Network Working Group C. Margaria, Ed.
Internet-Draft Nokia Siemens Networks
Intended status: Standards Track O. Gonzalez de Dios, Ed.
Expires: September 12, 2011 Telefonica Investigacion y
Desarrollo
F. Zhang, Ed.
Huawei Technologies
March 11, 2011
PCEP extensions for GMPLS
draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-02
Abstract
This memo provides extensions for the Path Computation Element
communication Protocol (PCEP) for the support of GMPLS control plane.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 12, 2011.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
Margaria, et al. Expires September 12, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2011
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.7. LSPA extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.8. NO-PATH Object Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.8.1. Extensions to NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3. Additional Error Type and Error Values Defined . . . . . . . . 23
4. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.1. PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.2. END-POINTS object, Object Type Generalized Endpoint . . . 27
5.3. New PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.4. RP Object Flag Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.5. New PCEP Error Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.6. New NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
7. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Margaria, et al. Expires September 12, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2011
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 September 12, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2011
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) Ability to indicate the requested granularity for the path
ERO: node, link, label. This is to allow the use of the explicit
label control of RSVP.
(12) In order to support the label control the Path computation
response should provide label information matching signaling
capabilities
(13) The PCC should be able to provide label restrictions similar
to RSVP on the requests.
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)
Margaria, et al. Expires September 12, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2011
o Request attribute (include some LSP attributes)
From [RFC5521],Extensions to PCEP for Route Exclusions, definition of
a XRO object and a new semantic (F bit):
o This object also allows to exclude (strict or not) resources; XRO
include the diversity level (node, link, SRLG). The requested
diversity is expressed in the XRO
o This Object with the F bit set indicates that the existing route
is failed and resources present in the RRO can be reused.
From [I-D.ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext]:
o INTER-LAYER : indicates if inter-layer computation is allowed
o SWITCH-LAYER : indicates which layer(s) should be considered, can
be used to represent the RSVP-TE generalized label request
o REQ-ADAP-CAP : indicates the adaptation capabilities requested,
can also be used for the endpoints in case of mono-layer
computation
The shortcomings of the existing PCEP information are:
The BANDWIDTH and LOAD-BALANCING objects do not describe the
details of the traffic request (for example NVC, multiplier) in
the context of GMPLS networks, for instance TDM or OTN networks.
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,
New Objects are introduced (LABEL-SET and SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET) on
order to allow the PCC to restrict/influence the range of labels
returned
A new object type is introduced for the END-POINTS object
(generalized-endpoint),
Margaria, et al. Expires September 12, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2011
A new TLV is added to the LSPA object.
In order to indicate the mandatory routing granularity in the
response, a new flag in the RP object is added.
1.4. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.
Margaria, et al. Expires September 12, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2011
2. PCEP objects and extensions
This section describes the required PCEP objects and extensions. The
PCReq and PCRep messages are defined in [RFC5440]. The format of the
request and response messages with the proposed extensions
(GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH, GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING, SUGGESTED-LABEL-
SET and LABEL-SET) is as follows:
<request>::= <RP>
<segment-computation>|<path-key-expansion>
<segment-computation> ::=
<END-POINTS>
[<LSPA>]
[<BANDWIDTH>]
[<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>]
Where:
Margaria, et al. Expires September 12, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2011
<attribute-list>::=[<LSPA>]
[<BANDWIDTH>]
[<LABEL-SET>...]
[<SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET>...]
[<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>]
[<GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH>]
[<GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING>]
[<GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING>]
[<metric-list>]
[<IRO>]
For point-to-multipoint(P2MP) computations, the proposed grammar is:
<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>]
2.1. RP object extension
Explicit label control (ELC) is a procedure supported by RSVP-TE,
where the outgoing label(s) is(are) encoded in the ERO. In
consequence, the PCE may be able to provide such label(s) directly in
the path ERO. The PCC, depending on policies or switching layer, may
be required to use explicit label control or expect explicit link,
thus it need to indicate in the PCReq which granularity it is
expecting in the ERO. The possible granularities can be node, link,
label. The granularities are inter-dependent, in the sense that link
granularity imply the presence of node information in the
ERO,similarly a label granularity imply that the ERO contain node,
Margaria, et al. Expires September 12, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2011
link and label information.
A new 2-bit routing granularity (RG) flag is defined in the RP
object. The values are defined as follows
0 : node
1 : link
2 : label
3 : reserved
When the RP object appears in a request within a PCReq message the
flag indicates the requested route granularity. The PCE 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
indicate the granularity of the returned ERO. The RG flag is
backward-compatible with previous RFCs: the value sent by an
implementation not supporting it will indicate a node granularity.
This flag is optional for responses. A new capability flag in the
PCE-CAP-FLAGS from [RFC5088] and [RFC5089] may be added.
2.2. Traffic parameters encoding, GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH
The PCEP BANDWIDTH does not describe the details of the signal (for
example NVC, multiplier), hence the bandwidth information should be
extended to use the RSVP Tspec object encoding. The PCEP BANDWIDTH
object defines two types: 1 and 2. C-Type 2 is representing the
existing bandwidth in case of re-optimization.
The following possibilities cannot be represented in the BANDWIDTH
object:
o Asymmetric bandwidth (different bandwidth in forward and reverse
direction), as described in [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 allow extending it
Margaria, et al. Expires September 12, 2011 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2011
with the required information. To express this information, a new
object named GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH having the following format is
defined:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Traffic Spec Length | Reserved |R|O|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Traffic Spec ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Optional TLVs ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH has a variable length. The Traffic spec
length field indicates the length of the Traffic spec field. The
bits R and O have the following meaning:
O bit : when set the value refers to the previous bandwidth in
case of re-optimization
R bit : when set the value refers to the bandwidth of the reverse
direction
The Object type determines which type of bandwidth is represented by
the object. The following object types are defined:
1. Intserv
2. SONET/SDH
3. G.709
4. Ethernet
The encoding of the field Traffic Spec is the same as in RSVP-TE, it
can be found in the following references.
Margaria, et al. Expires September 12, 2011 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2011
Object Type Name Reference
0 Reserved
1 Reserved
2 Intserv [RFC2210]
3 Re served
4 SONET/SDH [RFC4606]
5 G.709 [RFC4328]
6 Ethernet [RFC6003]
Traffic Spec field encoding
The GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH MAY appear more than once in a PCReq
message. If more than one GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH have the same Object
Type, Reserved, R and O values, only the first one is processed, the
others are ignored. On the response the GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH object
that was 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.
PCE MAY return several path based on the request with NVC in the
GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH if the request cannot be fulfilled on one path.
The PCC should check the path applicability to its policy.
Optional TLVs may be included within the object body to specify more
specific bandwidth requirements. The specification of such TLVs is
outside the scope of this document.
2.3. Traffic parameters encoding, GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING
The LOAD-BALANCING object is used to request a set of maximum Max-LSP
TE-LSP having in total the bandwidth specified in BANDWIDTH, each TE-
LSP having a minimum of min-bandwidth bandwidth. The LOAD-BALANCING
follows the bandwidth encoding of the BANDWIDTH object, it does not
describe enough details for the traffic specification expected by
GMPLS. A PCC should be allowed to request a set of TE-LSP also in
case of GMPLS traffic specification.
Margaria, et al. Expires September 12, 2011 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2011
According to [RFC5440] the LOAD-BALANCING object has no TLV and has a
fixed size of 8 bytes. This definition does not allows extending it
with the required information. To express this information, a new
Object named GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING is defined.
The GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING object, as the LOAD-BALANCING object,
allows the PCC to request a set of TE-LSP having in total the
GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH traffic specification with potentially Max-Lsp,
each TE-LSP having a minimum of Min Traffic spec. The GENERALIZED-
LOAD-BALANCING is optional.
GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING Object-Class is to be assigned by IANA.
The GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING Object type determines which type of
minimum bandwidth is represented by the object. The following object
types are defined:
1. Intserv
2. SONET/SDH
3. G.709
4. Ethernet
The GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING has a variable length.
The format of the GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING object body is as
follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Traffic spec length | Flags |R| Max-LSP |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Min Traffic Spec |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Optional TLVs ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Traffic spec length (16 bits): the total length of the min traffic
specification. It should be noted that the RSVP traffic
specification may also include TLV different than the PCEP TLVs.
Flags (8 bits): The undefined Flags field MUST be set to zero on
transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt. The following flag is
defined:
Margaria, et al. Expires September 12, 2011 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2011
R Flag : (1 bit) set when the value refer to the bandwidth of the
reverse direction
Max-LSP (8 bits): maximum number of TE LSPs in the set.
Min-Traffic spec (variable): Specifies the minimum traffic spec of
each element of the set of TE LSPs.
The encoding of the field Traffic Spec is the same as in RSVP-TE, it
can be found in the following references.
Object Type Name Reference
2 Intserv [RFC2210]
4 SONET/SDH [RFC4606]
5 G.709 [RFC4328]
6 Ethernet [RFC6003]
Traffic Spec field encoding
The GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING MAY appear more than once in a PCReq
message. If more than one GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING have the same
Object Type, and R Flag, only the first one is processed, the others
are ignored. 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.
Margaria, et al. Expires September 12, 2011 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2011
For example a request for one co-signaled n x VC-4 TE-LSP will not
use the GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING. In case the V4 components can
use different paths, the GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH will contain a traffic
specification indicating the complete n x VC4 traffic specification
and the GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING the minimum co-signaled VC4. For
a SDH network, a request to have a TE-LSP group with 10 VC4
container, each path using at minimum 2VC4 container, can be
represented with a GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH object with OT=4, the
content of the Traffic specification is ST=6,RCC=0,NCC=0,NVC=10,MT=1.
The GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING, OT=4,R=0,Max-LSP=5, min Traffic spec
is (ST=6,RCC=0,NCC=0,NVC=2,MT=1). The PCE can respond with a
response with maximum 5 path, each of then having a GENERALIZED-
BANDWIDTH OT=4,R=0, and traffic spec matching the minimum traffic
spec from the GENERALIZED-LOAD-BALANCING object of the corresponding
request.
2.4. END-POINTS Object extensions
The END-POINTS object is used in a PCReq message to specify the
source and destination of the path for which a path computation is
requested. From [RFC3471] the source IP address and the destination
IP address are used to identify those. A new Object Type is defined
to address the following possibilities:
o Different endpoint types.
o Label restrictions on the endpoint.
o Specification of unnumbered endpoints type as seen in GMPLS
networks.
The Object encoding is described in the following sections.
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.
Margaria, et al. Expires September 12, 2011 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2011
Since the PCEP END-POINTS object only support endpoints of the same
type a new C-Type is proposed that support different endpoint types,
including unnumbered. This new C-Type also supports the
specification of constraints on the endpoint label to be use. The
PCE might know the interface restrictions but this is not a
requirement. On the path calculation request only the tspec and
switch layer need to be coherent, the endpoint labels could be
different (supporting a different tspec). Hence the label
restrictions include a Generalized label request in order to
interpret the labels.
The proposed object format consists of a body and a list of TLVs with
the following defined TLVs (described in Section 2.4.2). TLVs are
used instead of subobject because the restriction information do not
only apply to the endpoints but can also be applied to the complete
path. The object in which the TLV appear indicate if its a path or
endpoint restriction. TLV makes the encoding more convenient.
1. IPv4 address.
2. IPv6 address.
3. Unnumbered endpoint.
4. Label request.
5. Label.
6. Upstream label.
7. Label set.
8. Suggested label set.
The labels TLV are used to restrict the label allocation in the PCE.
They follow the set of restrictions provided by signaling with
explicit value (label and upstream label), mandatory range
restrictions (Label set) and optional range restriction (suggested
label set). Single suggested value is using the suggested label set.
The label range restriction are valid in GMPLS networks, either by
PCC policy or depending on the switching technology used, for
instance on given Ethernet or ODU equipment having limited hardware
capabilities restricting the label range. Label set restriction also
applies to WSON networks where the optical sender and receivers are
limited in their frequency tunability ranges, restricting then in
GMPLS the possible label ranges on the interface. The END-POINTS
Object with Generalized Endpoint object type is encoded as follow:
Margaria, et al. Expires September 12, 2011 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2011
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:
Value Type Meaning
0 Point-to-Point
1 Point-to-Multipoint New leaves to add
2 Old leaves to remove
3 Old leaves whose path can be
modified/reoptimized
4 Old leaves whose path must be left
unchanged
5-244 Reserved
245-255 Experimental range
The endpoint type is used to cover both point-to-point and different
point-to-multipoint endpoint semantic. Endpoint type 0 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 MUST follow the following grammar:
Margaria, et al. Expires September 12, 2011 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2011
<generalized-endpoint-tlvs>::=
<p2p-endpoints> | <p2mp-endpoints>
<p2p-endpoints> ::=
<source-endpoint>
<destination-endpoint>
<source-endpoint> ::=
<endpoint>
[<endpoint-restriction-list>]
<destination-endpoint> ::=
<endpoint>
[<endpoint-restriction-list>]
<p2mp-endpoints> ::=
<endpoint> [<endpoint-restriction-list>]
[<endpoint> [<endpoint-restriction-list>] ...]
For endpoint type Point-to-Multipoint several endpoint objects may be
present in the message and represent a leave, exact meaning depend on
the endpoint type defined of the object.
An endpoint is defined as follows:
<endpoint>::=<IPV4-ADDRESS>|<IPV6-ADDRESS>|<UNNUMBERED-ENDPOINT>
<endpoint-restriction-list> ::=
<endpoint-restriction>
[<endpoint-restriction-list>]
<endpoint-restriction> ::=
<LABEL-REQUEST><label-restriction-list>
<label-restriction-list> ::= <label-restriction>
[<label-restriction-list>]
<label-restriction> ::= <LABEL>|<UPSTREAM-LABEL>|
<LABEL-SET>|
<SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET>
The different TLVs are described in the following sections
2.4.2. END-POINTS TLVs extensions
All endpoint TLVs have the standard PCEP TLV header as defined in
[RFC5440] section 7.1
Margaria, et al. Expires September 12, 2011 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2011
2.4.2.1. IPV4-ADDRESS
This TLV represent a numbered endpoint using IPv4 numbering, the
format of the IPv4-ADDRESS TLV value (TLV-Type=TBA) is as follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
2.4.2.2. IPV6-ADDRESS TLV
This TLV represent a numbered endpoint using IPV6 numbering, the
format of the IPv6-ADDRESS TLV value (TLV-Type=TBA) is as follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 address (16 bytes) |
| |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
2.4.2.3. UNNUMBERED-ENDPOINT TLV
This TLV represent an unnumbered interface. This TLV has the same
semantic as in [RFC3477] The TLV value is encoded as follow (TLV-
Type=TBA)
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LSR's Router ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interface ID (32 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
2.4.2.4. LABEL-REQUEST TLV
The LABEL-REQUEST TLV indicates the switching capability and encoding
type of the label restriction list. Its format is the same as
described in [RFC3471] Section 3.1 Generalized label request. The
LABEL-REQUEST TLV use TLV-Type=TBA. The fields are encoded as in the
RSVP-TE. The Encoding Type indicates the encoding type, e.g., SONET/
SDH/GigE etc., that will be used with the data associated with the
LSP. The Switching type indicates the type of switching that is
Margaria, et al. Expires September 12, 2011 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2011
being requested on the link. G-PID identifies the payload of the TE-
LSP.
2.4.2.5. Labels TLV
Label or label range restrictions may be specified for the TE-LSP
endpoints. Those are encoded in the TLVs. The label value need to
be interpreted with a description on the Encoding and switching type.
The REQ-ADAP-CAP object from [I-D.ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext] can be
used in case of mono-layer request, however in case of multilayer it
is possible to have in the future more than one object, so it is
better to have a dedicated TLV for the label and label request (the
scope is then more clear). TLVs are encoded as follow (following
[RFC5440]) :
o LABEL TLV, Type=TBA. The TLV Length is variable, the value is the
same as [RFC3471] Section 3.2 Generalized label. This represent
the downstream label
o UPSTREAM-LABEL TLV, Type=TBA, The TLV Length is variable, the
value is the same as [RFC3471] Section 3.2 Generalized label.
This represent the upstream label
o LABEL-SET TLV, Type=TBA. The TLV Length is variable, Encoding
follow [RFC3471] Section 3.5 "Label set" with the addition of a U
bit : the U bit is set for upstream direction in case of
bidirectional LSP.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Action | Reserved |U| Label Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Subchannel 1 |
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: : :
: : :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Subchannel N |
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
o SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET TLV Set, Type=TBA. The TLV length is
variable, Encoding is as LABEL-SET TLV.
A LABEL TLV represent the label used on the unnumbered interface, bit
Margaria, et al. Expires September 12, 2011 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2011
U is used to indicate which exact direction is considered. The label
type indicates which type of label is carried. A LABEL-SET TLV
represents a set of possible labels that can be used on the
unnumbered interface. the label allocated on the first link SHOULD be
within the label set range. The action parameter in the Label set
indicates the type of list provided. Those parameters are described
by [RFC3471] section 3.5.1 A SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET TLV has the same
encoding as the LABEL-SET TLV, it indicates to the PCE a set of
preferred (ordered) set of labels to be used. the PCE MAY use those
labels for label allocation.
The U bit has the following meaning:
U: Upstream direction: set when the label or label set is in the
reverse direction
2.5. 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 allocated by the PCE (and included in the ERO
object on the response) must be in the range stated in the LABEL-SET.
The LABEL-SET Object encoding is defined as following
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// TLVs //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where TLVs follow the following grammar
<label-set-tlvs> ::= <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.
Margaria, et al. Expires September 12, 2011 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2011
2.6. SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET object
Similar to the endpoint restriction SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET TLV, but with
end-to-end scope the SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET object indicate an optional
set of label that the PCE MAY use when selecting the labels. The
SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET object is carried within a PCReq or PCRep message
to indicate the preferred set of label 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).
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:
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
satisfying the set of constraints). In this scenario, PCE MUST
include a NO-PATH object in the PCRep message. The NO-PATH object
may carries the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV that specifies more information on
the reasons that led to a negative reply. In case of GMPLS networks
there could be some more additional constraints that led to the
failure like protection mismatch, lack of resources, and so on. Few
new flags have been introduced in the 32-bit flag field of the NO-
PATH-VECTOR TLV and no modifications have been made in the NO-PATH
object.
Margaria, et al. Expires September 12, 2011 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2011
2.8.1. Extensions to NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV
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 TBA - Protection Mismatch (1-bit). Specifies the
mismatch of the protection type in the request.
Bit number TBA - No Resource (1-bit). Specifies that the
resources are not currently sufficient to provide the path.
Bit number TBA - Granularity not supported (1-bit). Specifies
that the PCE is not able to provide a route with the requested
granularity.
Bit number TBA - No endpoint label resource (1-bit). Specifies
that the PCE is not able to provide a route because of the
endpoint label restriction.
Bit number TBA - No endpoint label resource in range (1-bit).
Specifies that the PCE is not able to provide a route because of
the endpoint label set restriction.
Bit number TBA - No label resource in range (1-bit). Specifies
that the PCE is not able to provide a route because of the label
set restriction.
Margaria, et al. Expires September 12, 2011 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2011
3. Additional Error Type and Error Values Defined
A PCEP-ERROR object is used to report a PCEP error and is
characterized by an Error-Type that specifies the type of error while
Error-value that provides additional information about the error
type. An additional error type and few error values are defined to
represent some of the errors related to the newly identified objects
related to SDH networks. For each PCEP error, an Error-Type and an
Error-value are defined. Error-Type 1 to 10 are already defined in
[RFC5440]. Additional Error- values are defined for Error-Type 10
and A new Error-Type is introduced (value TBA).
Error-Type Error-value
10 Reception of an
invalid object
Error-value=TBA: Bad Generalized Bandwidth Object value.
Error-value=TBA: Unsupported LSP Protection Type in
protection attribute TLV.
Error-value=TBA: Unsupported LSP Protection Flags in
protection attribute TLV.
Error-value=TBA: Unsupported Secondary LSP Protection
Flags in protection attribute TLV.
Error-value=TBA: Unsupported Link Protection Type in
protection attribute TLV.
Error-value=TBA: Unsupported Link Protection Type in
protection attribute TLV.
TBA Path computation
failure
Error-value=TBA: Unacceptable request message.
Error-value=TBA: Generalized bandwidth object not
supported.
Error-value=TBA: Label Set constraint could not be met.
Error-value=TBA: Label constraint could not be met.
Error-value=TBA: Unsupported endpoint type in END-POINTS
Generalized Endpoint object type
Margaria, et al. Expires September 12, 2011 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2011
Error-value=TBA: Unsupported TLV present in END-POINTS
Generalized Endpoint object type
Error-value=TBA: Unsupported granularity in the RP object
flags
Margaria, et al. Expires September 12, 2011 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2011
4. Manageability Considerations
Liveness Detection and Monitoring This document makes no change to
the basic operation of PCEP and so there are no changes to the
requirements for liveness detection and monitoring set out in
[RFC4657] and [RFC5440].
Margaria, et al. Expires September 12, 2011 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2011
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)
Object Class to be assigned
Name LABEL-SET
Object-Type 0
Reference This document (section Section 2.5)
Margaria, et al. Expires September 12, 2011 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2011
Object Class to be assigned
Name SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET
Object-Type 0
Reference This document (section Section 2.6)
As described in Section 2.4.1 a new Object type is defined IANA is
requested to make the following Object-Type allocations from the
"PCEP Objects" sub-registry. The values here are suggested for use
by IANA.
Object Class 4
Name END-POINTS
Object-Type 5 : Generalized Endpoint
6-15 : unassigned
Reference This document (section Section 2.2)
5.2. END-POINTS object, Object Type Generalized Endpoint
IANA is requested to create a registry to manage the endpoint type
field of the END-POINTS object, Object Type Generalized Endpoint and
manage the code space.
New endpoint type in the Reserved range may be allocated by an IETF
consensus action. Each endpoint type should be tracked with the
following qualities:
o endpoint type
o Description
o Defining RFC
New endpoint type in the Experimental range are for experimental use;
these will not be registered with IANA and MUST NOT be mentioned by
RFCs.
The following values have been defined by this document.
(Section 2.4.1, Table 4):
Margaria, et al. Expires September 12, 2011 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2011
Value Type Meaning
0 Point-to-Point
1 Point-to-Multipoint New leaves to add
2 Old leaves to remove
3 Old leaves whose path can be
modified/reoptimized
4 Old leaves whose path must be left
unchanged
5-244 Reserved
245-255 Experimental range
5.3. New PCEP TLVs
IANA manages the PCEP TLV code point registry (see [RFC5440]). This
is maintained as the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" sub-registry of the
"Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry. This
document defines new PCEP TLVs, to be carried in the END-POINTS
object with Generalized Endpoint object Type. IANA is requested to
do the following allocation. The values here are suggested for use
by IANA.
Value Meaning Reference
7 IPv4 endpoint This document (section
Section 2.4.2.1)
8 IPv6 endpoint This document (section
Section 2.4.2.2)
9 Unnumbered endpoint This document (section
Section 2.4.2.3)
10 Label request This document (section
Section 2.4.2.4)
11 Requested GMPLS Label This document (section
Section 2.4.2.5)
12 Requested GMPLS Upstream This document (section
Label Section 2.4.2.5)
Margaria, et al. Expires September 12, 2011 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2011
13 Requested GMPLS Label Set This document (section
Section 2.4.2.5)
14 Suggested GMPLS Label Set This document (section
Section 2.4.2.5)
15 LSP Protection Information This document (section Section 2.7)
5.4. RP Object Flag Field
As described in Section 2.1 new flag are defined in the RP Object
Flag IANA is requested to make the following Object-Type allocations
from the "RP Object Flag Field" sub-registry. The values here are
suggested for use by IANA.
Bit Description Reference
bit 17-16 routing granularity (RG) This document, Section 2.1
5.5. New PCEP Error Codes
As described in Section Section 3, new PCEP Error-Type and Error
Values are defined. IANA is requested to make the following
allocation in the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values"
registry. The values here are suggested for use by IANA.
Margaria, et al. Expires September 12, 2011 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2011
Error name Reference
Type=10 Reception of an invalid object [RFC5440]
Value=2: Bad Generalized Bandwidth Object value. This
Document
Value=3: Unsupported LSP Protection Type in protection This
attribute TLV. Document
Value=4: Unsupported LSP Protection Flags in protection This
attribute TLV. Document
Value=5: Unsupported Secondary LSP Protection Flags in This
protection attribute TLV. Document
Value=6: Unsupported Link Protection Type in protection This
attribute TLV. Document
Value=7: Unsupported Link Protection Type in protection This
attribute TLV. Document
Type=14 Path computation failure This
Document
Value=1: Unacceptable request message. This
Document
Value=2: Generalized bandwidth object not supported. This
Document
Value=3: Label Set constraint could not be met. This
Document
Value=4: Label constraint could not be met. This
Document
Value=5: Unsupported endpoint type in END-POINTS This
Generalized Endpoint object type Document
Value=6: Unsupported TLV present in END-POINTS Generalized This
Endpoint object type Document
Value=7: Unsupported granularity in the RP object flags This
Document
Margaria, et al. Expires September 12, 2011 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2011
5.6. New NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Fields
As described in Section Section 2.8.1, new NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Flag
Fields have been defined. IANA is requested to do the following
allocations in the "NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Flag Field" sub-registry. The
values here are suggested for use by IANA.
Bit number 23 - Protection Mismatch (1-bit). Specifies the
mismatch of the protection type in the request.
Bit number 22 - No Resource (1-bit). Specifies that the resources
are not currently sufficient to provide the path.
Bit number 21 - Granularity not supported (1-bit). Specifies that
the PCE is not able to provide a route with the requested
granularity.
Bit number 20 - No endpoint label resource (1-bit). Specifies
that the PCE is not able to provide a route because of the
endpoint label restriction.
Bit number 19 - No endpoint label resource in range (1-bit).
Specifies that the PCE is not able to provide a route because of
the endpoint label set restriction.
Bit number 18 - No label resource in range (1-bit). Specifies
that the PCE is not able to provide a route because of the label
set restriction.
Margaria, et al. Expires September 12, 2011 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2011
6. Security Considerations
None.
Margaria, et al. Expires September 12, 2011 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2011
7. Contributing Authors
Nokia Siemens Networks:
Elie Sfeir
St Martin Strasse 76
Munich, 81541
Germany
Phone: +49 89 5159 16159
Email: elie.sfeir@nsn.com
Franz Rambach
St Martin Strasse 76
Munich, 81541
Germany
Phone: +49 89 5159 31188
Email: franz.rambach@nsn.com
Francisco Javier Jimenez Chico
Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo
C/ Emilio Vargas 6
Madrid, 28043
Spain
Phone: +34 91 3379037
Email: fjjc@tid.es
Huawei Technologies
Suresh BR
Shenzhen
China
Email: sureshbr@huawei.com
Young Lee
1700 Alma Drive, Suite 100
Plano, TX 75075
USA
Phone: (972) 509-5599 (x2240)
Email: ylee@huawei.com
SenthilKumar S
Shenzhen
China
Email: senthilkumars@huawei.com
Margaria, et al. Expires September 12, 2011 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2011
Jun Sun
Shenzhen
China
Email: johnsun@huawei.com
CTTC - Centre Tecnologic de Telecomunicacions de Catalunya
Ramon Casellas
PMT Ed B4 Av. Carl Friedrich Gauss 7
08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona)
Spain
Phone: (34) 936452916
Email: ramon.casellas@cttc.es
Margaria, et al. Expires September 12, 2011 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2011
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 no 247674.
Margaria, et al. Expires September 12, 2011 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2011
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2210] Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated
Services", RFC 2210, September 1997.
[RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471,
January 2003.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC3477] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered Links
in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, January 2003.
[RFC4202] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Routing Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005.
[RFC4203] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "OSPF Extensions in Support
of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)",
RFC 4203, October 2005.
[RFC4328] Papadimitriou, D., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical
Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328, January 2006.
[RFC4606] Mannie, E. and D. Papadimitriou, "Generalized Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for
Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous
Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control", RFC 4606, August 2006.
[RFC4872] Lang, J., Rekhter, Y., and D. Papadimitriou, "RSVP-TE
Extensions in Support of End-to-End Generalized Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery", RFC 4872,
May 2007.
[RFC4873] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., and A. Farrel,
"GMPLS Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, May 2007.
[RFC5088] Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., Ikejiri, Y., and R. Zhang,
Margaria, et al. Expires September 12, 2011 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2011
"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.
[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-11
(work in progress), January 2011.
[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.
Margaria, et al. Expires September 12, 2011 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2011
[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-04 (work in
progress), March 2011.
[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-g709-07 (work in
progress), March 2011.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006.
[RFC4657] Ash, J. and J. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element (PCE)
Communication Protocol Generic Requirements", RFC 4657,
September 2006.
[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 September 12, 2011 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for GMPLS March 2011
Authors' Addresses
Cyril Margaria (editor)
Nokia Siemens Networks
St Martin Strasse 76
Munich, 81541
Germany
Phone: +49 89 5159 16934
Email: cyril.margaria@nsn.com
Oscar Gonzalez de Dios (editor)
Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo
C/ Emilio Vargas 6
Madrid, 28043
Spain
Phone: +34 91 3374013
Email: ogondio@tid.es
Fatai Zhang (editor)
Huawei Technologies
F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base
Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen, 518129
P.R.China
Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com
Margaria, et al. Expires September 12, 2011 [Page 39]