< draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit-00.txt   draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit-01.txt >
PCE H. Chen PCE H. Chen
Internet-Draft China Telecom Internet-Draft China Telecom
Intended status: Standards Track H. Yuan Intended status: Standards Track H. Yuan
Expires: March 1, 2021 UnionPay Expires: March 26, 2021 UnionPay
T. Zhou T. Zhou
W. Li W. Li
G. Fioccola G. Fioccola
Y. Wang Y. Wang
Huawei Huawei
August 28, 2020 September 22, 2020
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions to Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions to
Enable IFIT Enable IFIT
draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit-00 draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit-01
Abstract Abstract
This document defines PCEP extensions to distribute In-situ Flow This document defines PCEP extensions to distribute In-situ Flow
Information Telemetry (IFIT) information. So that IFIT behavior can Information Telemetry (IFIT) information. So that IFIT behavior can
be enabled automatically when the path is instantiated. In-situ Flow be enabled automatically when the path is instantiated. In-situ Flow
Information Telemetry (IFIT) refers to network OAM data plane on-path Information Telemetry (IFIT) refers to network OAM data plane on-path
telemetry techniques, in particular the most popular are In-situ OAM telemetry techniques, in particular the most popular are In-situ OAM
(IOAM) and Alternate Marking. The IFIT attributes here described can (IOAM) and Alternate Marking. The IFIT attributes here described can
be generalized for all path types but the application to Segment be generalized for all path types but the application to Segment
Routing (SR) is considered in this document. The SR policy is a set Routing (SR) is considered in this document. This document extends
of candidate SR paths consisting of one or more segment lists and PCEP to carry the IFIT attributes under the stateful PCE model.
necessary path attributes. It enables instantiation of an ordered
list of segments with a specific intent for traffic steering.
Requirements Language Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in in BCP 14 [RFC2119]
[RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown
here.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 1, 2021. This Internet-Draft will expire on March 26, 2021.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 30 skipping to change at page 2, line 30
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. PCEP Extensions for IFIT Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. PCEP Extensions for IFIT Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. IFIT for SR Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. IFIT for SR Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. IFIT capability advertisement TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. IFIT capability advertisement TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. IFIT Attributes TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. IFIT Attributes TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. IOAM Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1. IOAM Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.1. IOAM Pre-allocated Trace Option Sub-TLV . . . . . . . 7 4.1.1. IOAM Pre-allocated Trace Option Sub-TLV . . . . . . . 8
4.1.2. IOAM Incremental Trace Option Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . 8 4.1.2. IOAM Incremental Trace Option Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.3. IOAM Directly Export Option Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . 9 4.1.3. IOAM Directly Export Option Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1.4. IOAM Edge-to-Edge Option Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.1.4. IOAM Edge-to-Edge Option Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2. Enhanced Alternate Marking Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.2. Enhanced Alternate Marking Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Example of operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5. PCEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.1. PCE Initiated SR Policy with single or multiple 5.1. The PCInitiate Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
candidate-paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.2. The PCUpd Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.3. The PCRpt Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6. Example of application to SR Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Appendix A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Appendix A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
In-situ Flow Information Telemetry (IFIT) refers to network OAM data In-situ Flow Information Telemetry (IFIT) refers to network OAM
plane on-path telemetry techniques, including In-situ OAM (IOAM) (Operations, Administration, and Maintenance) data plane on-path
telemetry techniques, including In-situ OAM (IOAM)
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] and Alternate Marking [RFC8321]. It can [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] and Alternate Marking [RFC8321]. It can
provide flow information on the entire forwarding path on a per- provide flow information on the entire forwarding path on a per-
packet basis in real time. packet basis in real time.
An automatic network requires the Service Level Agreement (SLA) An automatic network requires the Service Level Agreement (SLA)
monitoring on the deployed service. So that the system can quickly monitoring on the deployed service. So that the system can quickly
detect the SLA violation or the performance degradation, hence to detect the SLA violation or the performance degradation, hence to
change the service deployment. change the service deployment.
This document defines extensions to PCEP to distribute paths carrying This document defines extensions to PCEP to distribute paths carrying
skipping to change at page 3, line 31 skipping to change at page 3, line 32
RFC 5440 [RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element Protocol RFC 5440 [RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element Protocol
(PCEP) as a communication mechanism between a Path Computation Client (PCEP) as a communication mechanism between a Path Computation Client
(PCC) and a Path Computation Element (PCE), or between a PCE and a (PCC) and a Path Computation Element (PCE), or between a PCE and a
PCE. PCE.
RFC 8231 [RFC8231] specifies extensions to PCEP to enable stateful RFC 8231 [RFC8231] specifies extensions to PCEP to enable stateful
control and it describes two modes of operation: passive stateful PCE control and it describes two modes of operation: passive stateful PCE
and active stateful PCE. Further, RFC 8281 [RFC8281] describes the and active stateful PCE. Further, RFC 8281 [RFC8281] describes the
setup, maintenance, and teardown of PCE-initiated LSPs for the setup, maintenance, and teardown of PCE-initiated LSPs for the
stateful PCE model, while RFC 8733 [RFC8733] is focused on the active stateful PCE model.
stateful PCE, where the LSPs are controlled by the PCE.
When a PCE is used to initiate paths using PCEP, it is important that When a PCE is used to initiate paths using PCEP, it is important that
the head end of the path also understands the IFIT behavior that is the head end of the path also understands the IFIT behavior that is
intended for the path. When PCEP is in use for path initiation it intended for the path. When PCEP is in use for path initiation it
makes sense for that same protocol to be used to also carry the IFIT makes sense for that same protocol to be used to also carry the IFIT
attributes that describe the IOAM or Alternate Marking procedure that attributes that describe the IOAM or Alternate Marking procedure that
needs to be applied to the data that flow those paths. needs to be applied to the data that flow those paths.
The PCEP extension defined in this document allows to signal the IFIT The PCEP extension defined in this document allows to signal the IFIT
capabilities. In this way IFIT methods are automatically activated capabilities. In this way IFIT methods are automatically activated
skipping to change at page 4, line 23 skipping to change at page 4, line 23
2. PCEP Extensions for IFIT Attributes 2. PCEP Extensions for IFIT Attributes
This document is to add IFIT attribute TLVs as PCEP Extensions. The This document is to add IFIT attribute TLVs as PCEP Extensions. The
following sections will describe the requirement and usage of following sections will describe the requirement and usage of
different IFIT modes, and define the corresponding TLV encoding in different IFIT modes, and define the corresponding TLV encoding in
PCEP. PCEP.
The IFIT attributes here described can be generalized and included as The IFIT attributes here described can be generalized and included as
TLVs carried inside the LSPA (LSP Attributes) object in order to be TLVs carried inside the LSPA (LSP Attributes) object in order to be
applied for all path types, as long as they support the relevant data applied for all path types, as long as they support the relevant data
plane telemetry method. IFIT TLVs are o ptional and can be taken plane telemetry method. IFIT Attributes TLVs are optional and can be
into account by the PCE during path computation. In general, the taken into account by the PCE during path computation and by the PCC
LSPA object is carried within a PCInitiate message or a PCRpt during path setup. In general, the LSPA object can be carried within
message. a PCInitiate message, a PCUpd message, or a PCRpt message in the
stateful PCE model.
In this document it is considered the case of SR Policy since IOAM In this document it is considered the case of SR Policy since IOAM
and Alternate Marking are more mature especially for Segment Routing and Alternate Marking are more mature especially for Segment Routing
(SR) and for IPv6. (SR) and for IPv6.
2.1. IFIT for SR Policies 2.1. IFIT for SR Policies
RFC 8664 [RFC8664] and [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6] specify RFC 8664 [RFC8664] and [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6] specify
extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
(PCEP) that allow a stateful PCE to compute and initiate Traffic- (PCEP) that allow a stateful PCE to compute and initiate Traffic-
skipping to change at page 4, line 51 skipping to change at page 5, line 5
IFIT attibutes, here defined as TLVs for the LSPA object, complement IFIT attibutes, here defined as TLVs for the LSPA object, complement
both RFC 8664 [RFC8664], [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6] and both RFC 8664 [RFC8664], [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6] and
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp]. [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp].
3. IFIT capability advertisement TLV 3. IFIT capability advertisement TLV
During the PCEP initialization phase, PCEP speakers (PCE or PCC) During the PCEP initialization phase, PCEP speakers (PCE or PCC)
SHOULD advertise their support of IFIT methods (e.g. IOAM and SHOULD advertise their support of IFIT methods (e.g. IOAM and
Alternate Marking). Alternate Marking).
A PCEP speaker includes the IFIT TLVs in the OPEN object to advertise A PCEP speaker includes the IFIT-CAPABILITY TLVs in the OPEN object
its support for PCEP IFIT extensions. to advertise its support for PCEP IFIT extensions. The presence of
the IFIT-CAPABILITY TLV in the OPEN object indicates that the IFIT
methods are supported.
RFC 8664 [RFC8664] and and [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6] define RFC 8664 [RFC8664] and [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6] define a
a new Path Setup Type (PST) for SR and also define the SR-PCE- new Path Setup Type (PST) for SR and also define the SR-PCE-
CAPABILITY sub-TLV. This document defined a new IFIT-CAPABILITY TLV, CAPABILITY sub-TLV. This document defined a new IFIT-CAPABILITY TLV,
that is an optional TLV for use in the OPEN Object for IFIT that is an optional TLV for use in the OPEN Object for IFIT
attributes via PCEP capability advertisement. attributes via PCEP capability advertisement.
0 1 2 3 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 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 | | Type | Length=4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flag | | Flags |P|I|D|E|M|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Fig. 1 IFIT-CAPABILITY TLV Format Fig. 1 IFIT-CAPABILITY TLV Format
Where: Where:
Type: to be assigned by IANA. Type: to be assigned by IANA.
Length: The Length field defines the length of the value portion in Length: 4.
bytes as per RFC 5440 [RFC5440].
Flag: No flags are defined for this TLV in this document. Unassigned Flags: The following flags are defined in this document:
bits are considered reserved. They MUST be set to 0 on transmission
and MUST be ignored on receipt. P: IOAM Pre-allocated Trace Option Type-enabled flag
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. If set to 1 by a PCC, the P flag
indicates that the PCC allows instantiation of the IOAM Pre-
allocated Trace feature by a PCE. If set to 1 by a PCE, the P
flag indicates that the PCE supports the IOAM Pre-allocated Trace
feature instantiation. The P flag MUST be set by both PCC and PCE
in order to support the IOAM Pre-allocated Trace instantiation
I: IOAM Incremental Trace Option Type-enabled flag
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. If set to 1 by a PCC, the I flag
indicates that the PCC allows instantiation of the IOAM
Incremental Trace feature by a PCE. If set to 1 by a PCE, the I
flag indicates that the PCE supports the relative IOAM Incremental
Trace feature instantiation. The I flag MUST be set by both PCC
and PCE in order to support the IOAM Incremental Trace feature
instantiation
D: IOAM DEX Option Type-enabled flag
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export]. If set to 1 by a PCC, the D
flag indicates that the PCC allows instantiation of the relative
IOAM DEX feature by a PCE. If set to 1 by a PCE, the D flag
indicates that the PCE supports the relative IOAM DEX feature
instantiation. The D flag MUST be set by both PCC and PCE in
order to support the IOAM DEX feature instantiation
E: IOAM E2E Option Type-enabled flag [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].
If set to 1 by a PCC, the E flag indicates that the PCC allows
instantiation of the relative IOAM E2E feature by a PCE. If set
to 1 by a PCE, the E flag indicates that the PCE supports the
relative IOAM E2E feature instantiation. The E flag MUST be set
by both PCC and PCE in order to support the IOAM E2E feature
instantiation
M: Alternate Marking enabled flag RFC 8321 [RFC8321]. If set to 1
by a PCC, the M flag indicates that the PCC allows instantiation
of the relative Alternate Marking feature by a PCE. If set to 1
by a PCE, the M flag indicates that the PCE supports the relative
Alternate Marking feature instantiation. The M flag MUST be set
by both PCC and PCE in order to support the Alternate Marking
feature instantiation
Unassigned bits are considered reserved. They MUST be set to 0 on
transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
Advertisement of the IFIT-CAPABILITY TLV implies support of IFIT Advertisement of the IFIT-CAPABILITY TLV implies support of IFIT
methods (IOAM and/or Alternate Marking) as well as the objects, TLVs, methods (IOAM and/or Alternate Marking) as well as the objects, TLVs,
and procedures defined in this document. It is worth mentioning that and procedures defined in this document. It is worth mentioning that
IOAM and Alternate Marking can be activated one at a time or can IOAM and Alternate Marking can be activated one at a time or can
coexist; so it is possible to have only IOAM or only Alternate coexist; so it is possible to have only IOAM or only Alternate
Marking enabled but they are recognized in general as IFIT Marking enabled but they are recognized in general as IFIT
capability. capability.
The IFIT Capability Advertisement can imply the following cases:
o The PCEP protocol extensions for IFIT MUST NOT be used if one or
both PCEP speakers have not included the IFIT-CAPABILITY TLV in
their respective OPEN message.
o A PCEP speaker that does not recognize the extensions defined in
this document would simply ignore the TLVs as per RFC 5440
[RFC5440].
o If a PCEP speaker supports the extensions defined in this document
but did not advertise this capability, then upon receipt of IFIT-
ATTRIBUTES TLV in the LSP Attributes (LSPA) object, it SHOULD
generate a PCErr with Error-Type 19 (Invalid Operation) with the
relative Error-value "IFIT capability not advertised" and ignore
the IFIT-ATTRIBUTES TLV.
4. IFIT Attributes TLV 4. IFIT Attributes TLV
The IFIT TLV provides the configurable knobs of the IFIT feature, and The IFIT-ATTRIBUTES TLV provides the configurable knobs of the IFIT
it can be included as an optional TLV in the LSPA object (as feature, and it can be included as an optional TLV in the LSPA object
described in RFC 5440 [RFC5440]). (as described in RFC 5440 [RFC5440]).
For a PCE-initiated LSP RFC 8281 [RFC8281], this TLV is included in For a PCE-initiated LSP RFC 8281 [RFC8281], this TLV is included in
the LSPA object with the PCInitiate message. For the PCC-initiated the LSPA object with the PCInitiate message. For the PCC-initiated
delegated LSPs, this TLV is carried in the Path Computation State delegated LSPs, this TLV is carried in the Path Computation State
Report (PCRpt) message in the LSPA object. This TLV is also carried Report (PCRpt) message in the LSPA object. This TLV is also carried
in the LSPA object with the Path Computation Update Request (PCUpd) in the LSPA object with the Path Computation Update Request (PCUpd)
message to direct the PCC (LSP head-end) to make updates to IFIT message to direct the PCC (LSP head-end) to make updates to IFIT
attributes. attributes.
The TLV is encoded in all PCEP messages for the LSP if IFIT feature The TLV is encoded in all PCEP messages for the LSP if IFIT feature
skipping to change at page 7, line 5 skipping to change at page 8, line 7
Type: to be assigned by IANA. Type: to be assigned by IANA.
Length: The Length field defines the length of the value portion in Length: The Length field defines the length of the value portion in
bytes as per RFC 5440 [RFC5440]. bytes as per RFC 5440 [RFC5440].
Value: This comprises one or more sub-TLVs. Value: This comprises one or more sub-TLVs.
The following sub-TLVs are defined in this document: The following sub-TLVs are defined in this document:
+------+-----+--------------------------------------+ Type Len Name
| Type | Len | Name | -----------------------------------------------------
+======+=====+======================================+ 1 8 IOAM Pre-allocated Trace Option
| 1 | 8 | IOAM Pre-allocated Trace Option |
+------+-----+--------------------------------------+ 2 8 IOAM Incremental Trace Option
| 2 | 8 | IOAM Incremental Trace Option |
+------+-----+--------------------------------------+ 3 12 IOAM Directly Export Option
| 3 | 12 | IOAM Directly Export Option |
+------+-----+--------------------------------------+ 4 4 IOAM Edge-to-Edge Option
| 4 | 4 | IOAM Edge-to-Edge Option |
+------+-----+--------------------------------------+ 5 4 Enhanced Alternate Marking
| 5 | 4 | Enhanced Alternate Marking |
+------+-----+--------------------------------------+
Fig. 3 Sub-TLV Types of the IFIT-ATTRIBUTES TLV Fig. 3 Sub-TLV Types of the IFIT-ATTRIBUTES TLV
4.1. IOAM Sub-TLVs 4.1. IOAM Sub-TLVs
In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM)
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] records operational and telemetry [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] records operational and telemetry
information in the packet while the packet traverses a path between information in the packet while the packet traverses a path between
two points in the network. In terms of the classification given in two points in the network. In terms of the classification given in
RFC 7799 [RFC7799] IOAM could be categorized as Hybrid Type 1. IOAM RFC 7799 [RFC7799] IOAM could be categorized as Hybrid Type 1. IOAM
skipping to change at page 8, line 8 skipping to change at page 9, line 8
a packet traverses to ensure visibility into the entire path a packet a packet traverses to ensure visibility into the entire path a packet
takes within an IOAM domain. The preallocated tracing option will takes within an IOAM domain. The preallocated tracing option will
create pre-allocated space for each node to populate its information. create pre-allocated space for each node to populate its information.
The format of IOAM pre-allocated trace option Sub-TLV is defined as The format of IOAM pre-allocated trace option Sub-TLV is defined as
follows: follows:
0 1 2 3 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 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=1 | Length | | Type=1 | Length=8 |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Namespace ID | Rsvd1 | | Namespace ID | Rsvd1 |
+-------------------------------+-----------------------+-------+ +-------------------------------+-----------------------+-------+
| IOAM Trace Type | Flags | Rsvd2 | | IOAM Trace Type | Flags | Rsvd2 |
+----------------------------------------------+--------+-------+ +----------------------------------------------+--------+-------+
Fig. 4 IOAM Pre-allocated Trace Option Sub-TLV Fig. 4 IOAM Pre-allocated Trace Option Sub-TLV
Where: Where:
Type: 1 (to be assigned by IANA). Type: 1 (to be assigned by IANA).
Length: the total length of the value field not including Type and Length: 8. It is the total length of the value field not including
Length fields. Type and Length fields.
Namespace ID: A 16-bit identifier of an IOAM-Namespace. The Namespace ID: A 16-bit identifier of an IOAM-Namespace. The
definition is the same as described in section 4.4 of definition is the same as described in section 4.4 of
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].
IOAM Trace Type: A 24-bit identifier which specifies which data types IOAM Trace Type: A 24-bit identifier which specifies which data types
are used in the node data list. The definition is the same as are used in the node data list. The definition is the same as
described in section 4.4 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. described in section 4.4 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].
Flags: A 4-bit field. The definition is the same as described in Flags: A 4-bit field. The definition is the same as described in
skipping to change at page 9, line 8 skipping to change at page 10, line 8
The incremental tracing option contains a variable node data fields The incremental tracing option contains a variable node data fields
where each node allocates and pushes its node data immediately where each node allocates and pushes its node data immediately
following the option header. following the option header.
The format of IOAM incremental trace option Sub-TLV is defined as The format of IOAM incremental trace option Sub-TLV is defined as
follows: follows:
0 1 2 3 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 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=2 | Length | | Type=2 | Length=8 |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Namespace ID | Rsvd1 | | Namespace ID | Rsvd1 |
+-------------------------------+-----------------------+-------+ +-------------------------------+-----------------------+-------+
| IOAM Trace Type | Flags | Rsvd2 | | IOAM Trace Type | Flags | Rsvd2 |
+----------------------------------------------+--------+-------+ +----------------------------------------------+--------+-------+
Fig. 5 IOAM Incremental Trace Option Sub-TLV Fig. 5 IOAM Incremental Trace Option Sub-TLV
Where: Where:
Type: 2 (to be assigned by IANA). Type: 2 (to be assigned by IANA).
Length: the total length of the value field not including Type and Length: 8. It is the total length of the value field not including
Length fields. Type and Length fields.
All the other fields definition is the same as the pre-allocated All the other fields definition is the same as the pre-allocated
trace option Sub-TLV in the previous section. trace option Sub-TLV in the previous section.
4.1.3. IOAM Directly Export Option Sub-TLV 4.1.3. IOAM Directly Export Option Sub-TLV
IOAM directly export option is used as a trigger for IOAM data to be IOAM directly export option is used as a trigger for IOAM data to be
directly exported to a collector without being pushed into in-flight directly exported to a collector without being pushed into in-flight
data packets. data packets.
The format of IOAM directly export option Sub-TLV is defined as The format of IOAM directly export option Sub-TLV is defined as
follows: follows:
0 1 2 3 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 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=3 | Length | | Type=3 | Length=12 |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Namespace ID | Flags | | Namespace ID | Flags |
+-------------------------------+---------------+---------------+ +-------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| IOAM Trace Type | Rsvd | | IOAM Trace Type | Rsvd |
+-----------------------------------------------+---------------+ +-----------------------------------------------+---------------+
| Flow ID | | Flow ID |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------------------------------+
Fig. 6 IOAM Directly Export Option Sub-TLV Fig. 6 IOAM Directly Export Option Sub-TLV
Where: Where:
Type: 3 (to be assigned by IANA). Type: 3 (to be assigned by IANA).
Length: the total length of the value field not including Type and Length: 12. It is the total length of the value field not including
Length fields. Type and Length fields.
Namespace ID: A 16-bit identifier of an IOAM-Namespace. The Namespace ID: A 16-bit identifier of an IOAM-Namespace. The
definition is the same as described in section 4.4 of definition is the same as described in section 4.4 of
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].
IOAM Trace Type: A 24-bit identifier which specifies which data types IOAM Trace Type: A 24-bit identifier which specifies which data types
are used in the node data list. The definition is the same as are used in the node data list. The definition is the same as
described in section 4.4 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. described in section 4.4 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].
Flags: A 16-bit field. The definition is the same as described in Flags: A 16-bit field. The definition is the same as described in
skipping to change at page 10, line 34 skipping to change at page 11, line 34
4.1.4. IOAM Edge-to-Edge Option Sub-TLV 4.1.4. IOAM Edge-to-Edge Option Sub-TLV
The IOAM edge to edge option is to carry data that is added by the The IOAM edge to edge option is to carry data that is added by the
IOAM encapsulating node and interpreted by IOAM decapsulating node. IOAM encapsulating node and interpreted by IOAM decapsulating node.
The format of IOAM edge-to-edge option Sub-TLV is defined as follows: The format of IOAM edge-to-edge option Sub-TLV is defined as follows:
0 1 2 3 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 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=4 | Length | | Type=4 | Length=4 |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Namespace ID | IOAM E2E Type | | Namespace ID | IOAM E2E Type |
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+ +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
Fig. 7 IOAM Edge-to-Edge Option Sub-TLV Fig. 7 IOAM Edge-to-Edge Option Sub-TLV
Where: Where:
Type: 4 (to be assigned by IANA). Type: 4 (to be assigned by IANA).
Length: the total length of the value field not including Type and Length: 4. It is the total length of the value field not including
Length fields. Type and Length fields.
Namespace ID: A 16-bit identifier of an IOAM-Namespace. The Namespace ID: A 16-bit identifier of an IOAM-Namespace. The
definition is the same as described in section 4.6 of definition is the same as described in section 4.6 of
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].
IOAM E2E Type: A 16-bit identifier which specifies which data types IOAM E2E Type: A 16-bit identifier which specifies which data types
are used in the E2E option data. The definition is the same as are used in the E2E option data. The definition is the same as
described in section 4.6 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. described in section 4.6 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].
4.2. Enhanced Alternate Marking Sub-TLV 4.2. Enhanced Alternate Marking Sub-TLV
skipping to change at page 11, line 28 skipping to change at page 12, line 28
plane, it is to be noted that a relevant document for the data plane plane, it is to be noted that a relevant document for the data plane
is [I-D.ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark] for Segment Routing over IPv6 data is [I-D.ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark] for Segment Routing over IPv6 data
plane (SRv6). plane (SRv6).
The format of Enhanced Alternate Marking (EAM) Sub-TLV is defined as The format of Enhanced Alternate Marking (EAM) Sub-TLV is defined as
follows: follows:
0 1 2 3 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 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=5 | Length | | Type=5 | Length=4 |
+-------------------------------+-------+---------------+-------+ +-------------------------------+-------+---------------+-------+
| FlowMonID | Period | Rsvd | | FlowMonID | Period | Rsvd |
+---------------------------------------+---------------+-------+ +---------------------------------------+---------------+-------+
Fig. 8 Enhanced Alternate Marking Sub-TLV Fig. 8 Enhanced Alternate Marking Sub-TLV
Where: Where:
Type: 5 (to be assigned by IANA). Type: 5 (to be assigned by IANA).
Length: the total length of the value field not including Type and Length: 4. It is the total length of the value field not including
Length fields. Type and Length fields.
FlowMonID: A 20-bit identifier to uniquely identify a monitored flow FlowMonID: A 20-bit identifier to uniquely identify a monitored flow
within the measurement domain. The definition is the same as within the measurement domain. The definition is the same as
described in section 5.3 of [I-D.ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark]. It is to described in section 5.3 of [I-D.ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark]. It is to
be noted that PCE also needs to maintain the uniqueness of FlowMonID be noted that PCE also needs to maintain the uniqueness of FlowMonID
as described in [I-D.ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark]. as described in [I-D.ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark].
Period: Time interval between two alternate marking period. The unit Period: Time interval between two alternate marking period. The unit
is second. is second.
Rsvd: A 4-bit field reserved for further usage. It MUST be zero. Rsvd: A 4-bit field reserved for further usage. It MUST be zero.
5. Example of operation 5. PCEP Messages
5.1. PCE Initiated SR Policy with single or multiple candidate-paths 5.1. The PCInitiate Message
A PCInitiate message is a PCEP message sent by a PCE to a PCC to
trigger LSP instantiation or deletion RFC 8281 [RFC8281].
For the PCE-initiated LSP with the IFIT feature enabled, IFIT-
ATTRIBUTES TLV MUST be included in the LSPA object with the
PCInitiate message.
The Routing Backus-Naur Form (RBNF) definition of the PCInitiate
message RFC 8281 [RFC8281] is unchanged by this document.
5.2. The PCUpd Message
A PCUpd message is a PCEP message sent by a PCE to a PCC to update
the LSP parameters RFC 8231 [RFC8231].
For PCE-initiated LSPs with the IFIT feature enabled, the IFIT-
ATTRIBUTES TLV MUST be included in the LSPA object with the PCUpd
message. The PCE can send this TLV to direct the PCC to change the
IFIT parameters.
The RBNF definition of the PCUpd message RFC 8231 [RFC8231] is
unchanged by this document.
5.3. The PCRpt Message
The PCRpt message RFC 8231 [RFC8231] is a PCEP message sent by a PCC
to a PCE to report the status of one or more LSPs.
For PCE-initiated LSPs RFC 8281 [RFC8281], the PCC creates the LSP
using the attributes communicated by the PCE and the local values for
the unspecified parameters. After the successful instantiation of
the LSP, the PCC automatically delegates the LSP to the PCE and
generates a PCRpt message to provide the status report for the LSP.
The RBNF definition of the PCRpt message RFC 8231 [RFC8231] is
unchanged by this document.
For both PCE-initiated and PCC-initiated LSPs, when the LSP is
instantiated the IFIT methods are applied as specified for the
corresponding data plane. [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options] and
[I-D.ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark] are the relevant documents for Segment
Routing over IPv6 data plane (SRv6).
6. Example of application to SR Policy
A PCC or PCE sets the IFIT-CAPABILITY TLV in the Open message during A PCC or PCE sets the IFIT-CAPABILITY TLV in the Open message during
the PCEP initialization phase to indicate that it supports the IFIT the PCEP initialization phase to indicate that it supports the IFIT
procedures. procedures.
1. For single candidate-path, PCE sends PCInitiate message, [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp] defines the PCEP extension
containing the SRPAG Association object to support Segment Routing Policy Candidate Paths and in this regard
([I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp]) and IFIT-ATTRIBUTES via the SRPAG Association object is introduced.
LSPA TLVs. For multiple candidate-paths, PCE sends a separate
PCInitiate message for every candidate path that it wants to create,
or it sends multiple LSP objects within a single PCInitiate message.
The SRPAG Association object
([I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp]) is sent for every LSP in
the PCInitiate message and the IFIT-ATTRIBUTES are sent as LSPA TLVs.
2. For single candidate-path, PCC uses the color, endpoint and The Examples of PCC Initiated SR Policy with single or multiple
preference from the SRPAG object to create a new candidate path. If candidate-paths and PCE Initiated SR Policy with single or multiple
no SR policy exists to hold the candidate path, then a new SR policy candidate-paths are reported in
is created to hold the new candidate-path considering the IFIT LSPA [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp].
TLVs too. For multiple candidate-paths, PCC creates multiple
candidate paths under the same SR policy, identified by Color and
Endpoint and also IFIT-ATTRIBUTES.
3. For both single candidate-path and multiple candidate-paths, PCC In case of PCC Initiated SR Policy, PCC sends PCReq message to the
sends a PCRpt message back to the PCE to report the newly created PCE, encoding the SRPAG ASSOCIATION object and IFIT-ATTRIBUTES TLV
Candidate Path. The PCRpt message contains the SRPAG Association via the LSPA object. This is valid for both single and multiple
object and IFIT-ATTRIBUTES information. candidate-paths. Finally PCE returns the path in PCRep message, and
echoes back the SRPAG object that were used in the computation and
IFIT LSPA TLVs too. Additionally, PCC sends PCRpt message to the
PCE, including the LSP object and the SRPAG ASSOCIATION object and
IFIT-ATTRIBUTES TLV via the LSPA object. Then PCE computes path and
finally PCE updates the SR policy candidate path's ERO using PCUpd
message considering the IFIT LSPA TLVs too.
+-+-+ +-+-+ In case of PCE Initiated SR Policy, PCE sends PCInitiate message,
|PCC| |PCE| containing the SRPAG Association object and IFIT-ATTRIBUTES TLV via
+-+-+ +-+-+ the LSPA object. This is valid for both single and multiple
| | candidate-paths. Then PCC uses the color, endpoint and preference
|<--PCInitiate-------------------| from the SRPAG object to create a new candidate path considering the
| | IFIT LSPA TLVs too. Finally PCC sends a PCRpt message back to the
|---PCRpt----------------------->| PCE to report the newly created Candidate Path. The PCRpt message
| | contains the SRPAG Association object and IFIT-ATTRIBUTES
information.
The procedure of enabling/disabling IFIT is simple, indeed the PCE The procedure of enabling/disabling IFIT is simple, indeed the PCE
can update the IFIT-ATTRIBUTES of the LSP by sending subsequent Path can update the IFIT-ATTRIBUTES of the LSP by sending subsequent Path
Computation Update Request (PCUpd) messages. Computation Update Request (PCUpd) messages. PCE can update the
IFIT-ATTRIBUTES of the LSP by sending Path Computation State Report
+-+-+ +-+-+ (PCRpt) messages.
|PCC| |PCE|
+-+-+ +-+-+
| |
|<--PCUpd------------------------|
| |
|---PCRpt----------------------->|
| |
6. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
This document defines the new IFIT-CAPABILITY TLV and IFIT-ATTRIBUTES This document defines the new IFIT-CAPABILITY TLV and IFIT-ATTRIBUTES
TLV. IANA is requested to make the assignment from the "PCEP TLV TLV. IANA is requested to make the assignment from the "PCEP TLV
Type Indicators" subregistry of the "Path Computation Element Type Indicators" subregistry of the "Path Computation Element
Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry as follows: Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry as follows:
Value Description Reference Value Description Reference
------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------
TBD1 IFIT-CAPABILITY This document TBD1 IFIT-CAPABILITY This document
TBD2 IFIT-ATTRIBUTES This document TBD2 IFIT-ATTRIBUTES This document
This document specifies the IFIT-CAPABILITY TLV Flags field. IANA is
requested to create a registry to manage the value of the IFIT-
CAPABILITY TLV's Flags field within the "Path Computation Element
Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry.
New values are to be assigned by Standards Action RFC 8126 [RFC8126].
Each bit should be tracked with the following qualities:
* Bit number (count from 0 as the most significant bit)
* Flag Name
* Reference
IANA is requested to set 5 new bits in the IFIT-CAPABILITY TLV Flags
Field registry, as follows:
Bit no. Flag Name Reference
---------------------------------------------------------------------
27 P: IOAM Pre-allocated Trace Option flag This document
28 I: IOAM Incremental Trace Option flag This document
29 D: IOAM Directly Export Option flag This document
30 E: IOAM Edge-to-Edge Option This document
31 M: Alternate Marking Flag This document
This document also specifies the IFIT-ATTRIBUTES sub-TLVs. IANA is This document also specifies the IFIT-ATTRIBUTES sub-TLVs. IANA is
requested to create an "IFIT-ATTRIBUTES Sub-TLV Types" subregistry requested to create an "IFIT-ATTRIBUTES Sub-TLV Types" subregistry
within the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" within the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers"
registry. registry.
IANA is requested to set the Registration Procedure for this registry
to read as follows:
Range Registration Procedure
------------------------------------------
0-65503 IETF Review
65504-65535 Experimental Use
This document defines the following types: This document defines the following types:
Type Description Reference Type Description Reference
------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------
0 Reserved This document 0 Reserved This document
1 IOAM Pre-allocated Trace Option This document 1 IOAM Pre-allocated Trace Option This document
2 IOAM Incremental Trace Option This document 2 IOAM Incremental Trace Option This document
3 IOAM Directly Export Option This document 3 IOAM Directly Export Option This document
4 IOAM Edge-to-Edge Option This document 4 IOAM Edge-to-Edge Option This document
5 Enhanced Alternate Marking This document 5 Enhanced Alternate Marking This document
6-65535 Unassigned/Experimental Use This document 6-65503 Unassigned This document
7. Security Considerations 65504-65535 Experimental Use This document
This document defines a new Error-value for PCErr message of Error-
Type 19 (Invalid Operation). IANA is requested to allocate a new
Error-value within the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values"
subregistry of the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers"
registry as follows:
Error-Type Meaning Error-value Reference
---------------------------------------------------------------
19 Invalid TBD3: IFIT This document
Operation capability not
advertised
8. Security Considerations
This document defines the new IFIT-CAPABILITY TLV and IFIT Attributes This document defines the new IFIT-CAPABILITY TLV and IFIT Attributes
TLVs, which do not add any substantial new security concerns beyond TLVs, which do not add any substantial new security concerns beyond
those already discussed in RFC 8231 [RFC8231] and RFC 8281 [RFC8281] those already discussed in RFC 8231 [RFC8231] and RFC 8281 [RFC8281]
for stateful PCE operations. for stateful PCE operations. As per RFC 8231 [RFC8231], 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) RFC 8253 [RFC8253], as per the recommendations and best current
practices in BCP 195 RFC 7525 [RFC7525] (unless explicitly set aside
in RFC 8253 [RFC8253]).
8. Acknowledgements Implementation of IFIT methods (IOAM and Alternate Marking) are
mindful of security and privacy concerns, as explained in
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] and RFC 8321 [RFC8321]. Anyway incorrect
IFIT parameters in the IFIT-ATTRIBUTES sub-TLVs SHOULD not have an
adverse effect on the LSP as well as on the network, since it affects
only the operation of the telemetry methodology.
The authors would like to thank Dhruv Doody for the precious inputs 9. Contributors
and suggestions.
9. References The following people provided relevant contributions to this
document:
9.1. Normative References Dhruv Doody, Huawei Technologies, dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
10. Acknowledgements
The authors of this document would like to thank Huaimo Chen for the
comments and review of this document.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark]
Fioccola, G., Zhou, T., Cociglio, M., Qin, F., and R.
Pang, "IPv6 Application of the Alternate Marking Method",
draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark-01 (work in progress), June
2020.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]
Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., and T. Mizrahi, "Data Fields
for In-situ OAM", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-10 (work in
progress), July 2020.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export]
Song, H., Gafni, B., Zhou, T., Li, Z., Brockners, F.,
Bhandari, S., Sivakolundu, R., and T. Mizrahi, "In-situ
OAM Direct Exporting", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-
export-01 (work in progress), August 2020.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-flags]
Mizrahi, T., Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Sivakolundu, R.,
Pignataro, C., Kfir, A., Gafni, B., Spiegel, M., and J.
Lemon, "In-situ OAM Flags", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-02
(work in progress), July 2020.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options]
Bhandari, S., Brockners, F., Pignataro, C., Gredler, H.,
Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mizrahi, T., Kfir, A., Gafni, B.,
Lapukhov, P., Spiegel, M., Krishnan, S., Asati, R., and M.
Smith, "In-situ OAM IPv6 Options", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-
ipv6-options-03 (work in progress), September 2020.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
[RFC7525] Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre,
"Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer
Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
(DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 7525, DOI 10.17487/RFC7525, May
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7525>.
[RFC7799] Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with [RFC7799] Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with
Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799, Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799,
May 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7799>. May 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7799>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path [RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231, Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>.
[RFC8253] Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody,
"PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)",
RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253>.
[RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path [RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017, Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281>.
[RFC8321] Fioccola, G., Ed., Capello, A., Cociglio, M., Castaldelli, [RFC8321] Fioccola, G., Ed., Capello, A., Cociglio, M., Castaldelli,
L., Chen, M., Zheng, L., Mirsky, G., and T. Mizrahi, L., Chen, M., Zheng, L., Mirsky, G., and T. Mizrahi,
"Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and Hybrid "Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and Hybrid
Performance Monitoring", RFC 8321, DOI 10.17487/RFC8321, Performance Monitoring", RFC 8321, DOI 10.17487/RFC8321,
January 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8321>. January 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8321>.
[RFC8664] Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W., [RFC8664] Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,
and J. Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication and J. Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8664, Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8664,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8664, December 2019, DOI 10.17487/RFC8664, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8664>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8664>.
[RFC8733] Dhody, D., Ed., Gandhi, R., Ed., Palle, U., Singh, R., and 11.2. Informative References
L. Fang, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
(PCEP) Extensions for MPLS-TE Label Switched Path (LSP)
Auto-Bandwidth Adjustment with Stateful PCE", RFC 8733,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8733, February 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8733>.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark]
Fioccola, G., Zhou, T., Cociglio, M., Qin, F., and R.
Pang, "IPv6 Application of the Alternate Marking Method",
draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark-01 (work in progress), June
2020.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]
Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., and T. Mizrahi, "Data Fields
for In-situ OAM", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-10 (work in
progress), July 2020.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export]
Song, H., Gafni, B., Zhou, T., Li, Z., Brockners, F.,
Bhandari, S., Sivakolundu, R., and T. Mizrahi, "In-situ
OAM Direct Exporting", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-
export-01 (work in progress), August 2020.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-flags]
Mizrahi, T., Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Sivakolundu, R.,
Pignataro, C., Kfir, A., Gafni, B., Spiegel, M., and J.
Lemon, "In-situ OAM Flags", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-02
(work in progress), July 2020.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options]
Bhandari, S., Brockners, F., Pignataro, C., Gredler, H.,
Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mizrahi, T., Kfir, A., Gafni, B.,
Lapukhov, P., Spiegel, M., Krishnan, S., and R. Asati,
"In-situ OAM IPv6 Options", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-
ipv6-options-02 (work in progress), July 2020.
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6] [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6]
Li, C., Negi, M., Koldychev, M., Kaladharan, P., and Y. Li, C., Negi, M., Koldychev, M., Kaladharan, P., and Y.
Zhu, "PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing leveraging the Zhu, "PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing leveraging the
IPv6 data plane", draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-06 IPv6 data plane", draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-06
(work in progress), July 2020. (work in progress), July 2020.
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp] [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp]
Koldychev, M., Sivabalan, S., Barth, C., Peng, S., and H. Koldychev, M., Sivabalan, S., Barth, C., Peng, S., and H.
Bidgoli, "PCEP extension to support Segment Routing Policy Bidgoli, "PCEP extension to support Segment Routing Policy
skipping to change at page 16, line 26 skipping to change at page 19, line 52
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and
P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft- P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft-
ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-08 (work in progress), ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-08 (work in progress),
July 2020. July 2020.
[I-D.qin-idr-sr-policy-ifit] [I-D.qin-idr-sr-policy-ifit]
Qin, F., Yuan, H., Zhou, T., Fioccola, G., and Y. Wang, Qin, F., Yuan, H., Zhou, T., Fioccola, G., and Y. Wang,
"BGP SR Policy Extensions to Enable IFIT", draft-qin-idr- "BGP SR Policy Extensions to Enable IFIT", draft-qin-idr-
sr-policy-ifit-02 (work in progress), July 2020. sr-policy-ifit-03 (work in progress), September 2020.
Appendix A. Appendix A.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Huanan Chen Huanan Chen
China Telecom China Telecom
Guangzhou Guangzhou
China China
 End of changes. 57 change blocks. 
173 lines changed or deleted 357 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/