<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocompact="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="3"?>
<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc comments="yes"?>
<?rfc inline="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<rfc category="std" docName="draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-11" ipr="trust200902">
  <front>
    <title abbrev="Stateful PCE - PCE-initiated LSP">
    PCEP Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Model</title>

    <author fullname="Edward Crabbe" initials="E." surname="Crabbe">
       <organization>Individual Contributor</organization>
      <address>
    <email>edward.crabbe@gmail.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Ina Minei" initials="I." surname="Minei">
      <organization>Google, Inc.</organization>
      <address>
    <postal>
      <street>1600 Amphitheatre Parkway</street>
      <city>Mountain View</city>
      <region>CA</region>
      <code>94043</code>
      <country>US</country>
    </postal>
    <email>inaminei@google.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Siva Sivabalan" initials="S." surname="Sivabalan">
      <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
      <address>
    <postal>
      <street>170 West Tasman Dr.</street>
      <city>San Jose</city>
      <region>CA</region>
      <code>95134</code>
      <country>US</country>
    </postal>
    <email>msiva@cisco.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Robert Varga" initials="R." surname="Varga">
      <organization>Pantheon Technologies SRO</organization>
      <address>
    <postal>
      <street>Mlynske Nivy 56</street>
      <city>Bratislava</city>
      <code>821 05</code>
      <country>Slovakia</country>
    </postal>
    <email>robert.varga@pantheon.tech</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <date day="5" month="October" year="2017" />

    <workgroup>PCE Working Group</workgroup>

    <abstract>
      <t>The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides
      mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path
      computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests.</t>

      <t>The extensions for stateful PCE provide active control of Multiprotocol
      Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSP)
      via PCEP, for a model where the PCC delegates control over one or more
      locally configured LSPs to the PCE. This document describes
      the creation and deletion of PCE-initiated LSPs under the stateful PCE model.
      </t>

    </abstract>

    <note title="Requirements Language">
      <t>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 <xref target="RFC2119"/>.
      </t>
    </note>
  </front>

  <middle>
    <section title="Introduction">
      <t><xref target="RFC5440"/> describes the Path Computation Element
      Communication Protocol (PCEP).  PCEP defines the communication between
      a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a Path Computation Element (PCE),
      or between PCE and PCE,
      enabling computation of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) for Traffic
      Engineering Label Switched Path (TE LSP) characteristics.
      </t>

      <t><xref target="RFC8231"/> specifies a
      set of extensions to PCEP to enable stateful
      control of TE LSPs between and across PCEP sessions in compliance with
      <xref target="RFC4657"/>.  It includes
      <list style="symbols">
        <t>mechanisms to effect LSP state synchronization between PCCs and PCEs</t>
        <t>delegation of control of LSPs to PCEs</t>
        <t>PCE control of timing and sequence of path computations within
        and across PCEP sessions</t>
      </list>
      It focuses on a model where LSPs are configured on the PCC
      and control over them is delegated to the PCE.
      </t>

      <t> This document describes the setup, maintenance and teardown of
      PCE-initiated LSPs under the stateful PCE model, without the
      need for local configuration on the PCC, thus allowing for a dynamic
      network that is centrally
      controlled and deployed.
      </t>
    </section> <!-- Introduction -->

    <section title="Terminology">
      <t>This document uses the following terms defined in <xref
      target="RFC5440"/>: PCC, PCE, PCEP Peer.
      </t>

      <t>This document uses the following terms defined in
      <xref target="RFC8051"/>: Stateful PCE, Delegation. </t>

      <t>This document uses the following terms defined in
      <xref target="RFC8231"></xref>:
      Redelegation Timeout Interval, State Timeout Interval, LSP State Report, LSP
      Update Request.
      </t>


      <t>The following terms are defined in this document:

      <list style="hanging">

    <t hangText="PCE-initiated LSP:"> LSP that is instantiated as a result of a request from the PCE.</t>

      </list>
      </t>

      <t>The message formats in this document are specified using Routing
      Backus-Naur Form (RBNF) encoding as specified in <xref
      target="RFC5511"/>.
      </t>
    </section> <!-- Terminology -->



    <section anchor="Overview" title="Architectural Overview">

     <section anchor="Motivation" title="Motivation">
     <t><xref target="RFC8231"></xref> provides active control over LSPs
     that are locally configured on the PCC. This model relies on the Label Edge Router (LER)
     taking an active role
     in delegating locally configured LSPs to the PCE, and is well suited in
     environments where
     the LSP placement is fairly static. However, in environments where the
     LSP placement needs to change in response to
     application demands, it is useful to support dynamic creation and  tear down of LSPs.
     The ability for a PCE to trigger the creation of LSPs on demand can be seamlessly integrated into a
     controller-based network
     architecture, where intelligence in the controller can determine when and where
     to set up paths.
     </t>

     <t>A possible use case is a software-defined network, where applications request
     network resources and paths from the network infrastructure. For example, an
     application can
     request a path with certain constraints between two LSRs by contacting the PCE. The
     PCE can compute a path satisfying the constraints, and instruct
     the head end LSR to instantiate and signal it. When the path is no longer required
     by the application, the PCE can request its teardown.</t>

     <t> Another use case is dynamically adjusting aggregate bandwidth between two points
     in the network using multiple LSPs. This functionality is very similar to
     auto-bandwidth, but allows for providing the desired capacity through
     multiple LSPs. This approach overcomes two of the limitations auto-bandwidth
     can experience: 1) growing the capacity between the endpoints
     beyond the capacity of individual links in the path and 2) achieving good bin-packing
     through
     use of several small LSPs instead of a single large one. The number of LSPs varies based on
     the demand, and LSPs are created and deleted dynamically to satisfy the bandwidth
     requirements.
     </t>

     <t> Another use case is demand engineering, where a PCE with visibility
     into both the network state and the demand matrix can anticipate and optimize
     how traffic is distributed across the infrastructure. Such optimizations may
     require creating new paths across the infrastructure.
     </t>

     </section><!-- Motivation -->

     <section anchor="Operation-overview" title="Operation Overview">

       <t>This document defines the new I flag in the
       STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV to indicate that the sender supports
       PCE-initiated LSPs (see details in <xref target="Capability-TLV"/>).
       A PCC or PCE sets this flag in the Open message during the PCEP Initialization Phase
       to indicate that it supports the procedures of this document.</t>

       <t>This document defines a new PCEP message, the LSP Initiate Request (PCInitiate)
       message, which a PCE can send to a PCC to request the initiaton or deletion of an LSP.
       The decision when to instantiate or delete a PCE-initiated LSP is out of
       the scope of this document.</t>

       <t>The PCE sends a PCInitiate message to the PCC to request the initiation of an LSP.
       The PCC creates the LSP using the attributes communicated by the
       PCE and local values for any unspecified parameters. The PCC generates
       an LSP State Report (PCRpt) for the LSP, carrying a newly assigned PLSP-ID for the LSP and
       delegating the LSP to the PCE via the Delegate flag in the LSP object.</t>

       <t>The PCE can update the attributes of the LSP by sending subsequent PCUpd messages.
       Subsequent LSP State Report (PCRpt) and LSP Update Request (PCUpd)
       messages that the PCC and PCE, respectively, send for the LSP
       will carry the PCC-assigned PLSP-ID, which uniquely identifies the LSP.
       See details in <xref target="lsp-instantiation"/>.</t>

        <t>The PCE sends a PCInitiate message to the PCC to request the deletion of an LSP.
        To indicate a delete operation, this document defines the new R flag in the SRP object in the
        PCInitiate message, as described in <xref target="SRP-R-flag"/>.  As a
        result of the deletion request, the PCC removes the LSP and sends
        a PCRpt for the removed state.
        See details in <xref target="lsp-deletion"/>.
        </t>

        <t><xref target="lsp-init-lifecycle"/> illustrates these message exchanges.</t>
        <figure anchor="lsp-init-lifecycle" title="PCE-Initiated LSP lifecycle">
          <artwork><![CDATA[
      +-+-+                            +-+-+
      |PCC|                            |PCE|
      +-+-+                            +-+-+
        |                                |
        |<--PCInitiate-------------------| (Initiate LSP)
        |                                |
        |---PCRpt, PLSP_ID=1, D=1------->| (Confirm initiation)
        |            .                   |
        |            .                   |
        |                                |
        |<--PCUpd, PLSP_ID=1-------------| (Update LSP)
        |                                |
        |---PCRpt, PLSP_ID=1, D=1------->| (Confirm update)
        |            .                   |
        |            .                   |
        |                                |
        |<--PCInitiate, PLSP_ID=1, R=1---| (Delete LSP)
        |                                |
        |---PCRpt, PLSP_ID=1, R=1------->| (Confirm delete)
          ]]></artwork>
        </figure>

      </section><!-- Operation overview -->
    </section><!-- Overview -->

    <section anchor="Capability-negotiation" title="Support of PCE-initiated LSPs">

     <t>A PCEP speaker indicates its ability to support PCE-initiated LSPs during the
     PCEP Initialization phase, as follows.  When the PCEP session is created, it sends an Open
     message with an OPEN object that contains the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV, defined in <xref target="RFC8231"></xref>.
     A new flag, the I (LSP-INSTANTIATION-CAPABILITY) flag, is introduced to this TLV to indicate support
     for instantiation of PCE-initiated LSPs. A PCE can initiate LSPs only
     for PCCs that advertised this capability.  A PCC will follow the procedures described
     in this document only on sessions where the PCE advertised the I flag. </t>

       <section anchor="Capability-TLV" title="STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV">

     <t>The format of the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV is defined in <xref target="RFC8231"/>
        and included here for easy reference with the addition of the new I flag.</t>

     <figure anchor="Capability-TLV-Fmt" title="STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV format">
       <artwork><![CDATA[
   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=4           |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |              Flags                                      |I|S|U|
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+
           ]]></artwork>
     </figure>

     <t>A new flag is defined to indicate the sender's support for LSP
        instantiation by a PCE:

    <list style="hanging">
       <t hangText="I (LSP-INSTANTIATION-CAPABILITY - 1 bit):"> If set to 1 by a
       PCC, the I Flag indicates that the PCC allows instantiation of an LSP
       by a PCE. If set to 1 by a PCE, the I flag indicates that the PCE supports
       instantiating LSPs. The LSP-INSTANTIATION-CAPABILITY flag must be
       set by both PCC and PCE in order to enable PCE-initiated LSP instantiation.
       </t>
    </list>
    </t>

       </section>   <!-- Capability TLV -->
    </section> <!-- Capability negotiation -->

    <section anchor="PCE-initiated-LSP-instantiation-deletion" title="PCE-initiated LSP Instantiation and Deletion">

    <t> To initiate an LSP, a PCE sends a PCInitiate message to a PCC.
    The message format, objects and TLVs are discussed separately below for the creation and
    the deletion cases. </t>


        <section anchor="LSP-initiate" title ="The LSP Initiate Request">

        <t>An LSP Initiate Request (PCInitiate) message is a PCEP message sent by a PCE to a PCC to trigger LSP
        instantiation or deletion. The Message-Type field of the PCEP common
        header for the PCInitiate
        message is set to 12.
        The PCInitiate message MUST include the SRP and the LSP objects,
        and MAY contain other objects, as discussed later in this section.
        </t>

        <t>The format of a PCInitiate message is as follows:</t>
    <figure>
      <artwork><![CDATA[

   <PCInitiate Message> ::= <Common Header>
                            <PCE-initiated-lsp-list>
Where:
   <Common Header> is defined in [RFC5440]

   <PCE-initiated-lsp-list> ::= <PCE-initiated-lsp-request>
                                [<PCE-initiated-lsp-list>]

   <PCE-initiated-lsp-request> ::= (<PCE-initiated-lsp-instantiation>|
                                    <PCE-initiated-lsp-deletion>)

   <PCE-initiated-lsp-instantiation> ::= <SRP>
                                         <LSP>
                                         [<END-POINTS>]
                                         <ERO>
                                         [<attribute-list>]

   <PCE-initiated-lsp-deletion> ::= <SRP>
                                    <LSP>

Where:
   <attribute-list> is defined in [RFC5440] and extended by
   PCEP extensions.
      ]]></artwork>
    </figure>

        <t> The LSP object is defined in <xref target="RFC8231"></xref>.
        The END-POINTS and ERO objects are defined in <xref target="RFC5440"></xref>.</t>

        <t> The SRP object is defined in <xref target="RFC8231"></xref>.
        The SRP Object contains
        an SRP-ID-number which is unique within a PCEP session.  The PCE
        increments the last-used SRP-ID-number before it sends each PCInitiate message.
        The PCC MUST echo the value of
        the SRP-ID-number in PCErr and PCRpt messages that it sends as a result of the PCInitiate
        to allow the PCE to correlate them with the corresponding PCInitiate message. </t>
    </section> <!-- LSP initiate request -->

        <section anchor="SRP-R-flag" title ="The R flag in the SRP Object">

         <t>The format of the SRP object is is defined in <xref target="RFC8231"/>
        and included here for easy reference with the addition of the new R flag.</t>

        <figure anchor="SRP-Object-Fmt" title="The SRP Object format">
          <artwork><![CDATA[
    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                          Flags                              |R|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                        SRP-ID-number                          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   //                      Optional TLVs                          //
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

          ]]></artwork>
        </figure>

     <t>A new flag is defined to indicate a delete operation initiated by the PCE:
       <list style="hanging">
       <t hangText="R (LSP-REMOVE - 1 bit):">
       If set to 0, it indicates a request to create an LSP.
       If set to 1, it indicates a request to remove an LSP.
       </t>
       </list>
     </t>
        </section>  <!-- SRP-R-flag -->

         <section anchor="lsp-instantiation" title ="LSP Instantiation">

          <t>The LSP is instantiated by sending a PCInitiate message.
           The LSP is set up using RSVP-TE.  Extensions for
          other setup methods are outside the scope of this draft.</t>

          <t>The PCInitiate message, when used to instantiate an LSP, MUST
            contain an LSP object with the reserved PLSP-ID 0.
            The LSP Object MUST include the SYMBOLIC-PATH-NAME TLV, which is
          used to correlate between the
          PCC-assigned PLSP-ID and the LSP.</t>

          <t>The PCInitiate message, when used to instantiate an LSP, MUST
           contain an Explicit Route Object (ERO) for the LSP.</t>

          <t> For an instantiation request of an RSVP-signaled LSP, the destination
          address may be needed. The PCC MAY determine it from a provided object
          (e.g., ERO) or a local decision. Alternatively, the END-POINTS object
          MAY be included to explicitly convey the destination addresses to be
          used in the RSVP-TE signaling. The source address MUST either be specified
          or left for the PCC to choose by setting it to "0.0.0.0" (if the
          destination is an IPv4 address) or "::" (if the destination is an
          IPv6 address).
          </t>

          <t> The PCE MAY include various attributes as per  <xref target="RFC5440"/>.
          The PCC MUST use these
          values in the LSP instantiation, and local values for unspecified parameters.
          After the LSP setup,
          the PCC MUST send a PCRpt to the PCE, reflecting these values. The SRP object
          in the PCRpt message
          MUST echo the value of the PCInitiate message that triggered the setup. LSPs
          that were instantiated
          as a result of a PCInitiate message MUST have the Create flag
          (<xref target="create-flag"/>) set in the LSP object. </t>



          <t>If the PCC receives a PCInitiate message with a non-zero PLSP-ID and the R flag
          in the SRP object set to zero, then it MUST send a PCErr message with Error-type=19
          (Invalid Operation) and Error-value=8
          (Non-zero PLSP-ID in the PCInitiate message).</t>

          <t>If the PCC receives a PCInitiate message without an ERO and the R flag
          in the SRP object set to zero, then it MUST send a PCErr message with Error-type=6
         (Mandatory Object missing) and Error-value=9 (ERO Object missing).</t>

          <t>If the PCC receives a PCInitiate message without a
            SYMBOLIC-PATH-NAME TLV, then it MUST send a PCErr message with
          Error-type=10 (Invalid object)
          and Error-value=8 (SYMBOLIC-PATH-NAME TLV missing).</t>

          <t>The PCE MUST NOT provide a symbolic path name
          that conflicts with the symbolic path name of any existing LSP in the PCC.
          (Existing LSPs may be either statically
          configured, or initiated by another PCE).  If there is a conflict with
          the symbolic path name of an existing LSP, the PCC MUST send a
          PCErr message with Error-type=23 (Bad Parameter value)
          and Error-value=1 (SYMBOLIC-PATH-NAME in use). The
          only exception to this rule is for LSPs for which the State Timeout Interval timer is running
          (see <xref target="Delegation-and-cleanup"/>).</t>

          <t> If the PCC determines that the LSP parameters proposed in the PCInitiate
          message are
          unacceptable, it MUST send a PCErr message with Error-type=24 (PCE instantiation error)
          and Error-value=1 (Unacceptable instantiation parameters).
          If the PCC encounters an internal error during the processing of the PCInitiate message, it MUST
          send a PCErr message with Error-type=24
          (PCE instantiation error) and Error-value=2 (Internal error).</t>

          <t> A PCC MUST relay to the PCE errors it encounters in the setup of PCE-initiated LSP by sending
          a PCErr message with Error-type=24 (PCE instantiation error)
          and Error-value=3 (Signaling error).
          The PCErr message MUST echo the SRP-ID-number of the PCInitiate message. The PCEP-ERROR object
          SHOULD include the RSVP_ERROR_SPEC TLV (if an RSVP ERROR_SPEC object was returned to the PCC by a downstream node).
          After the LSP is set up, errors in RSVP signaling are reported in PCRpt messages, as described in
          <xref target="RFC8231"></xref>. </t>

          <t>On successful completion of the LSP instantiation, the PCC MUST
            send a PCRpt message.  The LSP object message MUST contain
            a non-zero PLSP-ID that uniquely identifies the LSP within this PCC,
            and MUST have the Create flag (<xref target="create-flag"/>) and Delegate flag set.
            The SRP object
          MUST contain an SRP-ID-number that echoes the value from the PCInitiate message that triggered the setup.
          The PCRpt MUST include the attributes
          that the PCC used to instantiate the LSP.
          </t>

          <t>A PCC SHOULD be able to place a limit on either the
          number of LSPs or the percentage of resources that are allocated to honor PCE-initiated
          LSP requests. As soon as that limit is reached, the PCC MUST send a PCErr message
          with Error-type=19 (Invalid Operation) and Error-value=6 (PCE-initiated LSP limit reached)
          and is free to drop any incoming PCInitiate messages without additional processing.</t>

          <t>Similarly, the PCE SHOULD be able to place a limit on either the number of PCInitiate messages
          pending for a particular PCC, or on the time it waits for a response (positive or negative) to a PCInitiate
          message from a PCC and MAY take further action (such as closing the session or removing all its
          LSPs) if this limit is reached. </t>

           <section anchor="create-flag" title ="The Create Flag">

           <t> The LSP object is defined in <xref target="RFC8231"></xref> and
           included here for easy reference with the addition of the new C flag.</t>

                 <figure anchor="LSP-Object-Fmt" title="The LSP Object format">
          <artwork><![CDATA[
   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                PLSP-ID                |Flags  |C|  O  |A|R|S|D|
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  //                        TLVs                                 //
  |                                                               |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
          ]]></artwork>
        </figure>

        <t> A new flag, the Create (C) flag is introduced. On a PCRpt message, the
        C Flag set to 1 indicates that this LSP was created via a PCInitiate message. The
        C Flag MUST be set to 1 on each PCRpt message for the duration of existence of
        the LSP. The Create flag allows PCEs to be aware of which LSPs were
        PCE-initiated (a state
        that would otherwise only be known by the PCC and the PCE that initiated them). </t>


          </section> <!-- The create flag -->

          <section anchor="speaker-id" title ="The SPEAKER-ENTITY-ID TLV">

        <t> The optional SPEAKER-ENTITY-ID TLV defined in
        <xref target="RFC8232"></xref> MAY
        be included in the LSP object in a PCRpt message, as an optional TLV for
        LSPs for which the C flag is 1. The
        SPEAKER-ENTITY-ID TLV identifies the PCE which initiated the creation of
        the LSP on all PCEP sessions, a state that
        would otherwise only be known by the PCC and the PCE that initiated the LSP.
        If the TLV appears in a PCRpt for an LSP for which the C flag is 0, the LSP
        MUST be ignored and the PCE MUST send
        a PCErr message with Error-type=23 ("Bad parameter value") and
        Error-value=2 ("Speaker identity included for an LSP that is not PCE-initiated").
        </t>

          </section> <!-- speaker-id -->


          </section> <!-- LSP instantiation -->

          <section anchor="lsp-deletion" title ="LSP Deletion">

          <t>A PCE can initiate the removal of a PCE-initiated LSP by sending a PCInitiate message with an
          LSP object carrying the PLSP-ID of the LSP to be removed and an SRP
          object with the R flag set (see <xref target="SRP-R-flag"/>).  A PLSP-ID of zero removes
          all LSPs with the C flag set to 1 (in their LSP object) that are delegated to the PCE.
        </t>
        <t>
          If the PLSP-ID is unknown, the PCC MUST
          send a PCErr message with Error-type=19 ("Invalid operation") and Error-value=3 ("Unknown PLSP-ID")
          (<xref target="RFC8231"></xref>).
        </t>
        <t>
          If the PLSP-ID specified in the
          PCInitiate message is not
          delegated to the PCE, the PCC MUST send a PCErr message with
          Error-type=19 ("Invalid operation") and Error-value=1
          ("LSP is not delegated") (<xref target="RFC8231"></xref>).
        </t>
        <t>
          If the PLSP-ID specified in the
          PCInitiate message was not created by a PCE, the PCC MUST send a PCErr
          message with Error-type=19 ("Invalid operation") and Error-value=9 ("LSP is not PCE-initiated").
        </t>
        <t>
          Following the removal of the LSP,
          the PCC MUST send a PCRpt as described in
          <xref target="RFC8231"></xref>.
          The SRP object in the PCRpt MUST include the SRP-ID-number from the
          PCInitiate message that triggered the removal. The R flag in the
          SRP object MUST be set. </t>

          </section> <!-- LSP deletion -->


    </section> <!-- lsp initiation and deletion -->



    <section anchor="Delegation-and-cleanup" title="LSP Delegation and Cleanup">

        <t>The PCC MUST delegate PCE-initiated LSPs to the
        PCE upon instantiation. The PCC MUST set the delegation bit to 1 in the
        PCRpt that includes the assigned PLSP-ID.</t>

        <t>The PCC MUST NOT revoke the delegation for a PCE-initiated LSP
        on an active PCEP session. Therefore, all PCRpt messages from the PCC to the
        PCE that owns the delegation MUST have the
        delegation bit set to 1. If the PCE that owns the delegation
        receives a PCRpt message with the delegation bit set to
        0 then it MUST send a PCErr message with Error-type=19 ("Invalid Operation") and
        Error-value=7 ("Delegation for PCE-initiated LSP cannot be revoked").
        The PCE MAY further react by closing the session. </t>

        <t>Control over a PCE-initiated LSP can revert to the PCC in two ways.
        A PCE MAY return a delegation to the PCC to allow for LSP transfer between
        PCEs. Alternatively, the PCC gains control of an LSP if the PCEP session that it was delegated on
        fails and the Redelegation Timeout Interval timer expires.  In both cases, the
        LSP becomes an orphan until the expiration of the State Timeout Interval
        timer (<xref target="RFC8231"/>).
        </t>

        <t>The PCC MAY attempt to redelegate an orphaned LSP by
        following the procedures of <xref target="RFC8231"/>.
        Alternatively, if the orphaned LSP was PCE-initiated, then a PCE MAY obtain control over it, as follows.</t>

        <t>
        A PCE (either the original or one of its backups) sends
        a PCInitiate message, including just the SRP and LSP objects, and carrying the
        PLSP-ID of the LSP it wants to take control of. If the PCC receives a PCInitiate
        message with a PLSP-ID pointing to an orphaned PCE-initiated LSP, then it MUST redelegate
        that LSP to the PCE. Any other non-zero PLSP-ID MUST result in the
        generation of a PCErr message using the rules described in <xref target="lsp-deletion"/>.
        The State Timeout Interval timer for the LSP is stopped upon the
        redelegation. After obtaining control of the LSP, the PCE may remove it using
        the procedures described in this document. </t>

        <t>The State Timeout Interval timer ensures that a PCE crash does not result in
        automatic and immediate disruption for the services using PCE-initiated
        LSPs. PCE-initiated LSPs are not removed immediately upon PCE failure.
        Instead, they are cleaned up on the expiration of this timer. This allows
        for network cleanup without manual intervention.
        The PCC MUST support removal of PCE-initiated LSPs
        as one of the behaviors applied on expiration of the State Timeout
        Interval timer. The behavior MUST be picked based on local
        policy, and can result either in LSP removal, or in reverting to operator-defined
        default parameters.</t>

    </section><!--Delegation-and-cleanup -->

    <section anchor="Synchronization" title="LSP State Synchronization">
        <t>
         LSP State Synchronization procedures are described in section 5.4 of
         <xref target="RFC8231"></xref>. During State Synchronization, a PCC reports the
         state of its LSPs to the PCE using PCRpt messages, setting the SYNC flag in the LSP Object.
         For PCE-initiated LSPs, the PCC MUST also set the Create Flag in the LSP Object and MAY include the
         SPEAKER-ENTITY-ID TLV identifying the PCE that requested
         the LSP creation. At the end of state synchronization, the PCE
         SHOULD send a PCInitiate message to initiate any missing LSPs and/or remove
         any LSPs that are not wanted.  Under
         some circumstances, depending on the deployment,  it might be preferable
         for a PCE not to send this PCInitiate immediately, or at all.  For
         example, the PCC may be a slow device, or the operator might prefer
         not to disrupt active flows.
        </t>
    </section><!--Synchronzation -->

    <section anchor="Implementation-status" title="Implementation Status">
    <t> This section to be removed  by the RFC editor. </t>

    <t>
    This section records the status of known implementations of the
      protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of
      this Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in <xref target="RFC7942"/>.
      The description of implementations in this section is
      intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in
      progressing drafts to RFCs.  Please note that the listing of any
      individual implementation here does not imply endorsement by the
      IETF.  Furthermore, no effort has been spent to verify the
      information presented here that was supplied by IETF contributors.
      This is not intended as, and must not be construed to be, a
      catalog of available implementations or their features.  Readers
      are advised to note that other implementations may exist.
      </t>

      <t>
      According to RFC 7942, "this will allow reviewers and working
      groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the
      benefit of running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable
      experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented
      protocols more mature.  It is up to the individual working groups
      to use this information as they see fit".
    </t>

    <t>
    Two vendors are implementing the extensions described in this draft and
    have included the functionality in releases that will be shipping in the near
    future. An additional entity is working on implementing these extensions in the
    scope of research projects.
    </t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="IANA-considerations" title="IANA Considerations">

      <t>
      This document requests IANA actions to allocate code points for the
      protocol elements defined in this document.
      </t>

     <section anchor="PCEP-Msg-Codepoints" title="PCEP Messages">
       <t>IANA is requested to confirm the early allocation of the
        following new message type within the
       "PCEP Messages" sub-registry of the PCEP Numbers registry, and to
       update the reference in the registry to point to this document, when
       it is an RFC:</t>

       <texttable anchor="PCEP-New-Msg-CP" style="none" suppress-title="true">
     <ttcol align="center" width='20%'>Value</ttcol>
     <ttcol align="left" width='30%'>Meaning </ttcol>
     <ttcol align="left" width='50%'>Reference </ttcol>
     <c>12</c><c>&nbsp;LSP Initiate Request</c><c>This document</c>
       </texttable>

     <t>Note to IANA: The early allocation was done for a message called
      "Initiate".  This name has changed to "LSP Initiate Request" as above.</t>

     </section>

        <section anchor="LSP-Object-CP" title="LSP Object">
          <t>
         <xref target="RFC8231"></xref>
         defines the LSP Object and requests that IANA creates
         a registry to manage the value of the LSP Object's Flag
         field.  IANA is requested to allocate a new bit in the
         LSP Object Flag Field registry, as follows:
       </t>

        <texttable anchor="LSP-Object-Flags" style="none" suppress-title="true">
          <ttcol align="center" width='15%'>Bit</ttcol>
          <ttcol align="left" width='30%'>Description </ttcol>
          <ttcol align="left" width='55%'>Reference </ttcol>
          <c></c><c>&nbsp;</c><c></c>
          <c>4</c><c>Create</c><c>This document</c>
        </texttable>
      </section> <!-- LSP object code point -->

    <section anchor="SRP-flag" title="SRP object">
         <t>This document requests that a new sub-registry, named "SRP Object
     Flag Field", is created within the "Path Computation Element Protocol
     (PCEP) Numbers" registry to manage the Flag field of the SRP
     object.  New values are to be assigned by Standards Action
     <xref target="RFC8126"/>.
     Each bit should be tracked with the following qualities: bit
     number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit), description
     and defining RFC.</t>
     <t>The following values are defined in this document:</t>
        <texttable anchor="SRP-flag-list" style="none" suppress-title="true">
          <ttcol align="center" width='15%'>Bit</ttcol>
          <ttcol align="left" width='30%'>Description </ttcol>
          <ttcol align="left" width='55%'>Reference </ttcol>
          <c></c><c>&nbsp;</c><c></c>
          <c>31</c><c>LSP-Remove</c><c>This document</c>
        </texttable>
    </section> <!-- SRP flag -->

    <section anchor="capability-tlv-flag" title="STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV">

    <t>
    <xref target="RFC8231"></xref>
    defines the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY
    TLV and requests that IANA creates a registry to manage the value
    of the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV's Flag field.  IANA is
    requested to allocate a new bit in the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY
    TLV Flag Field registry, as follows:
    </t>


        <texttable anchor="capability-flag-list" style="none" suppress-title="true">
          <ttcol align="center" width='15%'>Bit</ttcol>
          <ttcol align="left" width='30%'>Description </ttcol>
          <ttcol align="left" width='55%'>Reference </ttcol>
          <c></c><c>&nbsp;</c><c></c>
          <c>29</c><c>I (LSP-INSTANTIATION-CAPABILITY)</c><c>This document</c>
        </texttable>
    </section> <!-- SRP flag -->

    <section anchor="PCEP-Error-Object" title="PCEP-Error Object">
       <t> IANA is requested to confirm the early allocation of the
        following new error types and error values
       within the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values"
       sub-registry of the PCEP Numbers registry, and to update the reference in
   the registry to point to this document, when it is an RFC:

       <vspace blankLines="1" />

       <?rfc subcompact="yes"?>
       <list style="hanging" hangIndent="13">

            <t hangText=" Error-Type">Meaning</t>
                <t hangText="    10">Invalid Object
                 <list style="hanging" hangIndent="17">
                   <t hangText=" Error-value=8:">SYMBOLIC-PATH-NAME TLV missing</t>
                 </list>
                </t>

                 <t hangText="    19">Invalid operation
                 <list style="hanging" hangIndent="17">
                   <t hangText=" Error-value=6:"> PCE-initiated LSP limit reached</t>
                   <t hangText=" Error-value=7:"> Delegation for PCE-initiated LSP cannot be revoked</t>
                   <t hangText=" Error-value=8:"> Non-zero PLSP-ID in PCInitiate message</t>
                   <t hangText=" Error-value=9:"> LSP is not PCE-initiated</t>
                   <t hangText=" Error-value=10:"> PCE-initiated operation-frequency limit reached</t>
                 </list>
                 </t>

                <t hangText="    23">Bad parameter value
                 <list style="hanging" hangIndent="17">
                   <t hangText=" Error-value=1:">SYMBOLIC-PATH-NAME in use</t>
                   <t hangText=" Error-value=2:">Speaker identity included for an LSP that is not PCE-initiated</t>
                 </list>
                 </t>

                 <t hangText="    24">LSP instantiation error
                 <list style="hanging" hangIndent="17">
                   <t hangText=" Error-value=1:">Unacceptable instantiation parameters </t>
                   <t hangText=" Error-value=2:">Internal error </t>
                   <t hangText=" Error-value=3:">Signaling error </t>
                 </list>
                 </t>

               </list>

           </t>
     </section>

    </section>

   <section anchor="Security" title="Security Considerations">

     <t> The security considerations described in <xref target="RFC8231"></xref>
     apply to the extensions described in this document. Additional considerations
     related to a malicious PCE are introduced. </t>

     <section anchor="Malicious-PCE" title="Malicious PCE">
       <t> The LSP instantiation mechanism described in this document allows a PCE to
       generate state on the PCC and throughout the network. As a result, it
       introduces a new attack vector: an attacker may flood the PCC with LSP
       instantiation requests and consume network and LSR resources, either by spoofing messages or
       by compromising the PCE itself.</t>

       <t>A PCC can protect itself from such an attack by imposing a limit on either the
       number of LSPs or the percentage of resources that are allocated to honor PCE-initiated
       LSP requests. As soon as that limit is reached, the PCC MUST send a PCErr message
       with Error-type=19 ("Invalid Operation") and Error-value=6 ("PCE-initiated LSP limit reached")
       and is free to drop any incoming PCInitiate messages for LSP instantiation without additional processing.</t>

       <t> Rapid flaps triggered by the PCE can also be an attack vector. A PCC can protect itself from such
       an attack by imposing a limit on the number of flaps per unit of time that it allows a PCE to generate.
       As soon as that limit is reached, a PCC MUST send a PCErr message with Error-type=19 ("Invalid Operation") and
       Error-value=10 ("PCE-initiated operation frequency reached") and is free to treat the session as having
       reached the limit in terms of resources allocated to honor PCE-initiated LSP requests, either permanently or for a
       locally-defined cool-off period.</t>
     </section><!-- Malicious PCE -->

     <section anchor="Malicious-PCC" title="Malicious PCC">
        <t> The LSP instantiation mechanism described in this document requires the PCE to keep state
        for LSPs that it instantiates and relies on the PCC responding (with either a state report or
        an error message) to requests for LSP instantiation. A malicious PCC or one that reached the limit
        of the number of PCE-initiated LSPs, can ignore PCE requests and
        consume PCE resources. A PCE can protect itself by imposing a limit on the number of requests
        pending, or by setting a timeout and it MAY take further action such as closing the session or
        removing all the LSPs it initiated.</t>

     </section><!-- Malicious PCC-->

   </section>

   <section anchor="Acknowledgements" title="Acknowledgements">
     <t>We would like to thank Jan Medved, Ambrose Kwong, Ramon Casellas,
      Cyril Margaria, Dhruv Dhody, Raveendra Trovi and Jon Hardwick for
     their contributions to this document.</t>
    </section>

  </middle>

  <back>
    <references title="Normative References">
      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"?>
      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5440.xml"?>
      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5511.xml"?>
      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8231.xml"?>
      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8232.xml"?>
   </references>

   <references title="Informative References">
     <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4657.xml"?>
     <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7942.xml"?>
     <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8051.xml"?>
     <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8126.xml"?>
   </references>
  </back>
</rfc>
