Path Computation Element (PCE) Protocol Extensions for Stateful PCE usage for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths

As per , the Path Computation Element (PCE) is an entity that is capable of computing a network path or route based on a network graph and applying computational constraints. A Path Computation Client (PCC) may make requests to a PCE for paths to be computed. describes how to set up point-to-multipoint (P2MP) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) for use in Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks. examines the applicability of PCE for the path computation for P2MP TE LSPs. The PCEP is designed as a communication protocol between PCCs and PCEs for point-to-point (P2P) path computations and is defined in . The extensions of PCEP to request path computation for P2MP TE LSPs are described in . Stateful PCEs are shown to be helpful in many application scenarios, in both MPLS and GMPLS networks, as illustrated in . These scenarios apply equally to P2P and P2MP TE LSPs. provides the fundamental extensions to PCEP needed for stateful PCE to support general functionality for P2P TE LSP. provides extensions to PCEP needed for stateful PCE-initiated P2P TE LSP. This document complements that work by focusing on PCEP extensions that are necessary in order for the deployment of stateful PCEs to support P2MP TE LSPs. This document describes the setup, maintenance, and teardown of PCE-initiated P2MP LSPs under the stateful PCE model.

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

Terminology used in this document is the same as terminology used in , , and .

presents several use cases, demonstrating scenarios that benefit from the deployment of a stateful PCE including optimization, recovery, etc., which are equally applicable to P2MP TE LSPs. defines the extensions to PCEP needed for stateful operation of P2P TE LSPs. This document complements the previous work by focusing on extensions that are necessary in order for the deployment of stateful PCEs to support P2MP TE LSPs. In addition to that, the stateful nature of a PCE simplifies the information conveyed in PCEP messages since it is possible to refer to the LSPs via a PCEP-specific LSP identifier (PLSP-ID) (). For P2MP, where the size of message is much larger, this is an added advantage. When using a stateless PCE, a request to modify an existing P2MP tree requires that all the leaves are presented in the PCEP messages along with all the path information. But when using a stateful PCE, the PCEP messages can use a PLSP-ID to represent all information about the LSP that has previously been exchanged in PCEP messages, and it is only necessary to encode the modifications (such as new or removed leaf nodes). The PLSP-ID provides an index into the LSP-DB at the PCE, and identifies the LSP at the PCC. In environments where the P2MP TE LSPs placement needs to change in response to application demands, it is useful to support dynamic creation and tear down of P2MP TE LSPs. The ability for a PCE to trigger the creation of P2MP TE 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. Section 3 of further describes the motivation behind the PCE-Initiation capability, which is equally applicable to P2MP TE LSPs.

The objectives for the protocol extensions to support P2MP TE LSPs for stateful PCE are same as the objectives described in section 3.2 of .

specifies new functions to support a stateful PCE. It also specifies that a function can be initiated either from a PCC towards a PCE (C-E) or from a PCE towards a PCC (E-C). This document extends these functions to support P2MP TE LSPs. both the PCC and the PCE must announce during PCEP session establishment that they support Stateful PCE extensions for P2MP using mechanisms defined in . after the session between the PCC and a stateful PCE with P2MP capability is initialized, the PCE must learn the state of a PCC's P2MP TE LSPs before it can perform path computations or update LSP attributes in a PCC. a stateful PCE with P2MP capability requests modification of attributes on a PCC's P2MP TE LSPs. a PCC sends an LSP state report to a PCE whenever the state of a P2MP TE LSP changes. a PCC grants to a PCE the right to update LSP attributes on one or more P2MP TE LSPs; the PCE becomes the authoritative source of the LSP's attributes as long as the delegation is in effect (See Section 5.7 of ); the PCC may withdraw the delegation or the PCE may give up the delegation at any time. a PCE sends an LSP Initiate Message to a PCC to instantiate or delete a P2MP TE LSP .

New PCEP messages are defined in to support stateful PCE for P2P TE LSPs. In this document these messages are extended to support P2MP TE LSPs. Each P2MP TE LSP State Report in a PCRpt message contains the actual P2MP TE LSP path attributes, the LSP status, etc. An LSP State Report carried in a PCRpt message is also used in delegation or revocation of control of a P2MP TE LSP to/from a PCE. The extension of PCRpt message is described in . Each P2MP TE LSP Update Request in a PCUpd message MUST contain all LSP parameters that a PCE wishes to set for a given P2MP TE LSP. An LSP Update Request carried in a PCUpd message is also used to return LSP delegations if at any point PCE no longer desires control of a P2MP TE LSP. The PCUpd message is described in . A PCEP message is defined in to support stateful PCE instantiation of P2P TE LSPs. In this document this message is extended to support P2MP TE LSPs. PCInitiate is a PCEP message sent by a PCE to a PCC to trigger P2MP TE LSPs instantiation or deletion. The PCInitiate message is described in . The Path Computation Request (PCReq) and Path Computation Reply (PCRep) messages are also extended to support passive stateful PCE for P2P TE LSP in . In this document these messages are extended to support P2MP TE LSPs as well.

During PCEP Initialization Phase, as per Section 7.1.1 of , PCEP speakers advertise Stateful capability via the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV in the OPEN object. Various flags are defined for the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV defined in and updated in and . Three new flags N (P2MP-CAPABILITY), M (P2MP-LSP-UPDATE-CAPABILITY), and P (P2MP-LSP-INSTANTIATION-CAPABILITY) are added in this document: if set to 1 by a PCC, the N Flag indicates that the PCC is willing to send P2MP LSP State Reports whenever any parameters or operational status change of the P2MP LSP; if set to 1 by a PCE, the N Flag indicates that the PCE is interested in receiving LSP State Reports whenever there is any parameters or operational status change of the P2MP LSP. The P2MP-CAPABILITY Flag MUST be advertised by both a PCC and a PCE for PCRpt messages P2MP extension to be allowed on a PCEP session. if set to 1 by a PCC, the M Flag indicates that the PCC allows modification of P2MP LSP parameters; if set to 1 by a PCE, the M Flag indicates that the PCE is capable of updating P2MP LSP parameters. The P2MP-LSP-UPDATE-CAPABILITY Flag MUST be advertised by both a PCC and a PCE for PCUpd messages P2MP extension to be allowed on a PCEP session. If set to 1 by a PCC, the P Flag indicates that the PCC allows instantiation of a P2MP LSP by a PCE. If set to 1 by a PCE, the P flag indicates that the PCE supports P2MP LSP instantiation. The P2MP-LSP-INSTANTIATION-CAPABILITY flag MUST be set by both PCC and PCE in order to support PCE-initiated P2MP LSP instantiation. A PCEP speaker should continue to advertise the basic P2MP capability via mechanisms as described in .

When PCC is a Label Switching Router (LSR), participating in the IGP (OSPF or IS-IS), and PCEs are either LSRs or servers also participating in the IGP, an effective mechanism for PCE discovery within an IGP routing domain consists of utilizing IGP advertisements. Extensions for the advertisement of PCE Discovery Information are defined for OSPF and for IS-IS in and respectively. The PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV, defined in , is an optional sub- TLV used to advertise PCE capabilities. It MAY be present within the PCE Discovery (PCED) TLV carried by OSPF or IS-IS. and provide the description and processing rules for this sub-TLV when carried within OSPF and IS-IS, respectively. The format of the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV is included below for easy reference: Type: 5 Length: Multiple of 4. Value: This contains an array of units of 32 bit flags with the most significant bit as 0. Each bit represents one PCE capability. PCE capability bit flags are defined in . This document defines new capability bits (early allocated by IANA) for the stateful PCE with P2MP as follows:

Bit Capability 13 Active Stateful PCE with P2MP 14 Passive Stateful PCE with P2MP 15 PCE-Initiation with P2MP Note that while active, passive or initiation stateful PCE with P2MP capabilities may be advertised during discovery, PCEP Speakers that wish to use stateful PCEP MUST advertise stateful PCEP capabilities during PCEP session setup, as specified in the current document. A PCC MAY initiate stateful PCEP P2MP capability advertisement at PCEP session setup even if it did not receive any IGP PCE capability advertisements.

State Synchronization operations (described in Section 5.6 of ) are applicable for the P2MP TE LSPs as well. The optimizations described in can also be applied for P2MP TE LSPs.

LSP delegation operations (described in Section 5.7 of ) are applicable for P2MP TE LSPs as well.

LSP operations for passive stateful PCE (described in Section 5.8.1 of ) are applicable for P2MP TE LSPs as well. The PCReq and PCRep message format for P2MP TE LSPs is described in Section 3.4 and Section 3.5 of respectively. The PCReq and PCRep message for P2MP TE LSPs are extended to support encoding of LSP object, so that it is possible to refer to an LSP with a unique identifier and simplify the PCEP message exchange. For example, in case of modification of one leaf in a P2MP tree, there should be no need to carry the full P2MP tree in PCReq message. The extension for the Request and Response message for passive stateful operations on P2MP TE LSPs are described in and . The extension for the Path Computation LSP State Report (PCRpt) message is described in .

LSP operations for active stateful PCE (described in Section 5.8.2 of ) are applicable for P2MP TE LSPs as well. The extension for the Path Computation LSP Update (PCUpd) message for active stateful operations on P2MP TE LSPs are described in .

As per section 5.1 of , the PCE sends a Path Computation LSP Initiate Request (PCInitiate) message to the PCC to suggest instantiation or deletion of a P2P TE LSP. This document extends the PCInitiate message to support P2MP TE LSPs (see details in ). The P2MP TE LSPs suggested instantiation and deletion operations are same as for P2P LSP as described in section 5.3 and 5.4 of .

The Instantiation operation of P2MP TE LSPs is the same as defined in section 5.3 of , including handling of PLSP-ID, SYMBOLIC-PATH-NAME TLV, etc. The rules for processing and use of error codes remains unchanged. The N (P2MP) flag () MUST be set in the LSP object in PCInitiate message by the PCE to specify that the instantiation is for P2MP TE LSPs. Like the PLSP-ID (as per ), the P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV SHOULD NOT be included in the LSP object in PCIntiitate messages and MUST be ignored on receipt. These identifiers are generated by the PCC on receipt of PCIntiitate message and reported via PCRpt message to the PCE.

The deletion operation of P2MP TE LSPs is the same as defined in section 5.4 of by sending an LSP Initiate Message with an LSP object carrying the PLSP-ID of the LSP to be removed and an SRP object with the R flag set (LSP-REMOVE as per section 5.2 of ). Rules of processing and error codes remains unchanged.

Adding of new leaves and Pruning of old Leaves for the PCE initiated P2MP TE LSP MUST be carried in PCUpd message as per for P2MP TE LSP extensions. As defined in , leaf type = 1 for adding of new leaves, leaf type = 2 for pruning of old leaves of P2MP END-POINTS Object are used in PCUpd message. PCC MAY use the Incremental State Update mechanism as described in to signal adding and pruning of leaves. Section 3.10 of defines the error-handling procedures when adding new leaves to or removing old leaves from the existing P2MP tree for PCReq message. The same error handling and error-codes are also applicable to the stateful PCE messages as described in this document.

P2MP TE LSPs delegation and cleanup operations are same as defined in section 6 of . Rules of processing and error codes remains unchanged.

Message formats in this section, as those in , , and , are presented using Routing Backus-Naur Format (RBNF) as specified in .

As per Section 6.1 of , PCRpt message is used to report the current state of a P2P TE LSP. This document extends the PCRpt message in reporting the status of P2MP TE LSPs. The format of PCRpt message is as follows:

<PCRpt Message> ::= <Common Header> <state-report-list> Where: <state-report-list> ::= <state-report> [<state-report-list>] <state-report> ::= [<SRP>] <LSP> <path> Where: <path> ::= <end-point-intended-path-pair-list> [<actual-attribute-list> <end-point-actual-path-pair-list>] [<intended-attribute-list>] <end-point-intended-path-pair-list>::= [<END-POINTS>] [<S2LS>] <intended-path> [<end-point-intended-path-pair-list>] <end-point-actual-path-pair-list>::= [<END-POINTS>] [<S2LS>] <actual-path> [<end-point-actual-path-pair-list>] <intended-path> ::= (<ERO>|<SERO>) [<intended-path>] <actual-path> ::= (<RRO>|<SRRO>) [<actual-path>] <intended-attribute-list> is defined in [RFC5440] and extended by PCEP extensions. <actual-attribute-list> consists of the actual computed and signaled values of the <BANDWIDTH> and <metric-lists> objects defined in [RFC5440]. The P2MP END-POINTS object defined in is mandatory for specifying address of P2MP leaves, grouped by leaf types. New leaves to add (leaf type = 1) Old leaves to remove (leaf type = 2) Old leaves whose path can be modified/reoptimized (leaf type = 3) Old leaves whose path must be left unchanged (leaf type = 4) When reporting the status of a P2MP TE LSP, the destinations MUST be grouped in END-POINTS object based on the operational status (O field in S2LS object) and leaf type (in END-POINTS). This way, leaves of the same type that share the same operational status can be grouped together. For reporting the status of delegated P2MP TE LSPs leaf type = 3 is used, whereas for non-delegated P2MP TE LSPs, leaf type = 4 is used. For a delegated P2MP TE LSP configuration changes are reported via PCRpt message. For example, adding of new leaves END-POINTS (leaf type = 1) is used, and removing of old leaves (leaf type = 2) is used. Note that the compatibility with the definition of <state-report> is preserved. At least one instance of <END-POINTS> MUST be present in this message for P2MP LSP. Note that the ordering of <end-point-intended-path-pair-list>, <actual-attribute-list>, <end-point-actual-path-pair-list>, and <intended-attribute-list> is done to retain compatibility with state reports for the P2P LSPs as per . During state synchronization, the PCRpt message reports the status of the full P2MP tree. The S2LS object MUST be carried in PCRpt message along with END-POINTS object when N (P2MP) flag is set in LSP object for P2MP TE LSPs. If the S2LS object is missing, the receiving PCE MUST send a PCErr message with Error-type=6 ("Mandatory Object missing") and Error-value=13 (early allocated by IANA) ("S2LS object missing"). If the END-POINTS object is missing, the receiving PCE MUST send a PCErr message with Error-type=6 ("Mandatory Object missing") and Error-value=3 ("END-POINTS object missing") (defined in . The S2LS object could be used in conjunction with the intended-path (ERO) as well as the actual-path (RRO); for the same leaf, the state encoded in the S2LS object associated with the actual-path MUST be used over the intended-path. If the E-bit (ERO-Compress bit) was set to 1 in the report, then the path will be formed by an ERO followed by a list of SEROs or RRO followed by a list of SRROs.

As per Section 6.2 of , PCUpd message is used to update P2P TE LSP attributes. This document extends the PCUpd message in updating the attributes of a P2MP TE LSP. The format of a PCUpd message is as follows:

<PCUpd Message> ::= <Common Header> <update-request-list> Where: <update-request-list> ::= <update-request> [<update-request-list>] <update-request> ::= <SRP> <LSP> <path> Where: <path> ::= <end-point-path-pair-list> <intended-attribute-list> <end-point-path-pair-list>::= [<END-POINTS>] <intended-path> [<end-point-path-pair-list>] <intended-path> ::= (<ERO>|<SERO>) [<intended-path>] <intended-attribute-list> is the attribute-list defined in [RFC5440] and extended by PCEP extensions. Note that the compatibility with the definition of <update-request> is preserved. The PCC SHOULD use the make-before-break or sub-group-based procedures described in based on a local policy decision. The END-POINTS object MUST be carried in PCUpd message when N flag is set in LSP object for a P2MP TE LSP. If the END-POINTS object is missing, the receiving PCC MUST send a PCErr message with Error-type=6 ("Mandatory Object missing") and Error-value=3 ("END-POINTS object missing") (defined in ).

As per Section 3.4 of , PCReq message is used for a P2MP Path Computation Request. This document extends the PCReq message such that a PCC MAY include the LSP object in the PCReq message if the stateful PCE P2MP capability has been negotiated on a PCEP session between the PCC and a PCE. The format of PCReq message is as follows:

::= [] where: ::= [] [] [] ::=[] ::=

[] [] [] [] [] [|] [] ::= [[]] [] ::=(|)[] ::=[] ]]>

As per Section 3.5 of , PCRep message is used for a P2MP Path Computation Reply. This document extends the PCRep message such that a PCE MAY include the LSP object in the PCRep message if the stateful PCE P2MP capability has been negotiated on a PCEP session between the PCC and a PCE. The format of PCRep message is as follows:

::=

where: ::=[] ::= [] [] [] [] [] ::= [] [] ::= (|) [] ::=[] [] [] [] [] ]]>

As defined in section 5.1 of , PCE sends a PCInitiate message to a PCC to recommend instantiation of a P2P TE LSP. This document extends the format of PCInitiate message for the creation of P2MP TE LSPs but the creation and deletion operations of P2MP TE LSPs are same to the P2P TE LSPs. The format of PCInitiate message is as follows:

<PCInitiate Message> ::= <Common Header> <PCE-initiated-lsp-list> Where: <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-point-path-pair-list> [<attribute-list>] <PCE-initiated-lsp-deletion> ::= <SRP> <LSP> Where: <end-point-path-pair-list>::= [<END-POINTS>] <intended-path> [<end-point-path-pair-list>] <intended-path> ::= (<ERO>|<SERO>) [<intended-path>] <attribute-list> is defined in [RFC5440] and extended by PCEP extensions. The PCInitiate message with an LSP object with N flag (P2MP) set is used to convey operation on a P2MP TE LSP. The SRP object is used to correlate between initiation requests sent by the PCE and the error reports and state reports sent by the PCC as described in . The END-POINTS object MUST be carried in PCInitiate message when N flag is set in LSP object for a P2MP TE LSP. If the END-POINTS object is missing, the receiving PCC MUST send a PCErr message with Error-type=6 ("Mandatory Object missing") and Error-value=3 ("END-POINTS object missing") (defined in ).

An LSP Update Request message is sent by an active stateful PCE to update the P2MP TE LSPs parameters or attributes. An example of a PCUpd message for P2MP TE LSPs is described below:

Common Header SRP LSP with P2MP flag set END-POINTS for leaf type 3 ERO list In this example, a stateful PCE requests an update of the path taken to some of the leaves in a P2MP tree. The update request uses the END-POINT type 3 (modified/reoptimized). The ERO list represents the source to leaves path after modification. The update message does not need to encode the full P2MP tree in this case.

The LSP State Report message is sent by a PCC to report or delegate the P2MP TE LSP. The leaves of the P2MP TE LSP are grouped in the END-POINTS object based on the operational status and the leaf type. An example of a PCRpt message for a delegated P2MP TE LSPs is described below to add new leaves to an existing P2MP TE LSP:

Common Header LSP with P2MP flag set END-POINTS for leaf type 1 (add) S2LS (O=DOWN) ERO list (empty) An example of a PCRpt message for a P2MP TE LSP is described below to prune leaves from an existing P2MP TE LSP:

Common Header LSP with P2MP flag set END-POINTS for leaf type 2 (remove) S2LS (O=UP) ERO list (empty) An example of a PCRpt message for a delegated P2MP TE LSP is described below to report status of leaves in an existing P2MP TE LSP:

Common Header SRP LSP with P2MP flag set END-POINTS for leaf type 3 (modify) S2LS (O=UP) RRO list END-POINTS for leaf type 3 (modify) S2LS (O=DOWN) ERO list (empty) In this example, the PCRpt message is in response to a PCUpd message (with corresponding SRP) object indicating some leaves that are up (with the actual path) and some are down. An example of a PCRpt message for a non-delegated P2MP TE LSP is described below to report status of leaves:

Common Header LSP with P2MP flag set END-POINTS for leaf type 4 (unchanged) S2LS (O=ACTIVE) RRO list END-POINTS for leaf type 4 (unchanged) S2LS (O=DOWN) ERO list (empty)

An LSP Initiation Request message is sent by an stateful PCE to create a P2MP TE LSP. An example of a PCInitiate message for a P2MP TE LSP is described below:

Common Header SRP LSP with P2MP flag set END-POINTS for leaf type 1 (add) ERO list In this example, a stateful PCE request creation of a P2MP TE LSP. The initiation request uses the END-POINT type 1 (new leaves). The ERO list represents the source to leaves path. The initiate message encodes the full P2MP tree in this case.

The new PCEP TLVs defined in this document are in compliance with the PCEP TLV format defined in .

The LSP Object is defined in Section 7.3 of . It specifies the PLSP-ID to uniquely identify an LSP that is constant for the life time of a PCEP session. Similarly for a P2MP tunnel, the PLSP-ID identify a P2MP TE LSP uniquely. This document adds the following flags to the LSP Object: If the N flag is set to 1, it indicates that the message is for a P2MP TE LSP. If the F flag is unset (0), it indicates that the LSP is not fragmented or it is the last piece of the fragmented LSP. If the F flag is set to 1, it indicates that the LSP is fragmented and this is not the last piece of the fragmented LSP. The receiver needs to wait for additional fragments until it receives an LSP with the same PLSP-ID and with the F-bit set to 0. See for further details. If the E flag is set to 1, it indicates the route is in compressed format (that is, Secondary Explicit Route Object (SERO) and Secondary Record Route Object (SRRO) objects are in use). The flags defined in this section (N, F, E flags) are used in PCRpt, PCUpd, or PCInitiate message. In case of PCReq and PCRep message, these flags have no meaning and thus MUST be ignored. The corresponding flags in the RP (Request Parameters) object are used as described in .

specify the LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLVs to be included in the LSP object. For P2MP TE LSP, this document defines P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLVs for the LSP object. There are two P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLVs, one for IPv4 and one for IPv6. The P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV MUST be included in the LSP object in PCRpt message for P2MP TE LSPs. If the N bit is set in the LSP object in the PCRpt message but the P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIER TLV is absent, the PCE MUST respond with a PCErr message carrying error-type 6 ("mandatory object missing") and error-value 14 (early allocated by IANA) ("P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIER TLV missing") and close the PCEP session. The P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV MAY be included in the LSP object in the PCUpd message for P2MP TE LSPs. The special value of all zeros for all the fields in the value portion of the TLV is used to refer to all paths pertaining to a particular PLSP-ID. The length of the TLV remains fixed based on the IP version. The P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV SHOULD NOT be used in PCInitiate (see ) and MAY optionally be included in the LSP object in the PCReq and the PCRep message for P2MP TE LSP. The format of the IPV4-P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV is shown in the :

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=32 | Length=16 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IPv4 Tunnel Sender Address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | LSP ID | Tunnel ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Extended Tunnel ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | P2MP ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The type (16-bits) of the TLV is 32 (early allocated by IANA). The length (16-bits) has a fixed value of 16 octets. The value contains the following fields: contains the sender node's IPv4 address, as defined in , Section 4.6.2.1 for the LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4 Sender Template Object. contains the 16-bits 'LSP ID' identifier defined in , Section 4.6.2.1 for the LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4 Sender Template Object. contains the 16-bits 'Tunnel ID' identifier defined in , Section 4.6.1.1 for the LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4 Session Object. contains the 32-bits 'Extended Tunnel ID' identifier defined in , Section 4.6.1.1 for the LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4 Session Object. contains the 32-bits 'P2MP ID' identifier defined in Section 19.1.1 of for the P2MP LSP Tunnel IPv4 SESSION Object. The format of the IPV6-P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV is shown in the :

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=33 | Length=40 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + + | IPv6 tunnel sender address | + (16 octets) + | | + + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | LSP ID | Tunnel ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + + | Extended Tunnel ID | + (16 octets) + | | + + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | P2MP ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The type (16-bits) of the TLV is 33 (early allocated by IANA). The length (16-bits) has a fixed length of 40 octets. The value contains the following fields: contains the sender node's IPv6 address, as defined in , Section 4.6.2.2 for the LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 Sender Template Object. contains the 16-bits 'LSP ID' identifier defined in , Section 4.6.2.2 for the LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 Sender Template Object. contains the 16-bits 'Tunnel ID' identifier defined in , Section 4.6.1.2 for the LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 Session Object. contains the 128-bits 'Extended Tunnel ID' identifier defined in , Section 4.6.1.2 for the LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 Session Object. As defined above in IPV4-P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV. Tunnel ID remains constant over the life time of a tunnel.

The S2LS (Source-to-Leaves) Object is used to report state of one or more destinations (leaves) encoded within the END-POINTS object for a P2MP TE LSP. It MUST be carried in PCRpt message along with END-POINTS object when N flag is set in LSP object. S2LS Object-Class is 41 (Early allocated by IANA). S2LS Object-Types is 1. The format of the S2LS object is shown in the following figure:

0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Flags | O| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | // Optional TLVs // | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ the following flags are currently defined - the O Field represents the operational status of the group of destinations. The values are as per Operational field in LSP object defined in Section 7.3 of . Unassigned bits are reserved for future uses. They MUST be set to 0 on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt. When N flag is set in LSP object then the O field in LSP object represents the operational status of the full P2MP TE LSP and the O field in S2LS object represents the operational status of a group of destinations encoded within the END-POINTS object. If there is a conflict between the O field in the LSP and the S2LS object (for example, O field in LSP corresponds to down whereas the O field in S2LS is up), the PCEP speaker MUST generate an error with error-type 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and error-value TBD1 (to be allocated by IANA) ("Mis-match of O field in S2LS and LSP object"). Future documents might define optional TLVs that could be included in the S2LS Object.

The total PCEP message length, including the common header, is (2^16)-1 bytes. In certain scenarios the P2MP report and update request may not fit into a single PCEP message (e.g. initial report or update). The F flag is used in the LSP object to signal that the initial report, update, or initiate message was too large to fit into a single message and will be fragmented into multiple messages. In order to identify the single report or update each message will use the same PLSP-ID. In order to identify that a series of PCInitiate messages represents a single Initiate, each message will use the same PLSP-ID (in this case 0) and SRP-ID-number. The fragmentation procedure described below for report or update message is similar to which describes request and response message fragmentation.

If the initial report is too large to fit into a single report message, the PCC will split the report over multiple messages. Each message sent to the PCE, except the last one, will have the F flag set in the LSP object to signify that the report has been fragmented into multiple messages. In order to identify that a series of report messages represents a single report, each message will use the same PLSP-ID. The Error-Type value 18 ("P2MP Fragmentation Error") is used to report any error associated with the fragmentation of a P2MP PCEP message. A new error-value 2 (early allocated by IANA) indicates "Fragmented report failure" and is used if a PCE does not receive the last part of the fragmented message.

Once the PCE computes and updates a path for some or all leaves in a P2MP TE LSP, an update message is sent to the PCC. If the update is too large to fit into a single update message, the PCE will split the update over multiple messages. Each update message sent by the PCE, except the last one, will have the F flag set in the LSP object to signify that the update has been fragmented into multiple messages. In order to identify that a series of update messages represents a single update, each message will use the same PLSP-ID and SRP-ID-number. The Error-Type value 18 ("P2MP Fragmentation Error") is used to report any error associated with the fragmentation of a P2MP PCEP message. A new error-value 3 (early allocated by IANA) indicates "Fragmented update failure" and is used if a PCC does not receive the last part of the fragmented message.

Once the PCE initiates to set up a P2MP TE LSP, a PCInitiate message is sent to the PCC. If the PCInitiate is too large to fit into a single PCInitiate message, the PCE will split the PCInitiate over multiple messages. Each PCInitiate message sent by the PCE, except the last one, will have the F flag set in the LSP object to signify that the PCInitiate has been fragmented into multiple messages. In order to identify that a series of PCInitiate messages represents a single Initiate, each message will use the same PLSP-ID (in this case 0) and SRP-ID-number. The Error-Type value 18 ("P2MP Fragmentation Error") is used to report any error associated with the fragmentation of a P2MP PCEP message. A new error-value 4 (early allocated by IANA) indicates "Fragmented instantiation failure" and is used if a PCC does not receive the last part of the fragmented message.

The PCEP extensions described in this document for stateful PCEs with P2MP capability MUST NOT be used if PCE has not advertised its stateful capability with P2MP as per . If the PCC supports the extensions as per this document (understands the N (P2MP-CAPABILITY) and M (P2MP-LSP-UPDATE-CAPABILITY) flags in the LSP object) but did not advertise this capability, then upon receipt of PCUpd message from the PCE, it SHOULD generate a PCErr with error-type 19 ("Invalid Operation"), error-value 12 (early allocated by IANA) ("Attempted LSP Update Request for P2MP if active stateful PCE capability for P2MP was not advertised") and terminate the PCEP session. If the PCE supports the extensions as per this document (understands the N (P2MP-CAPABILITY) flag in the LSP object) but did not advertise this capability, then upon receipt of a PCRpt message from the PCC, it SHOULD generate a PCErr with error-type 19 ("Invalid Operation"), error-value 11 (early allocated by IANA) ("Attempted LSP State Report for P2MP if stateful PCE capability for P2MP was not advertised") and it SHOULD terminate the PCEP session. If a Stateful PCE receives a P2MP TE LSP report message and the PCE does not understand the N (P2MP-CAPABILITY) flag in the LSP object, and therefore the PCEP extensions described in this document, then the Stateful PCE would act as per Section 6.1 of (and consider the PCRpt message as invalid). The PCEP extensions described in this document for PCC or PCE with instantiation capability for P2MP TE LSPs MUST NOT be used if PCC or PCE has not advertised its stateful capability with Instantiation and P2MP capability as per . If the PCC supports the extensions as per this document (understands the P (P2MP-LSP-INSTANTIATION-CAPABILITY) flag) but did not advertise this capability, then upon receipt of PCInitiate message from the PCE, it SHOULD generate a PCErr with error-type 19 ("Invalid Operation"), error-value 13 (early allocated by IANA) ("Attempted LSP Instantiation Request for P2MP if stateful PCE instantiation capability for P2MP was not advertised") and terminate the PCEP session..

All manageability requirements and considerations listed in , , , and apply to PCEP extensions defined in this document. In addition, requirements and considerations listed in this section apply.

A PCE or PCC implementation MUST allow configuring the stateful PCEP capability, the LSP Update capability, and the LSP Initiation capability for P2MP LSPs.

The PCEP YANG module could be extended to include advertised P2MP stateful capabilities, P2MP synchronization status, and delegation status of P2MP LSP etc. The statistics module should also count P2MP LSP related data.

Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already listed in .

Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new operation verification requirements in addition to those already listed in , , , and .

Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new requirements on other protocols.

Mechanisms defined in this document do not have any impact on network operations in addition to those already listed in , , , and . Stateful PCE feature for P2MP LSP would help with network operations.

This document requests IANA to confirm the early allocation of the code-points for the protocol elements defined in this document.

IANA is requested to confirm the early allocation for the new bits in the OSPF Parameters "PCE Capability Flags" registry, as follows:

The STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV is defined in and the 'STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV Flag Field' subregistry was created to manage the flags in the TLV. IANA is requested to confirm the early allocation of the following code-points in the aforementioned registry.

The LSP object is defined in and the 'LSP Object Flag Field' subregistry was created to manage the Flags field of the LSP object. IANA is requested to confirm the early allocation of the following code-points in the aforementioned registry.

Additionally, IANA is requested to allocate an additional code-point in this registry.

IANA is requested to confirm the early allocation of the new error values within the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" sub-registry of the PCEP Numbers registry, as follows:

Additionally, IANA is requested to allocate an additional code-point in this registry.

IANA is requested to confirm the early allocation of the following code-points in the existing "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" registry as follows:

IANA is requested to confirm the early allocation for the new object-class values and object types within the "PCEP Objects" sub-registry of the PCEP Numbers registry, as follows.

This document requests that a new sub-registry, named "S2LS Object Flag Field", is created within the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry to manage the 32-bits Flag field of the S2LS object. New values are to be assigned by Standards Action . Each bit should be tracked with the following qualities: Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit) Capability description Defining RFC The following values are defined in this document:

The stateful operations on P2MP TE LSPs are more CPU-intensive and also utilize more bandwidth on wire (in comparison to P2P TE LSPs). If a rogue PCC were able to request unauthorized stateful PCE operations then it may be able to mount a DoS attack against a PCE, which would disrupt the network and deny service to other PCCs. Similarly an attacker may flood the PCC with PCUpd messages at a rate that exceeds either the PCC's ability to process them or the network's ability to signal the changes, by either spoofing messages or compromising the PCE itself. Consequently, it is important that implementations conform to the relevant security requirements as listed below - As per , it is RECOMMENDED that these PCEP extensions only be activated on authenticated and encrypted sessions across PCEs and PCCs belonging to the same administrative authority, using Transport Layer Security (TLS) , as per the recommendations and best current practices in (unless explicitly set aside in ). Security considerations for path computation requests and responses are as per . Security considerations for stateful operations (such as state report, synchronization, delegation, update, etc.) are as per . Security considerations for LSP instantiation mechanism are as per . Security considerations as stated in Section 10.1, Section 10.6, and Section 10.7 of continue to apply.

Thanks to Quintin Zhao, Avantika and Venugopal Reddy for the review comments. Thanks to Adrian Farrel (and Jonathan Hardwick) for the review as document shepherds. Thanks to Andy Malis for the RTGDIR review. Thanks to Donald Eastlake for the SECDIR review. Thanks to David Schinazi for the GENART review. Thanks to Suresh Krishnan, Mirja Kuhlewind, Roman Danyliw, and Benjamin Kaduk for the IESG reviews.