by just using the existing SVEC
functionality.
An example of synchronizing two P2MP LSPs, each has two leaves for
Path Computation Request Messages is illustrated as below:
Common Header
SVEC for sync of LSP1 and LSP2
OF (optional)
END-POINTS1 for P2MP
RRO1 list
END-POINTS2 for P2MP
RRO2 list
Figure 17: PCReq Message Example for Synchronization
We propose that two new flags are also added to the SVEC object for
P2MP path dependent computation requests. The first new flag is to
allow the PCC to request that the PCE should compute a secondary
P2MP path tree with partial path diversity for specific leaves or
a specific S2L sub-path to the primary P2MP path tree. The second
flag, would allow the PCC to request that partial paths should be
link direction diverse.
Zhao and King [Page 18]
Internet-Draft October 2009
The format of the SVEC 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Flags |S|N|L|P|D|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Request-ID-number #1 |
// //
| Request-ID-number #M |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 19: SVEC Body Object Format with Additional Flags
The following flags are added to the SVEC object body in this draft:
o P ( Partial Path Diversity bit - 1 bit):
When set this would indicate a request for partial path
diversity for a specific leave or set of leaves.
o D ( Link Direction Diverse bit - 1 bit):
When set this would indicate a request that a partial path or
paths should be link direction diverse.
3.13. Request and Response Fragmentation
In certain scenarios the P2MP computation request may not fit into a
single request or response message. For example, if a tree has many
hundreds or thousands of leaves. Then the request or response may
need to be fragmented into multiple messages.
The F bit has been outlined in the Extension of the RP Object section
(Section 3.3.1) of this document. The F bit is used in the RP object
header to signal that the initial request or response was too large
to fit into a single message and will be fragmented into multiple
messages. In order to indentify the single request or response, each
message will use the same request ID.
3.13.1 Request Fragmentation Procedure
If the initial request is too large to fit into a single request
message the PCC will split the request over multiple messages. Each
messagesent to the PCE, except the last one, will have the F bit set
in the RP object to signify that the request has been fragmented
into multiple messages. In order to indentify that a series of
request messages represents a single request, each message will
use the same request ID.
Zhao and King [Page 19]
Internet-Draft October 2009
The assumption is that request messages are reliably delivered
and in sequence since PCEP relies on TCP.
3.13.2 Response Fragmentation Procedure
Once the PCE computes a path based on the initial request, a response
is sent back to the PCC. If the response is too large to fit into a
single response message the PCE will split the request over multiple
messages. Each message sent to the PCE, except the last one, will
have the F bit set in the RP object to signify that the response
has been fragmented into multiple messages. In order to identify
that a series of response messages represents a single request,
each message will use the same request ID.
The assumption is that response messages are reliably delivered
and in sequence since PCEP relies on TCP.
3.13.3 Fragmentation Examples
The following example illustrates the PCC sending a request message
with Req-ID1 to the PCE, in order to add one leaf to an existing tree
with 1200 leaves. The assumption is that the one request message can
hold up to 800 leaves. In this scenario, the original one message
needs to be fragmented and sent over by two small messages, which
have the Req-ID1 specified in the RP object and F bit set for the
first message.
Common Header
RP1 with Req-ID1 and P2MP flag and F bit set
OF (optional)
END-POINTS1 for P2MP
RRO1 list
Common Header
RP2 with Req-ID1 and P2MP flag and F bit cleared
OF (optional)
END-POINTS1 for P2MP
RRO1 list
To handle the scenario that the last fragmented message piece is
lost, the receiver side of the fragmented message may start a timer
once it receives the first piece of the fragmented message. When
the timer expires and it has not received the last piece of the
fragmented message, it should send an error message to the sender
to signal that it has received an incomplete message.
3.14. UNREACH-DESTINATION Object
The PCE path computation request may fail because all or a subset of
the destinations are unreachable.
Zhao and King [Page 20]
Internet-Draft October 2009
In such a case, the UNREACH-DESTINATION object allows the PCE to
optionally specify the list of unreachable destinations.
This object can be present in PCRep messages. There can be up to one
such object per RP.
The following UNREACH-DESTINATION objects will be required:
UNREACH-DESTINATION Object-Class is to be assigned by IANA.
UNREACH-DESTINATION Object-Type for IPv4 is to be assigned by IANA
UNREACH-DESTINATION Object-Type for IPv6 is to be assigned by IANA.
The format of the UNREACH-DESTINATION object body for IPv4 (Object-
Type=1) 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Destination IPv4 address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ... ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Destination IPv4 address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 20: UNREACH-DESTINATION Object Body for IPv4
The format of the UNREACH-DESTINATION object body for IPv6 (Object-
Type=2) 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Destination IPv6 address (16 bytes) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ... ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Destination IPv6 address (16 bytes) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 21: UNREACH-DESTINATION Object Body for IPv6
Zhao and King [Page 21]
Internet-Draft October 2009
3.15. P2MP PCEP Error Objects and Types
To indicate errors associated with the P2MP path request, a new
Error-Type (16) and subsequent error-values are defined as follows
for inclusion in the PCEP-ERROR object:
Error-Type=16 and Error-Value=1: if a PCE receives a P2MP path
request and the PCE is not capable to satisfy the request due to
insufficient memory, the PCE MUST send a PCErr message with a PCEP
ERROR object (Error-Type=16) and an Error-Value(Error-Value=1). The
corresponding P2MP path computation request MUST also be cancelled.
Error-Type=16; Error-Value=2: if a PCE receives a P2MP path request
and the PCE is not capable of P2MP computation, the PCE MUST send a
PCErr message with a PCEP-ERROR Object (Error-Type=16) and an Error-
Value (Error-Value=2). The corresponding P2MP path computation
request MUST be also cancelled.
To indicate an error associated with policy violation, a new error
value "P2MP Path computation not allowed" should be added to the
existing error code for policy violation (Error-Type=5) as defined
in [RFC5440]:
Error-Type=5; Error-Value=6: if a PCE receives a P2MP path
computation request which is not compliant with administrative
privileges (i.e., "The PCE policy does not support P2MP path
computation"), the PCE MUST send a PCErr message with a PCEP-ERROR
Object (Error-Type=5) and an Error-Value (Error-Value=6). The
corresponding P2MP path computation request MUST also be cancelled.
3.16. PCEP NO-PATH Indicator
To communicate the reasons for not being able to find P2MP path
computation, the NO-PATH object can be used in the PCRep message.
The format of the NO-PATH 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|C| Flags | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Optional TLV(s) //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 22: The Format of the NO-PATH Object Body
One new bit is defined in the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV carried in
the NO-PATH Object:
Zhao and King [Page 22]
Internet-Draft October 2009
0x24: when set, the PCE indicates that there is a reachability
problem with all or a subset of the P2MP destinations. Optionally
the PCE can specify the destination or list of destinations that are
not reachable using the new UNREACH-DESTINATION object defined in
section 3.6.
4. Manageability Considerations
[PCE-P2MP-REQ] describes various manageability requirements in
support of P2MP path computation when applying PCEP. This section
describes how manageability requirements mentioned in [PCE-P2MP-REQ]
are supported in the context of PCEP extensions specified in this
document.
Note that [RFC5440] describes various manageability considerations in
PCEP, and most of manageability requirements mentioned in [PCE-P2MP
P2MP] are already covered there.
4.1. Control of Function and Policy
In addition to configuration parameters listed in [RFC5440], the
following parameters MAY be required.
o P2MP path computations enabled or disabled.
o Advertisement of P2MP path computation capability enabled or
disabled (discovery protocol, capability exchange).
4.2. Information and Data Models
As described in [PCE-P2MP-REQ], MIB objects MUST be supported for
PCEP extensions specified in this document.
4.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
There are no additional considerations beyond those expressed in
[RFC5440], since [PCE-P2MP-REQ] does not address any additional
requirements.
4.4. Verifying Correct Operation
There are no additional considerations beyond those expressed in
[RFC5440], since [PCE-P2MP-REQ] does not address any additional
requirements.
4.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components
As described in [PCE-P2MP-REQ], the PCE MUST obtain information
about the P2MP signaling and branching capabilities of each LSR in
the network.
Zhao and King [Page 23]
Internet-Draft October 2009
Protocol extensions specified in this document does not provide such
capability. Other mechanisms MUST be present.
The PCE Discovery mechanisms ([RFC5088] and [RFC5089]) is used to
advertise capabilities to PCCs. A new flag (value=10) could be
defined in PCE-CAP-FLAGs Sub-TLV to indicate P2MP path computation
capability. Extensions for PCE discovery are out of scope of this
document.
4.6. Impact on Network Operation
It is expected that use of PCEP extensions specified in this document
does not have significant impact on network operations.
5. Security Considerations
As described in [PCE-P2MP-REQ], P2MP path computation requests are
more CPU-intensive and also use more link bandwidth. Therefore, it
may be more vulnerable to denial of service attacks. Therefore it is
more important that implementations conform to security requirements
of [RFC5440], and the implementer utilize those security features
6. IANA Considerations
IANA maintains a registry of PCEP parameters. A number of IANA
considerations have been highlighted in previous sections of this
document. IANA is requested to make the following allocations.
6.1 P2MP Capability TLV
As described in Section 3.1.2, the newly defined P2MP capability TLV
allows the PCE to advertize its P2MP path computation capability.
IANA is requested to make the following allocation from the "PCEP
TLV Type Indicators" sub-registry.
Value Description Reference
6 P2MP capability This.I-D
6.2 Request Parameter Bit Flags
As described in Section 3.3.1., three new RP Object Flags have
been defined. IANA is requested to make the following allocations
from the "RP Object Flag Field" Sub-Registry:
Zhao and King [Page 24]
Internet-Draft October 2009
Bit Description Reference
18 Fragmentation(F-bit) This.I-D
19 P2MP (N-bit) This.I-D
20 ERO-compression (E-bit) This.I-D
6.3 Objective Function
As described in Section 3.6.1., two new Objective Funtions have been
defined. IANA is requested to make the following allocations
from the "Objective Function" sub-registry:
Code Point Name Reference
7 SPT This.I-D
8 MCT This.I-D
6.4 Metric Object Types
As described in Section 3.6.2., three new metric object T fields have
been defined. IANA is requested to make the following allocations
from the "METRIC Object T Field" sub-reigstry:
Value Description Reference
8 P2MP IGP metric This.I-D
9 P2MP TE metric This.I-D
10 P2MP hop count metric This.I-D
6.5 PCEP Objects
As described in Section 3.2, 3.4 and 3.11.1, six PCE Objects have
been defined. IANA is requested to make the following allocations
from the "PCEP Objects" sub-registry
Object-Class Value 25
Name UNREACH-DESTINATION
Object-Type 1: IPv4
2: IPv6
3-15: Unassigned
Reference This.I-D
Object-Class Value 26
Name SERO
Object-Type 1: SERO
2-15: Unassigned
Reference This.I-D
Zhao and King [Page 25]
Internet-Draft October 2009
Object-Class Value 27
Name SRRO
Object-Type 1: SRRO
2-15: Unassigned
Reference This.I-D
Object-Class Value 28
Name Branch Node Capability Object
Object-Type 1: Branch node list
2: Non-branch node list
3-15: Unassigned
Reference This.I-D
6.6 PCEP Error Objects and Types
As described in Section 3.15., a number of new PCEP-ERROR Object
Error Types and Values have been defined. IANA is requested to
make the following allocations from the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error
Type and Value" sub-registry:
Error
Type Meaning Reference
5 Policy violation
Error-value=6: This.I-D
P2MP Path computation is not allowed
16 P2MP Error This.I-D
Error-Value=0: Unassigned
Error-Value=1: This.I-D
The PCE is not capable to satisfy the request
due to insufficient memory
Error-Value=2: This.I-D
The PCE is not capable of P2MP computation
17 P2MP Error This.I-D
Error-Value=0: Unassigned
Error-Value=1: This.I-D
The PCE is not capable to satisfy the request
due to no END-POINTS with leaf type 2
Error-Value=2: This.I-D
The PCE is not capable to satisfy the request
due to no END-POINTS with leaf type 3
Error-Value=3: This.I-D
The PCE is not capable to satisfy the request
due to no END-POINTS with leaf type 4
Zhao and King [Page 26]
Internet-Draft October 2009
6.7 PCEP NO-PATH Indicator
As discussed in Section 3.16, a new NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Flag Field
has been defined. IANA is requested to make the following
allocation from the "NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Flag Field" sub-registry:
Bit Description Reference
24 P2MP Reachability Problem This.I-D
7. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Young Lee, Dan
Tappan, Autumn Liu, Huaimo Chen, and Eiji Oki for their valuable
comments on this draft.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC5440] Ayyangar, A., Farrel, A., Oki, E., Atlas, A., Dolganow,
A., Ikejiri, Y., Kumaki, K., Vasseur, J., and J. Roux,
"Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol
(PCEP)", RFC 5440, March 2009.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Papadimitriou, D., and S. Yasukawa,
"Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE Label
Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875, May 2007.
[RFC5088] Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., Ikejiri, Y., and R. Zhang,
"OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element
(PCE) Discovery", RFC 5088, January 2008.
[RFC5089] Le Roux, JL., Ed., Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R.
Zhang, "IS-IS Protocol Extensions for Path Computation
Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5089, January 2008.
[RFC5511] Farrel, F., "Routing Backus-Naur Form (RBNF): A Syntax
Used to Form Encoding Rules in Various Routing Protocol
Specifications", RFC 5511, April 2009.
Zhao and King [Page 27]
Internet-Draft October 2009
[RFC5541]
Roux, J., Vasseur, J., and Y. Lee, "Encoding of Objective
Functions in the Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP)", RFC5541, December 2008.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006.
[PCE-P2MP-APP]
Yasukawa, S. and A. Farrel,
"draft-ietf-pce-p2mp-app-02.txt",
draft-ietf-pce-p2mp-app-02 (work in progress),
October 2009.
[PCE-P2MP-REQ]
Yasukawa, S. and A. Farrel, "PCC-PCE Communication
Requirements for Point to Multipoint Multiprotocol Label
Switching Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE)",
draft-ietf-pce-p2mp-req-03 (work in progress),
October 2009.
9. Authors' Addresses
Quintin Zhao (editor)
Huawei Technology
125 Nagog Technology Park
Acton, MA 01719
US
Email: qzhao@huawei.com
Daniel King (editor)
Old Dog Consulting
UK
Email: daniel@olddog.co.uk
Fabien Verhaeghe
Thales Communication France
160 Bd Valmy 92700 Colombes
France
Email: fabien.verhaeghe@gmail.com
Tomonori Takeda
NTT Corporation
3-9-11, Midori-Cho
Musashino-Shi, Tokyo 180-8585
Japan
Email: takeda.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp
Zhao and King [Page 28]
Internet-Draft October 2009
Zafar Ali
Cisco systems, Inc.
2000 Innovation Drive
Kanata, Ontario K2K 3E8
Canada
Email: zali@cisco.com
Julien Meuric
France Telecom
2, avenue Pierre-Marzin
22307 Lannion Cedex,
julien.meuric@orange-ftgroup.com
9.1 Contributors
Jean-Louis Le Roux
France Telecom
2, avenue Pierre-Marzin
22307 Lannion Cedex,
France
Email: jeanlouis.leroux@orange-ftgroup.com
Mohamad Chaitou
France
Email: mohamad.chaitou@gmail.com
Appendix A. RBNF Code Fragments
This appendix contains the full set of code fragments defined in this
document.
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as authors
of the code. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
are met:
o Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
o Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the
distribution.
Zhao and King [Page 29]
Internet-Draft October 2009
o Neither the name of Internet Society, IETF or IETF Trust, nor the
names of specific contributors, may be used to endorse or promote
products derived from this software without specific prior written
permission.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR
A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT
OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE,
DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY
THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
(INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE
OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
Below is the message format for the request message:
<PCReq Message>::= <Common Header>
<request>
where:
<request>::= <RP>
<end-point-rro-pair-list>
[<OF>]
[<LSPA>]
[<BANDWIDTH>]
[<metric-list>]
[<IRO>]
[<LOAD-BALANCING>]
where:
<end-point-rro-pair-list>::=
<END-POINTS>[<RRO-List>][<BANDWIDTH>]
[<end-point-rro-pair-list>]
<RRO-List>::=<RRO>[<BANDWIDTH>][<RRO-List>]
<metric-list>::=<METRIC>[<metric-list>]
Below is the message format for the reply message:
Below is the message format for the reply message:
<PCRep Message>::= <Common Header>
<response>
<response>::=<RP>
[<end-point-path-pair-list>]
[<NO-PATH>]
[<attribute-list>]
Zhao and King [Page 30]
Internet-Draft October 2009
where:
<end-point-path-pair-list>::=
[<END-POINTS>]<path>[<end-point-path-pair-list>]
<path> ::=(ERO)|(SERO)|<path>]
<attribute-list>::=[<OF>]
[<LSPA>]
[<BANDWIDTH>]
[<metric-list>]
[<IRO>]
Zhao and King [Page 31]
Internet-Draft October 2009