Network Working Group C. Margaria, Ed.
Internet-Draft Nokia Siemens Networks
Intended status: Standards Track O. Gonzalez de Dios, Ed.
Expires: April 27, 2011 Telefonica Investigacion y
Desarrollo
F. Zhang, Ed.
Huawei Technologies
October 24, 2010
PCEP extensions for GMPLS
draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-01
Abstract
This memo provides extensions for the Path Computation Element
communication Protocol (PCEP) for the support of GMPLS control plane.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 27, 2011.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
Margaria, et al. Expires April 27, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2010
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. PCEP requirements for GMPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3. PCEP existing objects related to GMPLS . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.4. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2. PCEP objects and extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1. RP object extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2. Traffic parameters encoding, GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH . . . . 9
2.3. Traffic parameters encoding, GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING . 11
2.4. END-POINTS Object extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.4.1. Generalized endpoint Object Type . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.4.2. END-POINTS TLVs extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.5. LABEL-SET object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.6. SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.7. LSPA extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.8. NO-PATH Object Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.8.1. Extensions to NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3. Additional Error Type and Error Values Defined . . . . . . . . 23
4. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.1. PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.2. New PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.3. New PCEP Error Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Margaria, et al. Expires April 27, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2010
1. Introduction
PCEP RFCs [RFC5440], [RFC5521], [RFC5541], [RFC5520] are focused on
path computation requests in MPLS networks. [RFC4655] defines the
PCE framework also for GMPLS networks. This document complements
these RFCs by providing some consideration of GMPLS applications and
routing requests, for example for OTN and WSON networks.
The requirements on PCE extensions to support those characteristics
are described in [I-D.ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req] and
[I-D.ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength].
1.1. Contributing Authors
Elie Sfeir, Franz Rambach (Nokia Siemens Networks) Francisco Javier
Jimenez Chico (Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo) Suresh BR,
Young Lee, SenthilKumar S, Jun Sun (Huawei Technologies), Ramon
Casellas (CTTC)
1.2. PCEP requirements for GMPLS
This section provides a set of PCEP requirements to support GMPLS
LSPs and assure signal compatibility in the path. When requesting a
path computation (PCReq) to PCE, the PCC should be able to indicate,
according to [I-D.ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req] and to RSVP procedures like
explicit label control (ELC), the following additional attributes:
(1) Switching capability: for instance PSC1-4, L2SC, TDM, LSC, FSC
(2) Encoding type: as defined in [RFC4202], [RFC4203], e.g.,
Ethernet, SONET/SDH, Lambda, etc.
(3) Signal Type: Indicates the type of elementary signal that
constitutes the requested LSP. A lot of signal types with
different granularity have been defined in SONET/SDH and G.709
ODUk, such as VC11, VC12, VC2, VC3 and VC4 in SDH, and ODU1, ODU2
and ODU3 in G.709 ODUk [RFC4606], [RFC4328] and other signal types
like the one defined in [I-D.ceccarelli-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709] or
[I-D.zhang-ccamp-gmpls-evolving-g709] .
(4) Concatenation Type: In SDH/SONET and G.709 OTN networks, two
kinds of concatenation modes are defined: contiguous concatenation
which requires co-route for each member signal and requires all
the interfaces along the path to support this capability, and
virtual concatenation which allows diverse routes for the member
signals and only requires the ingress and egress interfaces to
support this capability. Note that for the virtual concatenation,
it also may specify co-routed or separated-routed. See [RFC4606]
Margaria, et al. Expires April 27, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2010
and [RFC4328] about concatenation information.
(5) Concatenation Number: Indicates the number of signals that are
requested to be contiguously or virtually concatenated. See also
[RFC4606] and [RFC4328].
(6) Technology specific label(s) such as wavelength label as
defined in [I-D.ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels]
(7) e2e Path protection type: as defined in [RFC4872], e.g., 1+1
protection, 1:1 protection, (pre-planned) rerouting, etc.
(8) Link Protection type: as defined in [RFC4203]
(9) Support for unnumbered interfaces: as defined in [RFC3477]
(10) Support for asymmetric bandwidth requests.
(11) Indicate the requested granularity for the path ERO: node,
link, label to allow the use of the explicit/suggested label
control of RSVP.
We describe in this document a proposal to fulfill those
requirements.
1.3. PCEP existing objects related to GMPLS
PCEP as of [RFC5440], [RFC5521] and [I-D.ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext],
supports the following information (in the PCReq and PCRep) related
to the described requirements.
From [RFC5440]:
o numbered endpoints
o bandwidth (encoded as IEEE float)
o ERO
o LSP attributes (setup and holding priorities)
o Request attribute (include some LSP attributes)
From [RFC5521]:
o Extensions to PCEP for Route Exclusions, definition of a XRO
object and a new semantic (F bit or Fail bit) indicating that the
existing route is failed and resources present in the RRO can be
Margaria, et al. Expires April 27, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2010
reused. This object also allows to exclude (strict or not)
resources; XRO include the diversity level (node, link, SRLG).
The requested diversity is expressed in the XRO.
From [I-D.ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext]:
o INTER-LAYER : indicates if inter-layer computation is allowed
o SWITCH-LAYER : indicates which layer(s) should be considered, can
be used to represent the RSVP-TE generalized label request
o REQ-ADAP-CAP : indicates the adaptation capabilities requested,
can also be used for the endpoints in case of mono-layer
computation
The shortcomings of the existing PCEP information are:
The BANDWIDTH and LOAD-BALANCING objects do not describe the
details of the traffic request (for example NVC, multiplier) in
the context of GMPLS networks, for instance TDM or OTN networks.
The END-POINTS object does not allow specifying an unnumbered
interface, nor the labels on the interface. Those parameters are
of interest in case of switching constraints.
Current attributes do not allow to express the requested link level
protection and end-to-end protection attributes.
The covered PCEP extensions are:
New objects are introduced (GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH and GENERALIZED-
LOAD-BALANCING) for flexible bandwidth encoding,
A new object type is introduced for the END-POINTS object
(generalized-endpoint),
A new TLV is added to the LSPA object.
In order to allow to restrict the range of labels returned, an
additional object is added: LABEL-SET
In order to indicate the mandatory routing granularity in the
response, a new flag in the RP object is added.
Margaria, et al. Expires April 27, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2010
1.4. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.
Margaria, et al. Expires April 27, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2010
2. PCEP objects and extensions
This section describes the required PCEP objects and extensions. The
PCReq and PCRep messages are defined in [RFC5440]. The format of the
request and response messages with the proposed extensions
(GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH, SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET and LABEL-SET) is as
follows:
<request>::= <RP>
<segment-computation>|<path-key-expansion>
<segment-computation> ::=
<ENDPOINTS>
[<LSPA>]
[<BANDWIDTH>]
[<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>]
[<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>]
[<metric-list>]
[<OF>]
<RRO>[<BANDWIDTH>]
[<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>]
[<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>]
[<IRO>]
[<SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET>]
[<LABEL-SET>]
[<LOAD-BALANCING>]
[<GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING>]
[<GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING>]
[<XRO>]
<path-key-expansion> ::= <PATH-KEY>
<response>::=<RP>
[<NO-PATH>]
[<attribute-list>]
[<path-list>]
<path-list>::=<path>[<path-list>]
<path>::= <ERO><attribute-list>
<metric-list>::=<METRIC>[<metric-list>]
For point-to-multipoint(P2MP) computations, the proposed grammar is:
Margaria, et al. Expires April 27, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2010
<segment-computation> ::=
<end-point-rro-pair-list>
[<LSPA>]
[<BANDWIDTH>]
[<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>][<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>]
[<metric-list>]
[<IRO>]
[<SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET>]
[<LABEL-SET>]
[<LOAD-BALANCING>]
[<GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING>]
[<GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING>]
[<XRO>]
<end-point-rro-pair-list>::=
<END-POINTS>[<RRO-List>][<BANDWIDTH>]
[<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>]
[<end-point-rro-pair-list>]
<RRO-List>::=<RRO>[<BANDWIDTH>]
[< GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>][<RRO-List>]
Where:
<attribute-list>::=[<LSPA>]
[<BANDWIDTH>]
[<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>]
[<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>]
[<metric-list>]
[<IRO>]
2.1. RP object extension
Explicit label control (ELC) is a procedure supported by RSVP-TE,
where the outgoing label(s) is(are) encoded in the ERO. In
consequence, the PCE may be able to provide such label(s) directly in
the path ERO. The PCC, depending on policies or switching layer, may
be required to use explicit label control or expect explicit link,
thus it need to indicate in the PCEReq which granularity it is
expecting in the ERO. The possible granularities can be node, link,
label. Those granularities are dependent, i.e link granularity imply
that the nodes are provided, label granularity that the links and
nodes are provided in the ERO
A new 2-bit routing granularity (RG) flag is defined in the RP object
(IANA suggestion : bit 17 and 16). The values are defined as follows
Margaria, et al. Expires April 27, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2010
00 : node
01 : link
02 : label
03 : reserved
When the RP object appears in a request within a PCReq message the
flag indicates the requested route granularity. The PCE SHOULD try
to follow this granularity and MAY return a NO-PATH if the requested
granularity cannot be provided. The PCE MAY return more details on
the route based on its policy. The PCC can decide if the ERO is
acceptable based on its content.
When the RP object appears in a response within a PCRep message the
flag indicates the granularity provided in the response. The PCE MAY
indicates the granularity of the returned ERO. The RG flag is
backward-compatible with previous RFCs: the value sent by
implementation not supporting it will indicate a node granularity.
this flag is optional for responses. A new capability flag in the
PCE-CAP-FLAGS from RFC [RFC5088] and [RFC5089] may be added.
2.2. Traffic parameters encoding, GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH
The PCEP BANDWIDTH does not describe the details of the signal (for
example NVC, multiplier), hence the bandwidth information should be
extended to use the RSVP Tspec object encoding. The PCEP BANDWIDTH
object defines two types: 1 and 2. C-Type 2 is representing the
existing bandwidth in case of re-optimization.
The following possibilities cannot be represented in the BANDWIDTH
object:
o Asymmetric bandwidth (different bandwidth in forward and reverse
direction), as described in [RFC5467]
o GMPLS (SDH/SONET, G.709, ATM, MEF etc) parameters are not
supported.
According to [RFC5440] the BANDWIDTH object has no TLV and has a
fixed size of 4 bytes. This definition does not allows extending it
with the required information. To express this information, a new
Object named GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH having the following format is
defined:
Margaria, et al. Expires April 27, 2011 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2010
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Traffic Spec Length | Reserved |R|O|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Traffic Spec |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Optional TLVs ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH has a variable length. The Traffic spec
length field indicate the length of the Traffic spec field. The bits
R and O have the following meaning:
O bit : set when the value refer to the previous bandwidth in case
of re-optimization
R bit : set when the value refer to the bandwidth of the reverse
direction
The Object type determines which type of bandwidth is represented by
the object. The following object types are defined:
1. Intserv
2. SONET/SDH
3. G.709
4. Ethernet
The encoding of the field Traffic Spec is the same as in RSVP-TE, it
can be found in the following references.
Margaria, et al. Expires April 27, 2011 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2010
Object Type Name Reference
0 Reserved
1 Reserved
2 Intserv [RFC2210]
3 Reserved
4 SONET/SDH [RFC4606]
5 G.709 [RFC4328]
6 Ethernet [RFC6003]
Traffic Spec field encoding
The GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH MAY appear more than once in a PCReq
message. If more than one GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH have the same Object
Type, Reserved, R and O values, only the first one is processed, the
others are ignored. On the response the object that were considered
in the processing SHOULD be included.
When a PCC needs to get a bi-directional path with asymmetric
bandwidth, it SHOULD specify the different bandwidth in forward and
reverse directions through two separate GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH
objects. The PCE MUST compute a path that satisfies the asymmetric
bandwidth constraint and return the path to PCC if the path
computation is successful.
Optional TLVs may be included within the object body to specify more
specific BW requirements. The specification of such TLVs is outside
the scope of this document.
2.3. Traffic parameters encoding, GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING
The PCEP LOAD-BALANCING follows the bandwidth encoding of the
BANDWIDTH object, it does not describe enough details for the traffic
specification expected by GMPLS, hence this bandwidth information
should be extended to use the RSVP Tspec object encoding.
According to [RFC5440] the LOAD-BALANCING object has no TLV and has a
fixed size of 8 bytes. This definition does not allows extending it
with the required information. To express this information, a new
Object named GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING is defined
The GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING object is optional.
Margaria, et al. Expires April 27, 2011 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2010
GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING Object-Class is To be assigned by IANA.
The format of the GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING object body is as
follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Traffic spec length | Flags |R| Max-LSP |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Min Traffic Spec |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Optional TLVs ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Traffic spec length (16 bits): the length of the min traffic spec
length, also including the eventual TLV present in RSVP-TE traffic
specification.
Flags (8 bits): The undefined Flags field MUST be set to zero on
transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt. The following flag is
defined:
R Flag : (1 bit) set when the value refer to the bandwidth of the
reverse direction
Max-LSP (8 bits): maximum number of TE LSPs in the set.
Min-Traffic spec (variable): Specifies the minimum traffic spec of
each element of the set of TE LSPs.
The GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING has a variable length. The Object
type determines which type of minimum bandwidth is represented by the
object. The following object types are defined:
1. Intserv
2. SONET/SDH
3. G.709
4. Ethernet
The encoding of the field Traffic Spec is the same as in RSVP-TE, it
can be found in the following references.
Margaria, et al. Expires April 27, 2011 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2010
Object Type Name Reference
2 Intserv [RFC2210]
4 SONET/SDH [RFC4606]
5 G.709 [RFC4328]
6 Ethernet [RFC6003]
Traffic Spec field encoding
The GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING MAY appear more than once in a PCReq
message. If more than one GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING have the same
Object Type, and R Flag, only the first one is processed, the others
are ignored. On the response the object that were considered in the
processing SHOULD be included.
When a PCC needs to get a bi-directional path with asymmetric
bandwidth, it SHOULD specify the different bandwidth in forward and
reverse directions through two separate GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING
objects with different R Flag. The PCE MUST compute a path that
satisfies the asymmetric bandwidth constraint and return the path to
PCC if the path computation is successful.
Optional TLVs may be included within the object body to specify more
specific bandwidth requirements. The specification of such TLVs is
outside the scope of this document.
The GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING object has the same semantic as the
LOAD-BALANCING object, If a PCC requests the computation of a set of
TE LSPs so that the total of their generalized bandwidth is X, the
maximum number of TE LSPs is N, and each TE LSP must at least have a
bandwidth of B, it inserts a GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH object specifying
X as the required bandwidth and a GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING object
with the Max-LSP and Min-traffic spec fields set to N and B,
respectively.
For example a request for one co-signaled VCAT members will not use
the GENERALIZEd-LOAD-BALANCING. In case the VCAT member can be
diversely routed, the GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH will contain a traffic
specification indicating the complete VCAT group and the GENERALIZED-
LOAD-BALANCING the minimum co-signaled members. For a SDH network, a
request to have a VC4 VCAT group with 10 VC4 container, diversely
routed with 2VC4 container on each path minimum, can be represented
with a GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH object with OT=4, the content of the
Traffic specification is ST=6,RCC=0,NCC=0,NVC=10,MT=1. The
GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING, OT=4,R=0,Max-LSP=5, min Traffic spec is
Margaria, et al. Expires April 27, 2011 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2010
(ST=6,RCC=0,NCC=0,NVC=2,MT=1). The PCE can respond with a response
with maximum 5 path, each of then having a GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH
OT=4,R=0, and traffic spec matching the minimum traffic spec from the
GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING object of the corresponding request
2.4. END-POINTS Object extensions
The END-POINTS object is used in a PCReq message to specify the
source and destination of the path for which a path computation is
requested. From [RFC3471] the source IP address and the destination
IP address are used to identify those. A new Object Type is defined
to address the following possibilities:
o Different endpoint types.
o Label restrictions on the endpoint.
o Specification of unnumbered endpoints type as seen in GMPLS
networks.
The Object encoding is described in the following sections.
2.4.1. Generalized endpoint Object Type
In GMPLS context the endpoints can:
o Be unnumbered
o Have label(s) associated to them
o May have different switching capabilities
The IPV4 and IPV6 endpoints are used to represent the source and
destination IP addresses. The scope of the IP address (Node or Link)
is not explicitly stated. It should also be possible to request a
Path between a numbered link and an unnumbered link, or a P2MP path
between different type of endpoints.
Since the PCEP ENDPOINTS object only support endpoints of the same
type new C-Types are proposed that support different endpoint types,
including unnumbered. This new C-Type also supports the
specification of constraints on the endpoint label to be use. The
PCE might know the interface restrictions but this is not a
requirement. On the path calculation request only the TSPEC and
SWITCH layer need to be coherent, the endpoint labels could be
different (supporting a different TSPEC). Hence the label
restrictions include a Generalized label request in order to
interpret the labels.
Margaria, et al. Expires April 27, 2011 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2010
The proposed object format consists of a body and a list of TLVs with
the following defined TLVs (described in Section 2.4.2).
1. IPV4 address.
2. IPV6 address.
3. Unnumbered endpoint.
4. Label request.
5. Label.
6. Label set.
7. Suggested label set.
The Object is encoded as follow:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | endpoint type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ TLVs ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Reserved bits should be set to 0 when a message is sent and ignored
when the message is received
the endpoint type is defined as follow:
Margaria, et al. Expires April 27, 2011 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2010
Value Type Meaning
0 Point-to-Point
1 Point-to-Multipoint New leaves to add
2 Old leaves to remove
3 Old leaves whose path can be
modified/reoptimized
4 Old leaves whose path must be left
unchanged
5-32767 Reserved
32768-65535 Experimental range
Endpoint type 0 MUST be accepted by the PCE, other endpoint type MAY
be supported if the PCE implementation supports P2MP path
calculation. The TLVs present in the object body should follow the
following grammar:
<generalized-endpoint-tlvs>::=
<p2p-endpoints> | <p2mp-endpoints>
<p2p-endpoints> ::=
<endpoint>
[<endpoint-restrictions>]
<endpoint>
[<endpoint-restrictions>]
<p2mp-endpoints> ::=
<endpoint> [<endpoint-restrictions>]
[<endpoint> [<endpoint-restrictions>] ...]
Private TLV MAY be inserted at any place and SHOULD be ignored if not
supported by the PCE
For endpoint type Point-to-Point the first endpoint and optional
endpoint-restriction is the ingress endpoint. The second endpoint
and optional endpoint-restriction is the egress endpoint The further
endpoint and endpoint-restriction are ignored
For endpoint type Point-to-Multipoint several endpoint objects may be
present in the message and represent a leave, exact meaning depend on
the endpoint type defined of the object.
Margaria, et al. Expires April 27, 2011 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2010
An endpoint is defined as follow:
<endpoint>::=<IPV4-ADDRESS>|<IPV6-ADDRESS>|<UNNUMBERED-ENDPOINT>
<endpoint-restrictions> ::= <LABEL-REQUEST><label-restriction>
[<endpoint-restrictions>]
<label-restriction> ::= ((<LABEL><UPSTREAM-LABEL>)|
<LABEL-SET>|
<SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET>)
[<label-restriction>]
2.4.2. END-POINTS TLVs extensions
2.4.2.1. IPV4-ADDRESS
The format of the END-POINTS TLV object for IPv4 (TLV-Type=To be
assigned) 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
2.4.2.2. IPV6-ADDRESS TLV
The format of the END-POINTS TLV object for IPv6 (TLV-Type=To be
assigned) 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 address (16 bytes) |
| |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
2.4.2.3. UNNUMBERED-ENDPOINT TLV
This TLV represent an unnumbered interface. This TLV has the same
semantic as in [RFC3477]
Margaria, et al. Expires April 27, 2011 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2010
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LSR's Router ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interface ID (32 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
2.4.2.4. LABEL-REQUEST TLV
The LABEL-REQUEST indicate the and encoding of the LABEL restriction
present in the ENDPOINTS its format is the same as described in
[RFC3471] Section 3.1 Generalized label request
2.4.2.5. LABELS TLV
Label or label range may be specified for the TE-LSP endpoints.
Those are encoded in the TLVs. The label value cannot be interpreted
without a description on the Encoding and switching type. The REQ-
ADAP-CAP object from [I-D.ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext] can be used in
case of mono-layer request, however in case of multilayer it is
possible to have in the future more than one object, so it is better
to have a dedicated TLV for the label (the scope is then more clear).
TLVs are encoded as follow (following [RFC5440]) :
o LABEL TLV, Type = TBA by IANA, Length is variable, Encoding is as
[RFC3471] Section 3.2 Generalized label. This represent the
downstream label
o UPSTEAM-LABEL TLV , Type = TBA by IANA, Length is variable,
Encoding is as [RFC3471] Section 3.2 Generalized label. This
represent the upstream label
o LABEL-SET TLV, Type = TBA by IANA , Length is variable, Encoding
follow :[RFC3471] Section 3.5 Label set with the addition of a U
bit, the U bit is set for upstream direction in case of
bidirectional LSP.
Margaria, et al. Expires April 27, 2011 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2010
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Action | Reserved |U| Label Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Subchannel 1 |
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: : :
: : :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Subchannel N |
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
o SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET TLV Set, Type = TBA by IANA, Length is
variable, Encoding is as Label Set.
A LABEL TLV represent the label used on the unnumbered interface,
bits I and U are used to indicate which exact unnumbered interface/
direction is considered. the fields are encoded as in the RSVP-TE.
The Encoding Type indicates the encoding type, e.g., SONET/SDH/GigE
etc., that will be used with the data associated with the LSP. The
Switching type indicates the type of switching that is being
requested on the link. G-PID identifies the payload of the TE-LSP.
The label type indicates which type of label (2) for generalized
label is carried. A LABEL-SET TLV represents a set of possible
labels that can be used on the unnumbered interface. The action
parameter in the Label set indicates the type of list provided.
Those parameters are described by [RFC3471] A SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET TLV
has the same encoding as the LABEL-SET TLV, it includes the preferred
(ordered) set of label to be used.
The U bit has the following meaning:
U: Upstream direction: set when the label or label set is in the
reverse direction
2.4.2.6. Private TLVs
The format of the private TLV object is described as follow:
Margaria, et al. Expires April 27, 2011 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2010
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SMI entreprise code |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ data ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The length is at minimum 4 bytes.
2.5. LABEL-SET object
The LABEL-SET object is carried in a request within a PCReq message
to restrict the set of labels to be assigned during the path
computation. Any label included in the ERO object on the response
must comply with the restrictions stated in the LABEL-SET, whose
encoding is defined as following
<LABEL-SET-OBJECT> ::= <LABEL-REQUEST><LABEL-SET>[<LABEL-SET>]
The LABEL-REQUEST and LABEL-SET TLVs are as defined in
Section 2.4.2.5, See also [RFC3471] and [RFC3473] for the definitions
of the fields.
It is allowed to have more than one LABEL-SET object per request
within a PCReq message (for example in case of multiple SWITCH-LAYER
present).
In the case of unsuccessful path computation the LABEL-SET object MAY
be used to indicate the set of constraint that could not be
satisfied.
2.6. SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET object
The SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET object is carried within a PCReq or PCRep
message to indicate the preferred set of labels to be assigned during
the path computation. The encoding is the same as the LABEL-SET
object. It is allowed to have more than one SUGGESTED LABEL-SET
object per PCReq (for example in case of multiple SWITCH-LAYER
present).
Margaria, et al. Expires April 27, 2011 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2010
2.7. LSPA extensions
The LSPA carries the LSP attributes. In the end-to-end protection
context this also includes the protection state information. The
LSPA object can be extended by a protection TLV type: Type TBA by
IANA: protection attribute
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|S|P|N|O| Reserved | LSP Flags | Reserved | Link Flags|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|I|R| Reserved | Seg.Flags | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The content is as defined in [RFC4872], [RFC4873].
LSP Flags can be considered for routing policy based on the
protection type. The other attributes are only meaningful for a
stateful PCE.
2.8. NO-PATH Object Extension
The NO-PATH object is used in PCRep messages in response to an
unsuccessful path computation request (the PCE could not find a path
by satisfying the set of constraints). In this scenario, PCE MUST
include a NO-PATH object in the PCRep message. The NO-PATH object
carries the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV that specifies more information on the
reasons that led to a negative reply. In case of GMPLS networks
there could be some more additional constraints that led to the
failure like protection mismatch, lack of resources, and so on. Few
new flags have been introduced in the 32-bit flag field of the NO-
PATH-VECTOR TLV and no modifications have been made in the NO-PATH
object.
2.8.1. Extensions to NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV
The current NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV carry the following information:
Bit number 31 - PCE currently unavailable [RFC5440]
Bit number 30 - Unknown destination [RFC5440]
Bit number 29 - Unknown source [RFC5440]
Margaria, et al. Expires April 27, 2011 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2010
Bit number 28 - BRPC Path computation chain unavailable [RFC5440]
Bit number 27 - PKS expansion failure [RFC5520]
Bit number 26 - No GCO migration path found [RFC5557]
Bit number 25 - No GCO solution found [RFC5557]
Bit number 24 - P2MP Reachability Problem [RFC5440]
The modified NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV carrying the additional information
is as follows: New fields PM and NR are defined in the 23th and 22th
bit of the Flags field respectively.
Bit number 23 (TBA by IANA) - Protection Mismatch (1-bit).
Specifies the mismatch of the protection type in the request.
Bit number 22 (TBA by IANA) - No Resource (1-bit). Specifies that
the resources are not currently sufficient to provide the path.
Bit number 21 (TBA by IANA) - Granularity not supported (1-bit).
Specifies that the PCE is not able to provide a route with the
requested granularity.
Margaria, et al. Expires April 27, 2011 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2010
3. Additional Error Type and Error Values Defined
A PCEP-ERROR object is used to report a PCEP error and is
characterized by an Error-Type that specifies the type of error and
an Error-value that provides additional information about the error
type. An additional error type and few error values are defined to
represent some of the errors related to the newly identified objects
related to SDH networks. For each PCEP error, an Error-Type and an
Error-value are defined. Error-Type 1 to 10 are already defined in
[RFC5440]. Additional Error- values are defined for Error-Type 10
and A new Error-Type 14 is introduced.
Error-Type Error-value
10 Reception of an
invalid object
Error-value=1: Bad Generalized Bandwidth Object value.
Error-value=2: Unsupported LSP Protection Type in
protection attribute TLV.
Error-value=3: Unsupported LSP Protection Flags in
protection attribute TLV.
Error-value=4: Unsupported Secondary LSP Protection
Flags in protection attribute TLV.
Error-value=5: Unsupported Link Protection Type in
protection attribute TLV.
Error-value=6: Unsupported Link Protection Type in
protection attribute TLV.
14 Path computation
failure
Error-value=1: Unacceptable request message.
Error-value=2: Generalized bandwidth object not
supported.
Error-value=3: Label Set constraint could not be met.
Error-value=4: Label constraint could not be met.
Error-value=5: Unsupported endpoint type in END-POINTS
GENERALIZED-ENDPOINTS object type
Margaria, et al. Expires April 27, 2011 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2010
Error-value=6: Unsupported TLV present in END-POINTS
GENERALIZED-ENDPOINTS object type
Error-value=7: Unsupported granularity in the RP object
flags
Margaria, et al. Expires April 27, 2011 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2010
4. Manageability Considerations
Liveness Detection and Monitoring This document makes no change to
the basic operation of PCEP and so there are no changes to the
requirements for liveness detection and monitoring set out in
[RFC4657] and [RFC5440].
Margaria, et al. Expires April 27, 2011 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2010
5. IANA Considerations
IANA assigns values to the PCEP protocol objects and TLVs. IANA is
requested to make some allocations for the newly defined objects and
TLVs introduced in this document. Also, IANA is requested to manage
the space of flags that are newly added in the TLVs.
5.1. PCEP Objects
As described in Section 2.2 and Section 2.3new Objects are defined
IANA is requested to make the following Object-Type allocations from
the "PCEP Objects" sub-registry:
Object Class to be assigned
Name GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH
Object-Type 0 to 6
Reference This document (section Section 2.2)
Object Class to be assigned
Name GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING
Object-Type 0 to 6
Reference This document (section Section 2.3)
As described in Section 2.4.1 a new Object type is defined IANA is
requested to make the following Object-Type allocations from the
"PCEP Objects" sub-registry:
Object Class 4
Name END-POINTS
Object-Type 5 : Generalized Endpoint
6-15 : unassigned
Reference This document (section Section 2.2)
Margaria, et al. Expires April 27, 2011 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2010
5.2. New PCEP TLVs
IANA is requested to create a registry for the following TLVs:
Value Meaning Reference
x IPV4 endpoint This document (section
Section 2.4.2.1)
x IPV6 endpoint This document (section
Section 2.4.2.2)
x Unnumbered endpoint This document (section
Section 2.4.2.3)
x Label request This document (section
Section 2.4.2.4)
x Requested GMPLS Label This document (section
Section 2.4.2.5)
x Requested GMPLS Upstream This document (section
Label Section 2.4.2.5)
x Requested GMPLS Label Set This document (section
Section 2.4.2.5)
x Suggested GMPLS Label Set This document (section
Section 2.4.2.5)
x LSP Protection Information This document (section Section 2.7)
5.3. New PCEP Error Codes
As described in Section Section 3, new PCEP Error-Type and Error
Values are defined. IANA is requested to manage the code space of
the Error object.
Margaria, et al. Expires April 27, 2011 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2010
Error-Type Error-value
10 Reception of an
invalid object
Error-value=1: Bad Generalized Bandwidth Object value.
Error-value=2: Unsupported LSP Protection Type in
protection attribute TLV.
Error-value=3: Unsupported LSP Protection Flags in
protection attribute TLV.
Error-value=4: Unsupported Secondary LSP Protection
Flags in protection attribute TLV.
Error-value=5: Unsupported Link Protection Type in
protection attribute TLV.
Error-value=6: Unsupported Link Protection Type in
protection attribute TLV.
14 Path computation
failure
Error-value=1: Unacceptable request message.
Error-value=2: Generalized bandwidth object not
supported.
Error-value=3: Label Set constraint could not be met.
Error-value=4: Label constraint could not be met.
Error-value=5: Unsupported endpoint type in END-POINTS
GENERALIZED-ENDPOINTS object type
Error-value=6: Unsupported TLV present in END-POINTS
GENERALIZED-ENDPOINTS object type
Error-value=7: Unsupported granularity in the RP object
flags
Margaria, et al. Expires April 27, 2011 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2010
6. Security Considerations
None.
Margaria, et al. Expires April 27, 2011 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2010
7. Contributing Authors
Nokia Siemens Networks:
Elie Sfeir
St Martin Strasse 76
Munich, 81541
Germany
Phone: +49 89 5159 16159
Email: elie.sfeir@nsn.com
Franz Rambach
St Martin Strasse 76
Munich, 81541
Germany
Phone: +49 89 5159 31188
Email: franz.rambach@nsn.com
Francisco Javier Jimenez Chico
Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo
C/ Emilio Vargas 6
Madrid, 28043
Spain
Phone: +34 91 3379037
Email: fjjc@tid.es
Huawei Technologies
Suresh BR
Shenzhen
China
Email: sureshbr@huawei.com
Young Lee
1700 Alma Drive, Suite 100
Plano, TX 75075
USA
Phone: (972) 509-5599 (x2240)
Email: ylee@huawei.com
SenthilKumar S
Shenzhen
China
Email: senthilkumars@huawei.com
Margaria, et al. Expires April 27, 2011 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2010
Jun Sun
Shenzhen
China
Email: johnsun@huawei.com
CTTC - Centre Tecnologic de Telecomunicacions de Catalunya
Ramon Casellas
PMT Ed B4 Av. Carl Friedrich Gauss 7
08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona)
Spain
Phone: (34) 936452916
Email: ramon.casellas@cttc.es
Margaria, et al. Expires April 27, 2011 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2010
8. Acknowledgments
The research of Ramon Casellas, Francisco Javier Jimenez Chico, Oscar
Gonzalez de Dios, Cyril Margaria, and Franz Rambach leading to these
results has received funding from the European Community's Seventh
Framework Programme FP7/2007-2013 under grant agreement n. 247674.
Margaria, et al. Expires April 27, 2011 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2010
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2210] Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated
Services", RFC 2210, September 1997.
[RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471,
January 2003.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC3477] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered Links
in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, January 2003.
[RFC4202] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Routing Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005.
[RFC4203] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "OSPF Extensions in Support
of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)",
RFC 4203, October 2005.
[RFC4328] Papadimitriou, D., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical
Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328, January 2006.
[RFC4606] Mannie, E. and D. Papadimitriou, "Generalized Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for
Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous
Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control", RFC 4606, August 2006.
[RFC4872] Lang, J., Rekhter, Y., and D. Papadimitriou, "RSVP-TE
Extensions in Support of End-to-End Generalized Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery", RFC 4872,
May 2007.
[RFC4873] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., and A. Farrel,
"GMPLS Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, May 2007.
[RFC5088] Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., Ikejiri, Y., and R. Zhang,
Margaria, et al. Expires April 27, 2011 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2010
"OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element
(PCE) Discovery", RFC 5088, January 2008.
[RFC5089] Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., Ikejiri, Y., and R. Zhang,
"IS-IS Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element
(PCE) Discovery", RFC 5089, January 2008.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP. and JL. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element
(PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
March 2009.
[RFC5520] Bradford, R., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel, "Preserving
Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path Computation
Using a Path-Key-Based Mechanism", RFC 5520, April 2009.
[RFC5521] Oki, E., Takeda, T., and A. Farrel, "Extensions to the
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for
Route Exclusions", RFC 5521, April 2009.
[RFC5541] Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., and Y. Lee, "Encoding of
Objective Functions in the Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5541, June 2009.
[RFC5557] Lee, Y., Le Roux, JL., King, D., and E. Oki, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Requirements and Protocol Extensions in Support of Global
Concurrent Optimization", RFC 5557, July 2009.
[RFC6003] Papadimitriou, D., "Ethernet Traffic Parameters",
RFC 6003, October 2010.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ceccarelli-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709]
Ceccarelli, D., Caviglia, D., Zhang, F., Li, D., Xu, Y.,
Belotti, S., Grandi, P., and J. Drake, "Traffic
Engineering Extensions to OSPF for Generalized MPLS
(GMPLS) Control of Evolving G.709 OTN Networks",
draft-ceccarelli-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709-04 (work in
progress), October 2010.
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels]
Otani, T., Rabbat, R., Shiba, S., Guo, H., Miyazaki, K.,
Caviglia, D., Li, D., and T. Tsuritani, "Generalized
Labels for Lambda-Switching Capable Label Switching
Routers", draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels-07
(work in progress), April 2010.
Margaria, et al. Expires April 27, 2011 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2010
[I-D.ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req]
Otani, T., Ogaki, K., Caviglia, D., and F. Zhang,
"Document: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-03.txt",
draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-03 (work in progress),
October 2010.
[I-D.ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext]
Oki, E., Takeda, T., Roux, J., and A. Farrel, "Extensions
to the Path Computation Element communication Protocol
(PCEP) for Inter-Layer MPLS and GMPLS Traffic
Engineering", draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext-04 (work in
progress), July 2010.
[I-D.ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength]
Lee, Y., Bernstein, G., Martensson, J., Takeda, T., and T.
Tsuritani, "PCEP Requirements for WSON Routing and
Wavelength Assignment",
draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-02 (work in
progress), August 2010.
[I-D.zhang-ccamp-gmpls-evolving-g709]
Zhang, F., Zhang, G., Belotti, S., Ceccarelli, D., Lin,
Y., Xu, Y., Grandi, P., and D. Caviglia, "Generalized
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling
Extensions for the evolving G.709 Optical Transport
Networks Control",
draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-evolving-g709-06 (work in
progress), October 2010.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006.
[RFC4657] Ash, J. and J. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element (PCE)
Communication Protocol Generic Requirements", RFC 4657,
September 2006.
[RFC5467] Berger, L., Takacs, A., Caviglia, D., Fedyk, D., and J.
Meuric, "GMPLS Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional Label
Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 5467, March 2009.
Margaria, et al. Expires April 27, 2011 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS October 2010
Authors' Addresses
Cyril Margaria (editor)
Nokia Siemens Networks
St Martin Strasse 76
Munich, 81541
Germany
Phone: +49 89 5159 16934
Email: cyril.margaria@nsn.com
Oscar Gonzalez de Dios (editor)
Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo
C/ Emilio Vargas 6
Madrid, 28043
Spain
Phone: +34 91 3374013
Email: ogondio@tid.es
Fatai Zhang (editor)
Huawei Technologies
F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base
Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen, 518129
P.R.China
Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com
Margaria, et al. Expires April 27, 2011 [Page 36]