LSP Object Flag field of Stateful PCE
draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Quan Xiong | ||
| Last updated | 2019-11-26 | ||
| Replaced by | draft-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags, draft-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags, draft-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags, RFC 9357 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-00
PCE Q. Xiong
Internet-Draft ZTE Corporation
Updates: 8231 (if approved) November 26, 2019
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: May 29, 2020
LSP Object Flag field of Stateful PCE
draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-00
Abstract
RFC8231 describes a set of extensions to PCEP to enable stateful
control of MPLS-TE and GMPLS Label Switched Paths(LSPs) via PCEP.
One of the extensions is the LSP object which includes a Flag field
and the length is 12 bits. However, 11 bits of the Flag field has
been assigned in RFC8231, RFC8281 and RFC8623 respectively.
This document updates RFC8231 by defining a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV
for LSP object to extend the length of the flag.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 29, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
Xiong Expires May 29, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LSP Object Flag field of Stateful PCE November 2019
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Flag Field in LSP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. The LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.1. LSP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.2. PCEP-Error Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction
[RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP)
which is used between a Path Computation Element (PCE) and a Path
Computation Client (PCC) (or other PCE) to enable computation of
Multi-protocol Label Switching (MPLS) for Traffic Engineering Label
Switched Path (TE LSP).
PCEP Extensions for the Stateful PCE Model [RFC8231] describes a set
of extensions to PCEP to enable active control of MPLS-TE and
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) tunnels. One of the extensions is the LSP
object which includes a Flag field and the length is 12 bits.However,
11 bits of the Flag field has been assigned in RFC8231, RFC8281 and
RFC8623 respectively.
This document updates RFC8231 by defining a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV
for LSP object to extend the length of the flag.
2. Conventions used in this document
2.1. Terminology
The terminology is defined as [RFC5440] and [RFC8231].
Xiong Expires May 29, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LSP Object Flag field of Stateful PCE November 2019
2.2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. Update
3.1. Flag Field in LSP Object
As Figure 1 shows, the LSP Object is defined in Section 7.3 of
[RFC8231]. The LSP object contains a flag field indicating to a PCE
that the LSP State Synchronization is in progress.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PLSP-ID | Flag |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// TLVs //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Flag field in LSP Object
As defined in [RFC8231], the length of LSP Object Flag field is 12
bits and it defined the value from bit 5 to bit 11. The bits from 1
to 3 are assigned in [RFC8623], the bit value 4 is used in [RFC8281].
The details of the flag field and assigned bits are shown as follows.
Xiong Expires May 29, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LSP Object Flag field of Stateful PCE November 2019
+---------+----------------------+-------------+
| Value | Name | Reference |
+---------+----------------------+-------------+
| 1 | ERO-compression | RFC8623 |
| 2 | Fragmentation | RFC8623 |
| 3 | P2MP | RFC8623 |
| 4 | Create | RFC8281 |
| 5-7 | Operational (3 bits) | RFC8231 |
| 8 | Administrative | RFC8231 |
| 9 | Remove | RFC8231 |
| 10 | SYNC | RFC8231 |
| 11 | Delegate | RFC8231 |
+---------+----------------------+-------------+
Table 1
3.2. The LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV
All bits of the flag has been assigned except bit 0. This document
proposes to define a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV for LSP object to
extend the length of the flag as the Figure 2 shown.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type=TBD | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Extended Flag |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV Format
Extended Flag (32 bits), starting from the least significant bit.
The bit 0 SHOULD be reserved. Other unassigned bits are reserved for
future uses. They MUST be set to 0 on transmission and MUST be
ignored on receipt.
The LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG MUST be included in the LSP object when the bit
0 of the Flag field carried in the LSP object set to 1. If the TLV
is missing, the PCE will generate an error with Error-type=6
(Mandatory Object missing) and error-value TBD (LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV
missing) and close the session.
Xiong Expires May 29, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LSP Object Flag field of Stateful PCE November 2019
4. Security Considerations
TBA
5. Acknowledgements
TBA
6. IANA Considerations
6.1. LSP Object
[RFC8231] defines the LSP object; per that RFC, IANA created a
registry to manage the value of the LSP object's Flag field. IANA is
requested to make allocations from the registry, as follows:
+---------+---------------------------------+------------------+
| Value | Name | Reference |
+---------+---------------------------------+------------------+
| 0 | Indicate the LSP Extended Flag | [this document] |
| TBD | LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV | [this document] |
+---------+---------------------------------+------------------+
Table 2
6.2. PCEP-Error Object
The following error types and error values have been registered
within the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" subregistry of
the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry:
+--------------+------------------------------------+
| Error-Type | Meaning |
+--------------+------------------------------------+
| 6 | Mandatory Object missing |
| | Error-value |
| | TBD: LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV missing |
+--------------+------------------------------------+
Table 3
7. 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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
Xiong Expires May 29, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LSP Object Flag field of Stateful PCE November 2019
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>.
[RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281>.
[RFC8623] Palle, U., Dhody, D., Tanaka, Y., and V. Beeram, "Stateful
Path Computation Element (PCE) Protocol Extensions for
Usage with Point-to-Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths
(LSPs)", RFC 8623, DOI 10.17487/RFC8623, June 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8623>.
Author's Address
Quan Xiong
ZTE Corporation
No.6 Huashi Park Rd
Wuhan, Hubei 430223
China
Email: xiong.quan@zte.com.cn
Xiong Expires May 29, 2020 [Page 6]