Network Working Group                                              Z. Li
Internet-Draft                                                  D. Dhody
Intended status: Standards Track                     Huawei Technologies
Expires: January 9, 2017                                     C. Margaria
                                                                C. Barth
                                                                 Juniper
                                                                 X. Chen
                                                               S. Zhuang
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                            July 8, 2016


                 PCEP Extension for Flow Specification
                     draft-li-pce-pcep-flowspec-01

Abstract

   Dissemination of the traffic flow specifications was first introduced
   in the BGP protocol via RFC 5575.  In order to distribute the flow
   specifications from PCE controller to network device without BGP
   protocol it is desirable to extend PCEP with flow specification
   information.

   This document specifies a set of extensions to PCEP to support
   dissemination of flow specifications.  The extensions include the
   instantiation, updation and deletion of flow specifications.

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].

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."




Li, et al.               Expires January 9, 2017                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                PCEP-FlowSpec                    July 2016


   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 9, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Procedures for Dissemination of FlowSpec  . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Overview of Procedures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  Capability Advertisement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.3.  Operations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.4.  Flowspec Synronization  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  PCEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.1.  PCEP FlowSpec Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Objects and TLVs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.1.  OPEN Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       5.1.1.  PCE FlowSpec Capability TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.2.  FLOW Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.3.  ACTION Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     6.1.  PCEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     6.2.  PCEP Objects  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     6.3.  PCEP TLV Type Indicators  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   8.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Appendix A.  Contributor Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Appendix B.  Example Usage  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17






Li, et al.               Expires January 9, 2017                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                PCEP-FlowSpec                    July 2016


1.  Introduction

   Dissemination of the traffic flow specifications was first introduced
   in the BGP protocol [RFC5575].  The traffic flow specification is
   comprised of traffic filtering rules and actions.  The routers which
   received the flow specification can take advantage of the ACL (Access
   Control List) or firewall capabilities in the router's forwarding
   path.  The routers can classify the packets according to the traffic
   filtering rules and shape, rate limit, filter, or redirect packets
   based on the actions.  The flow specification carried by BGP can be
   used to automate inter-domain coordination of traffic filtering to
   mitigate (distributed) denial-of-service attacks and can also be used
   to provide traffic filtering in the context of a BGP/MPLS VPN
   service.

   [RFC5575] also defines that a flow specification received from an
   external autonomous system will need to be validated against unicast
   routing before being accepted.  [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-flowspec-oid]
   describes a modification to the validation procedure defined in
   [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-flowspec-oid] for the dissemination of BGP flow
   specifications.  The modification proposed enables flow
   specifications to be originated from a centralized BGP route
   controller.

   [I-D.ietf-ospf-flowspec-extensions] defines the extensions to OSPF to
   distribute flow specifications in the networks that only deploy an
   IGP (Interior Gateway Protocol) (e.g., OSPF).  It also defines the
   validation procedures for imposing the filtering information on the
   routers.

   [RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP).
   PCEP defines the communication between a Path Computation Client
   (PCC) and a Path Control Element (PCE), or between PCE and PCE,
   enabling computation of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) for
   Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path (TE LSP) characteristics.

   Stateful pce [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] specifies a set of
   extensions to PCEP to enable stateful control of TE LSPs between and
   across PCEP sessions in compliance with [RFC4657].  It includes
   mechanisms to effect LSP state synchronization between PCCs and PCEs,
   delegation of control of LSPs to PCEs, and PCE control of timing and
   sequence of path computations within and across PCEP sessions and
   focuses on a model where LSPs are configured on the PCC and control
   over them is delegated to the PCE.  [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]
   describes the setup, maintenance and teardown of PCE- initiated LSPs
   under the stateful PCE model, without the need for local
   configuration on the PCC, thus allowing for a dynamic network that is
   centrally controlled and deployed.



Li, et al.               Expires January 9, 2017                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                PCEP-FlowSpec                    July 2016


   In case PCE is used to initiate tunnels via PCEP, it is desirable to
   use the same protocol to also distribute the flow specifications to
   describe what data flows on those tunnels.  Thus, in order to
   distribute the flow specifications from PCE controller to network
   device, PCEP is extended with flow specification information in this
   document.

   [I-D.zhao-teas-pce-control-function] introduces the architecture for
   PCE as a central controller and describes how PCE can be viewed as a
   component that perfor computation to place 'flows' within the network
   and decide how these flows are routed.

   This document specifies a set of extensions to PCEP to support
   dissemination of flow specifications.  The flow specifications can be
   disseminated between PCEP peers such as from PCE to PCC or between
   PCEs . The extensions include the creation, updation and withdrawal
   of flow specifications via PCEP.

   The values of flow filtering rules and actions mainly refer to the
   BGP flow specification and IGP specification.  This document extends
   new actions which are redirecting to LSP (refered by Symbolic Path
   Name, IPv4 LSP, or IPv6 LSP).

2.  Terminology

   This document uses the terms defined in [RFC5440] and [RFC5575].

   This document uses the terms defined in [RFC5440]: PCC, PCE, PCEP
   Peer.

   The following term is from [RFC5575].  It is used frequently
   throughout this document:

   Flow Specification (FlowSpec): A flow specification is an n-tuple
   consisting of several matching criteria that can be applied to IP
   traffic, including filters and actions.  Each FlowSpec consists of a
   set of filters and a set of actions.

3.  Procedures for Dissemination of FlowSpec

3.1.  Overview of Procedures

   A PCC or PCE indicates its ability to support PCE FlowSpec during the
   PCEP Initialization Phase via "PCE FlowSpec Capability" TLV (see
   details in Section 5.1.1).

   This section introduces the procedure to support PCE FlowSpec as
   follows:



Li, et al.               Expires January 9, 2017                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                PCEP-FlowSpec                    July 2016


   Firstly both the PCE and PCC advertise the PCE FlowSpec Capability
   during the PCE session initiation phase.

   On the PCEP session with PCE FlowSpec Capability PCE communicates
   with PCC to create, update and withdraw PCE FlowSpec.

   [Editor's Note - The procedure about PCE FlowSpec synchronization,
   the session failure process, etc. will be specified in the future
   version.]

3.2.  Capability Advertisement

   During PCEP session establishment, both the PCC and the PCE must
   announce their support of PCEP extensions for FlowSpec defined in
   this document.

   A PCEP Speaker (PCE or PCC) includes the "PCE FlowSpec Capability"
   TLV, described in Section 5.1.1, in the OPEN Object to advertise its
   support for PCEP extensions for PCE FlowSpec Capability.

   The presence of the PCE FlowSpec Capability TLV in PCE's OPEN message
   indicates that the PCE can support distribute the FlowSpec to PCC.

   The presence of such Capability TLV in PCC's OPEN Object indicates
   that the PCC can be in support of Flowspec functionality to
   instantiate the FlowSpec according to the PCE's indication and can
   apply the FlowSpec to the incoming packets.

   If PCE has such capability TLV and PCC has no such capability TLV PCE
   MUST NOT send the PCE messages with FlowSpec information.  And if PCC
   receives such messages it should send PCErr message to PCE.

   [Editor's Note - PCE discovery via IGP should also be extended for
   this.]

3.3.  Operations

   To instantiate a FlowSpec which is comprised of a set of FlowSpec
   filter rules and actions, the PCE sends a new PCEP message (called
   FlowSpec message) to the PCC.  The FlowSpec message MUST include the
   SRP object[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce], a new FLOW object (see details
   in Section 5.2) and a new ACTION object (see details in Section 5.3).
   FLOW object carries a set of FlowSpec filter rules.  A list of ACTION
   objects specify a set of FlowSpec actions.

   To update the FlowSpec actions of a specified FlowSpec which has been
   created, the same PCEP message "FlowSpec" is used.  The PCE sends a




Li, et al.               Expires January 9, 2017                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                PCEP-FlowSpec                    July 2016


   FlowSpec message to the PCC.  The FlowSpec message MUST include the
   SRP object, FLOW object and ACTION object.

   To delete the specified FlowSpec which has been created, the PCE
   sends a FlowSpec message to the PCC with a flag indicating the
   removal action.  The FlowSpec message MUST include the SRP object
   (with R flag set) and FLOW object.

3.4.  Flowspec Synronization

   [I-D.kuppani-pce-pcep-flowspec-sync] specify the flow specification
   synchronization mechanism for managing of flow specification
   (FLOWSPEC-DB) at node (PCC) aligning with FLOWSPEC-DB at PCE on
   initial session UP or session flap and specifies the required Path
   Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions.  This
   includes full synchronization as well as optimizations such as
   synchronization avoidance and incremental synchronization.

4.  PCEP Messages

   As defined in [RFC5440], a PCEP message consists of a common header
   followed by a variable-length body made of a set of objects that can
   be either mandatory or optional.  An object is said to be mandatory
   in a PCEP message when the object must be included for the message to
   be considered valid.  For each PCEP message type, a set of rules is
   defined that specify the set of objects that the message can carry.
   An implementation MUST form the PCEP messages using the object
   ordering specified in this document.

   To support the PCEP FlowSpec functionality one new PCEP messages is
   introduced.

4.1.  PCEP FlowSpec Message

   A FlowSpec message which is also referred to as FlowSpec message is a
   PCEP message sent by a PCE to a PCC to trigger creation, modification
   or deletion of a FlowSpec.

   The Message-Type field of the PCEP common header for the FlowSpec
   message is TBD17 (to be assigned by IANA).  The FlowSpec message MUST
   include the SRP and the FLOW objects.

   If FlowSpec message is used to create or update the FlowSpec, it MUST
   include the ACTION objects too.

   If FlowSpec message is used to delete the FlowSpec the ACTION objects
   SHOULD NOT be carried and the SRP object is set with the R flag.




Li, et al.               Expires January 9, 2017                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                PCEP-FlowSpec                    July 2016


   A FlowSpec is identified by a PCEP specific identifier FS-ID.

   The format of a FlowSpec message for creation or deletion of FlowSpec
   is as follows:

      <FlowSpec Message> ::= <Common Header>
                            <flowspec-list>
   Where:
      <flowspec-list> ::= <flowspec-request>[<flowspec-list>]

      <flowspec-request>::= (<flowspec-create-or-update>|
                             <flowspec-delete>)

      <flowspec-create-or-update> ::= <SRP>
                                      <FLOW>
                                      <action-list>

      <flowspec-delete> ::= <SRP>
                             <FLOW>

   Where:
       <action-list>::=<ACTION>[<action-list>]

   The SRP object defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] can be used in
   this document to correlate FlowSpec requests sent by the PCE with the
   error reports sent by the PCC.

   Every FlowSpec requests from the PCE sends a new SRP-ID-NUMBER as
   described in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce].  This number is unique per
   PCEP session and is incremented each time an FlowSpec operation
   (creation, update, deletion etc) is requested from the PCE.  The
   value of the SRP-ID-NUMBER MAY be echoed back by the PCC in PCErr
   messages to allow for correlation between requests made by the PCE
   and errors generated by the PCC.  Procedure of dissemination of
   FlowSpec from PCE share the same number space of the SRP-ID-NUMBER
   with procedure of stateful PCE.

   The FLOW and ACTION objects are new objects introduced in this
   document.

5.  Objects and TLVs

   The PCEP objects defined in this document are compliant with the PCEP
   object format defined in [RFC5440].

   New TLVs about FlowSpec filtering rules are defined.  The value
   portion of the new TLVs can reuse the structure defined in [RFC5575]
   and [I-D.ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6].  New TLVs about FlowSpec actions are



Li, et al.               Expires January 9, 2017                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                PCEP-FlowSpec                    July 2016


   also defined.  The value portion of the new TLVs can reuse the
   structure defined in [I-D.ietf-ospf-flowspec-extensions].  This
   document also defines two new actions: Redirect to IPv4 LSP and
   Redirect to IPv6 LSP.

5.1.  OPEN Object

5.1.1.  PCE FlowSpec Capability TLV

   The PCE-FLOWSPEC-CAPABILITY TLV is an optional TLV associated with
   the OPEN Object [RFC5440] to exchange PCE FlowSpec capability of PCEP
   speakers.

   Its format is shown in the following figure:

      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=[TBD18]    |            Length=2           |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |        Value=0                |            padding            |
     +---------------------------------------------------------------+

               Figure 1: PCE-FLOWSPEC-CAPABILITY TLV format

   The type of the TLV is TBD18 (to be assigned by IANA) and it has a
   fixed length of 2 octets.  The value field is set to default value 0.

   The inclusion of this TLV in an OPEN object indicate that the sender
   can perform FlowSpec handling in PCEP.

5.2.  FLOW Object

   The FLOW object MUST be present within FlowSpec messages.  The FLOW
   object carries a set of FlowSpec filter rules.

   FLOW Object-Class is TBD19 (to be assigned by IANA).

   FLOW Object-Type is 1.

   The format of the FLOW object is as follows:










Li, et al.               Expires January 9, 2017                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                PCEP-FlowSpec                    July 2016


    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                          FS-ID                                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   |                   Flow Filter TLVs(variable)                  |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


                     Figure 2: FLOW Object Body Format

   FS-ID(32-bit): A PCEP-specific identifier for the FlowSpec
   information.  A PCE creates an unique FS-ID for each FlowSpec that is
   constant for the lifetime of a PCEP session.  All subsequent PCEP
   messages then address the FlowSpec by the FS-ID.  The values of 0 and
   0xFFFFFFFF are reserved.

   Flow Filter TLVs(variable): The FLOW object body has a variable
   length and may contain one or more additional TLVs.

   The following flow filter types are supported:




























Li, et al.               Expires January 9, 2017                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                PCEP-FlowSpec                    July 2016


   +------+------------------------+-------+--------------------------+
   | Type | Description            |Ref TLV|Value defined in          |
   +------+------------------------+-------+--------------------------+
   | TBD1 | Destination IPv4 Prefix|   1   |RFC5575                   |
   +------+------------------------+-------+--------------------------+
   | TBD2 | Source IPv4 Prefix     |   2   |RFC5575                   |
   +------+------------------------+-------+--------------------------+
   | TBD3 | IP Protocol            |   3   |RFC5575                   |
   +------+------------------------+-------+--------------------------+
   | TBD4 | Port                   |   4   |RFC5575                   |
   +------+------------------------+-------+--------------------------+
   | TBD5 | Destination port       |   5   |RFC5575                   |
   +------+------------------------+-------+--------------------------+
   | TBD6 | Source port            |   6   |RFC5575                   |
   +------+------------------------+-------+--------------------------+
   | TBD7 | ICMP type              |   7   |RFC5575                   |
   +------+------------------------+-------+--------------------------+
   | TBD8 | ICMP code              |   8   |RFC5575                   |
   +------+------------------------+-------+--------------------------+
   | TBD9 | TCP flags              |   9   |RFC5575                   |
   +------+------------------------+-------+--------------------------+
   | TBD10| Packet length          |  10   |RFC5575                   |
   +------+------------------------+-------+--------------------------+
   | TBD11| DSCP                   |  11   |RFC5575                   |
   +------+------------------------+-------+--------------------------+
   | TBD12| Fragment               |  12   |RFC5575                   |
   +------+------------------------+-------+--------------------------+
   | TBD13| Flow Label             |  13   |I-D.ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6 |
   +------+------------------------+-------+--------------------------+
   | TBD14| Destination IPv6 Prefix|   1   |I-D.ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6 |
   +------+------------------------+-------+--------------------------+
   | TBD15| Source IPv6 Prefix     |   2   |I-D.ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6 |
   +------+------------------------+-------+--------------------------+
   | TBD16| Next Header            |   3   |I-D.ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6 |
   +------+------------------------+-------+--------------------------+
   |  *   | ROUTE-DISTINGUISHER    |   -   |I-D.dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls  |
   +------+------------------------+-------+--------------------------+

   (*) - TLV is defined in another PCEP document.

                   Figure 3: Table of Flow Filter Types

   [RFC5575] and [I-D.ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6] specify the above types for
   BGP.  The encoding for "Destination Prefix" is described in [RFC5575]
   as -

   Encoding: <type (1 octet), prefix length (1 octet), prefix>




Li, et al.               Expires January 9, 2017               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                PCEP-FlowSpec                    July 2016


   In PCEP, the type of flow filter is identified by the type field in
   the TLV header, TBD1 in case of Destination Prefix.  The length field
   in the TLV header (as per [RFC5440]) is the length of the value
   portion in octets without padding.  The value portion for
   "Destination IPv4 Prefix" is made up of 1 octet of prefix length
   followed by the prefix, padded to 4-byte alignment for the TLV.

   Similarly for all encoding defined in [RFC5575] and
   [I-D.ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6], the value portion of the PCEP TLV uses
   the BGP encoding but without the type octet and pad it to 4-byte
   alignment.

   [I-D.dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls] allow identificatiion of a VPN information
   in PCEP via a Route Distinguisher (RD) [RFC4364] and encoded in
   ROUTE-DISTINGUISHER TLV.  This TLV MAY be included in the FLOW object
   to identify the flow filter infomration, say a IPv4 destination
   prefix, is a VPNv4 destination prefix belonging to the VPN identified
   by the RD.

5.3.  ACTION Object

   The ACTION object MUST be present within FlowSpec messages when
   creating or updating the FlowSpec.  The ACTION object carries a set
   of FlowSpec actions.

   ACTION Object-Class is TBD20 (to be assigned by IANA).

   ACTION Object-Type is 1.

   The format of the ACTION object body is:

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   |                     ACTION TLVs(variable)                     |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


                    Figure 4: ACTION Object Body Format

   The ACTION object body has a variable length and may contain one or
   more additional TLVs.

   The following FlowSpec action types are supported:





Li, et al.               Expires January 9, 2017               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                PCEP-FlowSpec                    July 2016


   +------+---------------------+-------------------------+
   | Type | Description         |Defined in               |
   +------+---------------------+-------------------------+
   | 18(*)| IPV4-LSP-IDENTIFIERS|I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce|
   +------+---------------------+-------------------------+
   | 19(*)| IPV6-LSP-IDENTIFIERS|I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce|
   +------+---------------------+-------------------------+
   | 17(*)| Symbolic-Path-Name  |I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce|
   +------+---------------------+-------------------------+

   (*) The type is defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]

                        Figure 5: Flow Action Types

6.  IANA Considerations

   IANA maintains the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers"
   registry at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep>.  This document
   requests IANA actions to allocate code points for the protocol
   elements defined in this document.

6.1.  PCEP Messages

   IANA maintains a subregistry for PCEP messages called "PCEP
   Messages".  Each PCEP message has a message type value.  This
   document defines a new PCEP message type value.

           Value     Meaning                          Reference
           TBD17     FlowSpec                         [This I-D]

6.2.  PCEP Objects

   Each PCEP object has an Object-Class and an Object-Type.  IANA
   maintains a subregistry called "PCEP Objects".  This document defines
   the following new PCEP Object-classes and Object-values:

     Object-Class Value Name        Object-Type             Reference
        TBD19           FLOW        1                       [This I-D]
        TBD20           ACTION      1                       [This I-D]

6.3.  PCEP TLV Type Indicators

   IANA maintains a subregistry called "PCEP TLV Type Indicators".  This
   document defines the following new PCEP TLVs.







Li, et al.               Expires January 9, 2017               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                PCEP-FlowSpec                    July 2016


            Value     Meaning                        Reference
             TBD18    PCE-FLOWSPEC-CAPABILITY TLV    [This I-D]
             TBD1     Destination IPv4 Prefix        [This I-D]
             TBD2     Source IPv4 Prefix             [This I-D]
             TBD3     IP Protocol                    [This I-D]
             TBD4     Port                           [This I-D]
             TBD5     Destination port               [This I-D]
             TBD6     Source port                    [This I-D]
             TBD7     ICMP type                      [This I-D]
             TBD8     ICMP code                      [This I-D]
             TBD9     TCP flags                      [This I-D]
             TBD10    Packet length                  [This I-D]
             TBD11    DSCP                           [This I-D]
             TBD12    Fragment                       [This I-D]
             TBD13    Flow Label                     [This I-D]
             TBD14    Destination IPv6 Prefix        [This I-D]
             TBD15    Source IPv6 Prefix             [This I-D]
             TBD16    Next Header                    [This I-D]

7.  Security Considerations

   TBD.

8.  Acknowledgements

   TBD.

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC5440]  Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
              Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.

   [RFC5575]  Marques, P., Sheth, N., Raszuk, R., Greene, B., Mauch, J.,
              and D. McPherson, "Dissemination of Flow Specification
              Rules", RFC 5575, DOI 10.17487/RFC5575, August 2009,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5575>.






Li, et al.               Expires January 9, 2017               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                PCEP-FlowSpec                    July 2016


   [I-D.ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6]
              McPherson, D., Raszuk, R., Pithawala, B.,
              akarch@cisco.com, a., and S. Hares, "Dissemination of Flow
              Specification Rules for IPv6", draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-
              v6-07 (work in progress), March 2016.

   [I-D.dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls]
              Dhody, D., Lee, Y., and D. Ceccarelli, "PCEP Extension for
              Distribution of Link-State and TE Information.", draft-
              dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls-04 (work in progress), July 2016.

9.2.  Informative References

   [RFC4364]  Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
              Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February
              2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364>.

   [RFC4657]  Ash, J., Ed. and J. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
              Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic
              Requirements", RFC 4657, DOI 10.17487/RFC4657, September
              2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4657>.

   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]
              Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "PCEP
              Extensions for Stateful PCE", draft-ietf-pce-stateful-
              pce-14 (work in progress), March 2016.

   [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]
              Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "PCEP
              Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
              Model", draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-06 (work in
              progress), July 2016.

   [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-flowspec-oid]
              Uttaro, J., Filsfils, C., Smith, D., Alcaide, J., and P.
              Mohapatra, "Revised Validation Procedure for BGP Flow
              Specifications", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-flowspec-oid-03 (work
              in progress), March 2016.

   [I-D.ietf-ospf-flowspec-extensions]
              liangqiandeng, l., You, J., Wu, N., Fan, P., Patel, K.,
              and A. Lindem, "OSPF Extensions for Flow Specification",
              draft-ietf-ospf-flowspec-extensions-01 (work in progress),
              April 2016.







Li, et al.               Expires January 9, 2017               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                PCEP-FlowSpec                    July 2016


   [I-D.kuppani-pce-pcep-flowspec-sync]
              Kuppani, S. and A. Sinha, "PCEP Flowspec Synchronization
              Procedures.", draft-kuppani-pce-pcep-flowspec-sync-00
              (work in progress), May 2016.

   [I-D.zhao-teas-pce-control-function]
              Farrel, A., Zhao, Q., Li, Z., and C. Zhou, "An
              Architecture for Use of PCE and PCEP in a Network with
              Central Control", draft-zhao-teas-pce-control-function-01
              (work in progress), May 2016.

Appendix A.  Contributor Addresses

   Shankara
   Huawei Technologies
   Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
   Bangalore, Karnataka  560066
   India
   Email: shankara@huawei.com
   Qiandeng Liang
   Huawei Technologies
   101 Software Avenue, Yuhuatai District
   Nanjing  210012
   China
   Email: liangqiandeng@huawei.com

Appendix B.  Example Usage

   Once PCE initiate tunnels, it needs to further decide what data needs
   to flow on the newly created tunnel, a flow specification can be
   created at the ingress to redirect the flow to the LSP as shown
   below.



















Li, et al.               Expires January 9, 2017               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft                PCEP-FlowSpec                    July 2016


                    *****
                    *PCE*
                   /*****
                  /
                 /
                /
               /
              /
             / 1. PCInitiate
            /     Message to
           /      initiate LSP
          /       (RTA-RTD)
         /
        /
       /
      V
   +----+          +----+          +----+          +----+
   |RTA |----------|RTB |----------|RTC |----------|RTD |
   |    |          |    |          |    |          |    |
   +----+          +----+          +----+          +----+
    PCC
    Ingress

                    *****
                    *PCE*
                   /*****
                  /
                 /
                /
               /
              /
             / 2. FlowSpec
            /     Message to add flow
           /      (source - x.x.x.x, port - y)
          /       to redirect to LSP
         /        (RTA-RTD)
        /
       /
      V
   +----+          +----+          +----+          +----+
   |RTA |----------|RTB |----------|RTC |----------|RTD |
   |    |          |    |          |    |          |    |
   +----+          +----+          +----+          +----+
    PCC
    Ingress






Li, et al.               Expires January 9, 2017               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft                PCEP-FlowSpec                    July 2016


Authors' Addresses

   Zhenbin Li
   Huawei Technologies
   Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
   Beijing  100095
   China

   Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com


   Dhruv Dhody
   Huawei Technologies
   Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
   Bangalore, Karnataka  560066
   India

   Email: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com


   Cyril Margaria
   Juniper
   200 Somerset Corporate Boulevard, , Suite 4001
   Bridgewater, NJ  08807
   USA

   Email: cmargaria@juniper.net


   Colby Barth
   Juniper
   200 Somerset Corporate Boulevard, , Suite 4001
   Bridgewater, NJ  08807
   USA

   Email: cbarth@juniper.net


   Xia Chen
   Huawei Technologies
   Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
   Beijing  100095
   China

   Email: jescia.chenxia@huawei.com






Li, et al.               Expires January 9, 2017               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft                PCEP-FlowSpec                    July 2016


   Shunwan Zhuang
   Huawei Technologies
   Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
   Beijing  100095
   China

   Email: zhuangshunwan@huawei.com












































Li, et al.               Expires January 9, 2017               [Page 18]