< draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-04.txt		draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-05.txt >
	skipping to change at page 1, line 17 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 17 ¶
	J. Tantsura		J. Tantsura
	Apstra, Inc.		Apstra, Inc.
	J. Hardwick		J. Hardwick
	Metaswitch Networks		Metaswitch Networks
	S. Previdi		S. Previdi
	C. Li		C. Li
	Huawei Technologies		Huawei Technologies
	October 31, 2020		October 31, 2020
	Carrying Binding Label/Segment-ID in PCE-based Networks.		Carrying Binding Label/Segment-ID in PCE-based Networks.
	draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-04		draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-05
	Abstract		Abstract
	In order to provide greater scalability, network opacity, and service		In order to provide greater scalability, network opacity, and service
	independence, Segment Routing (SR) utilizes a Binding Segment		independence, Segment Routing (SR) utilizes a Binding Segment
	Identifier (BSID). It is possible to associate a BSID to RSVP-TE		Identifier (BSID). It is possible to associate a BSID to RSVP-TE
	signaled Traffic Engineering Label Switching Path or binding Segment-		signaled Traffic Engineering Label Switching Path or binding Segment-
	ID (SID) to SR Traffic Engineering path. Such a binding label/SID		ID (SID) to SR Traffic Engineering path. Such a binding label/SID
	can be used by an upstream node for steering traffic into the		can be used by an upstream node for steering traffic into the
	appropriate TE path to enforce SR policies. This document proposes		appropriate TE path to enforce SR policies. This document proposes
	skipping to change at page 2, line 32 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 32 ¶
	to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must		to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
	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. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	3. Path Binding TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		3. Path Binding TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	4. SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure . . . . . . . . . . 7		3.1. SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure . . . . . . . . 7
	5. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		4. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	6. Binding SID in SR-ERO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		5. Binding SID in SR-ERO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	7. Binding SID in SRv6-ERO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		6. Binding SID in SRv6-ERO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	8. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		7. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	8.1. Huawei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		7.1. Huawei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		7.2. Cisco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	10. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	10.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		9. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	10.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		9.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	10.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . 12		9.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	10.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		9.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	10.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		9.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	10.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		9.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		9.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	11.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	11.1.1. TE-PATH-BINDING TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		10.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	11.1.2. Binding SID Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		10.1.1. TE-PATH-BINDING TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	11.2. PCEP Error Type and Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		10.1.2. Binding SID Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		10.2. PCEP Error Type and Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	Appendix A. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		Appendix A. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
			Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	A PCE can compute Traffic Engineering paths (TE paths) through a		A PCE can compute Traffic Engineering paths (TE paths) through a
	network that are subject to various constraints. Currently, TE paths		network that are subject to various constraints. Currently, TE paths
	are either set up using the RSVP-TE signaling protocol or Segment		are either set up using the RSVP-TE signaling protocol or Segment
	Routing (SR). We refer to such paths as RSVP-TE paths and SR-TE		Routing (SR). We refer to such paths as RSVP-TE paths and SR-TE
	paths respectively in this document.		paths respectively in this document.
	As per [RFC8402] SR allows a headend node to steer a packet flow		As per [RFC8402] SR allows a headend node to steer a packet flow
	skipping to change at page 6, line 30 ¶		skipping to change at page 6, line 30 ¶
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	~ Binding Value (variable length) ~		~ Binding Value (variable length) ~
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Figure 2: TE-PATH-BINDING TLV		Figure 2: TE-PATH-BINDING TLV
	TE-PATH-BINDING TLV is a generic TLV such that it is able to carry		TE-PATH-BINDING TLV is a generic TLV such that it is able to carry
	MPLS label binding as well as SRv6 Binding SID. It is formatted		MPLS label binding as well as SRv6 Binding SID. It is formatted
	according to the rules specified in [RFC5440].		according to the rules specified in [RFC5440].
	Binding Type (BT): A one byte field identifies the type of binding		Binding Type (BT): A one octet field identifies the type of binding
	included in the TLV. This document specifies the following BT		included in the TLV. This document specifies the following BT
	values:		values:
	o BT = 0: The binding value is an MPLS label carried in the format		o BT = 0: The binding value is an MPLS label carried in the format
	specified in [RFC5462] where only the label value is valid, and		specified in [RFC5462] where only the label value is valid, and
	other fields fields MUST be considered invalid. The Length MUST		other fields fields MUST be considered invalid. The Length MUST
	be set to 7.		be set to 7.
	o BT = 1: Similar to the case where BT is 0 except that all the		o BT = 1: Similar to the case where BT is 0 except that all the
	fields on the MPLS label entry are set on transmission. However,		fields on the MPLS label entry are set on transmission. However,
	the receiver MAY choose to override TC, S, and TTL values		the receiver MAY choose to override TC, S, and TTL values
	according its local policy. The Length MUST be set to 8.		according its local policy. The Length MUST be set to 8.
	o BT = 2: The binding value is an SRv6 SID with a format of a 16		o BT = 2: The binding value is an SRv6 SID with a format of a 16
	byte IPv6 address, representing the binding SID for SRv6. The		octet IPv6 address, representing the binding SID for SRv6. The
	Length MUST be set to 20.		Length MUST be set to 20.
	o BT = 3: The binding value is a 24 octet field, defined in		o BT = 3: The binding value is a 24 octet field, defined in
	Section 4, that contains the SRv6 SID as well as its Behavior and		Section 3.1, that contains the SRv6 SID as well as its Behavior
	Structure. The Length MUST be set to 28.		and Structure. The Length MUST be set to 28.
	Flags: 1 octet of flags. Following flags are defined in the new		Flags: 1 octet of flags. Following flags are defined in the new
	registry "SR Policy Binding SID Flags" as described in		registry "SR Policy Binding SID Flags" as described in
	Section 11.1.2:		Section 10.1.2:
	0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7		0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	|S|I| |		| |I|S|
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	where:		where:
	o S-Flag: This flag encodes the "Specified-BSID-only" behavior. It		o S-Flag: This flag encodes the "Specified-BSID-only" behavior. It
	is used as described in Section 6.2.3 of		is used as described in Section 6.2.3 of
	[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].		[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].
	o I-Flag: This flag encodes the "Drop Upon Invalid" behavior. It is		o I-Flag: This flag encodes the "Drop Upon Invalid" behavior. It is
	used by described in Section 8.2 of		used as described in Section 8.2 of
	[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].		[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].
	Reserved: MUST be set to 0 while sending and ignored on receipt.		Reserved: MUST be set to 0 while sending and ignored on receipt.
	Binding Value: A variable length field, padded with trailing zeros to		Binding Value: A variable length field, padded with trailing zeros to
	a 4-byte boundary. For the BT as 0, the 20 bits represent the MPLS		a 4-octet boundary. For the BT as 0, the 20 bits represent the MPLS
	label. For the BT as 1, the 32-bits represent the label stack entry		label. For the BT as 1, the 32-bits represent the label stack entry
	as per [RFC5462]. For the BT as 2, the 128-bits represent the SRv6		as per [RFC5462]. For the BT as 2, the 128-bits represent the SRv6
	SID. For the BT as 3, the Binding Value contains SRv6 Endpoint		SID. For the BT as 3, the Binding Value contains SRv6 Endpoint
	Behavior and SID Structure, defined in Section 4.		Behavior and SID Structure, defined in Section 3.1.
	4. SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure		3.1. SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure
	Carried as the Binding Value in the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV when the BT		Carried as the Binding Value in the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV when the BT
	is set to 3. Applicable for SRv6 Binding SIDs		is set to 3. Applicable for SRv6 Binding SIDs
	[I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming].		[I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming].
	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
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| SRv6 Binding SID (16 octets) |		| SRv6 Binding SID (16 octets) |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Endpoint Behavior | LB Length | LN Length |		| Reserved | Endpoint Behavior |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Fun. Length | Arg. Length | Reserved |		| LB Length | LN Length | Fun. Length | Arg. Length |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Figure 4: SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure		Figure 4: SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure
			Reserved: 2 octets. MUST be set to 0 on transmit and ignored on
			receipt.
	Endpoint Behavior: 2 octets. The Endpoint Behavior code point for		Endpoint Behavior: 2 octets. The Endpoint Behavior code point for
	this SRv6 SID as defined in section 9.2 of		this SRv6 SID as defined in section 9.2 of
	[I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming]. When set with the value		[I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming]. When set with the value
	0, the choice of behavior is considered unset.		0, the choice of behavior is considered unset.
	LB Length: 1 octet. SRv6 SID Locator Block length in bits.		LB Length: 1 octet. SRv6 SID Locator Block length in bits.
	LN Length: 1 octet. SRv6 SID Locator Node length in bits.		LN Length: 1 octet. SRv6 SID Locator Node length in bits.
	Function Length: 1 octet. SRv6 SID Function length in bits.		Function Length: 1 octet. SRv6 SID Function length in bits.
	Argument Length: 1 octet. SRv6 SID Arguments length in bits.		Argument Length: 1 octet. SRv6 SID Arguments length in bits.
	5. Operation		4. Operation
	The binding value is allocated by the PCC and reported to a PCE via		The binding value is allocated by the PCC and reported to a PCE via
	PCRpt message. If a PCE does not recognize the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV,		PCRpt message. If a PCE does not recognize the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV,
	it would ignore the TLV in accordance with ([RFC5440]). If a PCE		it would ignore the TLV in accordance with ([RFC5440]). If a PCE
	recognizes the TLV but does not support the TLV, it MUST send PCErr		recognizes the TLV but does not support the TLV, it MUST send PCErr
	with Error-Type = 2 (Capability not supported).		with Error-Type = 2 (Capability not supported).
	If a TE-PATH-BINDING TLV is absent in PCRpt message, PCE MUST assume		If a TE-PATH-BINDING TLV is absent in PCRpt message, PCE MUST assume
	that the corresponding LSP does not have any binding. If a PCE		that the corresponding LSP does not have any binding. If a PCE
	recognizes an invalid binding value (e.g., label value from the		recognizes an invalid binding value (e.g., label value from the
	reserved label space when MPLS label binding is used), it MUST send		reserved label space when MPLS label binding is used), it MUST send
	the PCErr message with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid		the PCErr message with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid
	object") and Error Value = 2 ("Bad label value") as specified in		object") and Error Value = 2 ("Bad label value") as specified in
	[RFC8664].		[RFC8664].
	Multiple TE-PATH-BINDING TLVs are allowed to be present in the same		Multiple TE-PATH-BINDING TLVs are allowed to be present in the same
	LSP object. This signifies the presence of multiple binding SIDs for		LSP object. This signifies the presence of multiple binding SIDs for
	the given LSP. Either due to multiple SRv6 binding SIDs with		the given LSP.
	different behaviors or due to SRv6 and MPLS binding SIDs being
	present together.
	For SRv6 BSIDs, it is RECOMMENDED to always explicitly specify the		For SRv6 BSIDs, it is RECOMMENDED to always explicitly specify the
	SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure in the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV		SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure in the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV
	by setting the BT (Binding Type) to 3, instead of 2. The choice of		by setting the BT (Binding Type) to 3, instead of 2. The choice of
	interpreting SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure when none is		interpreting SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure when none is
	explicitly specified is left up to the implementation.		explicitly specified is left up to the implementation.
	If a PCE requires a PCC to allocate a specific binding value, it may		If a PCE requires a PCC to allocate a specific binding value, it may
	do so by sending a PCUpd or PCInitiate message containing a TE-PATH-		do so by sending a PCUpd or PCInitiate message containing a TE-PATH-
	BINDING TLV. If the value can be successfully allocated, the PCC		BINDING TLV. If the value can be successfully allocated, the PCC
	skipping to change at page 9, line 40 ¶		skipping to change at page 9, line 41 ¶
	than the current binding value, it MUST try to allocate the new		than the current binding value, it MUST try to allocate the new
	value. If the new binding value is successfully allocated, the PCC		value. If the new binding value is successfully allocated, the PCC
	MUST report the new value to the PCE. Otherwise, it MUST send a		MUST report the new value to the PCE. Otherwise, it MUST send a
	PCErr message with Error-Type = TBD2 ("Binding label/SID failure")		PCErr message with Error-Type = TBD2 ("Binding label/SID failure")
	and Error Value = TBD4 ("Unable to allocate the specified label/		and Error Value = TBD4 ("Unable to allocate the specified label/
	SID").		SID").
	In some cases, a stateful PCE can request the PCC to allocate a		In some cases, a stateful PCE can request the PCC to allocate a
	binding value. It may do so by sending a PCUpd message containing an		binding value. It may do so by sending a PCUpd message containing an
	empty TE-PATH-BINDING TLV, i.e., no binding value is specified		empty TE-PATH-BINDING TLV, i.e., no binding value is specified
	(making the length field of the TLV as 4). A PCE can also make the		(making the length field of the TLV as 4). A PCE can also request
	request PCC to allocate a binding at the time of initiation by		PCC to allocate a binding value at the time of initiation by sending
	sending a PCInitiate message with an empty TE-PATH-BINDING TLV.		a PCInitiate message with an empty TE-PATH-BINDING TLV. If the PCC
			is unable to allocate a binding value, it MUST send a PCErr message
			with Error-Type = TBD2 ("Binding label/SID failure") and Error-Value
			= TBD5 ("Unable to allocate label/SID").
	6. Binding SID in SR-ERO		5. Binding SID in SR-ERO
	In PCEP messages, LSP route information is carried in the Explicit		In PCEP messages, LSP route information is carried in the Explicit
	Route Object (ERO), which consists of a sequence of subobjects.		Route Object (ERO), which consists of a sequence of subobjects.
	[RFC8664] defines a new ERO subobject "SR-ERO subobject" capable of		[RFC8664] defines a new ERO subobject "SR-ERO subobject" capable of
	carrying a SID as well as the identity of the node/adjacency (NAI)		carrying a SID as well as the identity of the node/adjacency (NAI)
	represented by the SID. The NAI Type (NT) field indicates the type		represented by the SID. The NAI Type (NT) field indicates the type
	and format of the NAI contained in the SR-ERO. In case of binding		and format of the NAI contained in the SR-ERO. In case of binding
	SID, the NAI MUST NOT be included and NT MUST be set to zero. So as		SID, the NAI MUST NOT be included and NT MUST be set to zero. So as
	per Section 5.2.1 of [RFC8664], for NT=0, the F bit is set to 1, the		per Section 5.2.1 of [RFC8664], for NT=0, the F bit is set to 1, the
	S bit needs to be zero and the Length is 8. Further the M bit is		S bit needs to be zero and the Length is 8. Further the M bit is
	set. If these conditions are not met, the entire ERO MUST be		set. If these conditions are not met, the entire ERO MUST be
	considered invalid and a PCErr message is sent with Error-Type = 10		considered invalid and a PCErr message is sent with Error-Type = 10
	("Reception of an invalid object") and Error-Value = 11 ("Malformed		("Reception of an invalid object") and Error-Value = 11 ("Malformed
	object").		object").
	7. Binding SID in SRv6-ERO		6. Binding SID in SRv6-ERO
	[RFC8664] defines a new ERO subobject "SRv6-ERO subobject" for SRv6		[RFC8664] defines a new ERO subobject "SRv6-ERO subobject" for SRv6
	SID. The NAI MUST NOT be included and NT MUST be set to zero. So as		SID. The NAI MUST NOT be included and NT MUST be set to zero. So as
	per Section 5.2.1 of [RFC8664], for NT=0, the F bit is set to 1, the		per Section 5.2.1 of [RFC8664], for NT=0, the F bit is set to 1, the
	S bit needs to be zero and the Length is 24. If these conditions are		S bit needs to be zero and the Length is 24. If these conditions are
	not met, the entire ERO is considered invalid and a PCErr message is		not met, the entire ERO is considered invalid and a PCErr message is
	sent with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and		sent with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and
	Error-Value = 11 ("Malformed object") (as per [RFC8664]).		Error-Value = 11 ("Malformed object") (as per [RFC8664]).
	8. Implementation Status		7. Implementation Status
	[Note to the RFC Editor - remove this section before publication, as		[Note to the RFC Editor - remove this section before publication, as
	well as remove the reference to RFC 7942.]		well as remove the reference to RFC 7942.]
	This section records the status of known implementations of the		This section records the status of known implementations of the
	protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this		protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
	Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942].		Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942].
	The description of implementations in this section is intended to		The description of implementations in this section is intended to
	assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to		assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
	RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation		RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
	skipping to change at page 10, line 44 ¶		skipping to change at page 11, line 4 ¶
	has been spent to verify the information presented here that was		has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
	supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not		supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not
	be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their		be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
	features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may		features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
	exist.		exist.
	According to [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and working groups		According to [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and working groups
	to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of		to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
	running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation		running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
	and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.		and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
	It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as		It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
	they see fit".		they see fit".
	8.1. Huawei		7.1. Huawei
	o Organization: Huawei		o Organization: Huawei
	o Implementation: Huawei's Router and Controller		o Implementation: Huawei's Router and Controller
	o Description: An experimental code-point is used and plan to		o Description: An experimental code-point is used and plan to
	request early code-point allocation from IANA after WG adoption.		request early code-point allocation from IANA after WG adoption.
	o Maturity Level: Production		o Maturity Level: Production
	o Coverage: Full		o Coverage: Full
	o Contact: chengli13@huawei.com		o Contact: chengli13@huawei.com
	9. Security Considerations		7.2. Cisco
			o Organization: Cisco Systems
			o Implementation: Head-end and controller.
			o Description: An experimental code-point is currently used.
			o Maturity Level: Production
			o Coverage: Full
			o Contact: mkoldych@cisco.com
			8. Security Considerations
	The security considerations described in [RFC5440], [RFC8231],		The security considerations described in [RFC5440], [RFC8231],
	[RFC8281] and [RFC8664] are applicable to this specification. No		[RFC8281] and [RFC8664] are applicable to this specification. No
	additional security measure is required.		additional security measure is required.
	As described [RFC8664], SR allows a network controller to instantiate		As described [RFC8664], SR allows a network controller to instantiate
	and control paths in the network. A rouge PCE can manipulate binding		and control paths in the network. A rouge PCE can manipulate binding
	SID allocations to move traffic around for some other LSPs that uses		SID allocations to move traffic around for some other LSPs that uses
	BSID in its SR-ERO.		BSID in its SR-ERO.
	Thus, as per [RFC8231], it is RECOMMENDED that these PCEP extensions		Thus, as per [RFC8231], it is RECOMMENDED that these PCEP extensions
	only be activated on authenticated and encrypted sessions across PCEs		only be activated on authenticated and encrypted sessions across PCEs
	and PCCs belonging to the same administrative authority, using		and PCCs belonging to the same administrative authority, using
	Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8253], as per the recommendations		Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8253], as per the recommendations
	and best current practices in BCP195 [RFC7525] (unless explicitly set		and best current practices in BCP195 [RFC7525] (unless explicitly set
	aside in [RFC8253]).		aside in [RFC8253]).
	10. Manageability Considerations		9. Manageability Considerations
	All manageability requirements and considerations listed in		All manageability requirements and considerations listed in
	[RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC8664] apply to PCEP protocol extensions		[RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC8664] apply to PCEP protocol extensions
	defined in this document. In addition, requirements and		defined in this document. In addition, requirements and
	considerations listed in this section apply.		considerations listed in this section apply.
	10.1. Control of Function and Policy		9.1. Control of Function and Policy
	A PCC implementation SHOULD allow the operator to configure the		A PCC implementation SHOULD allow the operator to configure the
	policy based on which PCC needs to allocates the binding label/SID.		policy based on which PCC needs to allocates the binding label/SID.
	10.2. Information and Data Models		9.2. Information and Data Models
	The PCEP YANG module [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] could be extended to		The PCEP YANG module [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] could be extended to
	include policy configuration for binding label/SID allocation.		include policy configuration for binding label/SID allocation.
	10.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring		9.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
	Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness		Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness
	detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already		detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already
	listed in [RFC5440].		listed in [RFC5440].
	10.4. Verify Correct Operations		9.4. Verify Correct Operations
	Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new operation		Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new operation
	verification requirements in addition to those already listed in		verification requirements in addition to those already listed in
	[RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC8664].		[RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC8664].
	10.5. Requirements On Other Protocols		9.5. Requirements On Other Protocols
	Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new requirements		Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new requirements
	on other protocols.		on other protocols.
	10.6. Impact On Network Operations		9.6. Impact On Network Operations
	Mechanisms defined in [RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC8664] also apply		Mechanisms defined in [RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC8664] also apply
	to PCEP extensions defined in this document. Further, the mechanism		to PCEP extensions defined in this document. Further, the mechanism
	described in this document can help the operator to request control		described in this document can help the operator to request control
	of the LSPs at a particular PCE.		of the LSPs at a particular PCE.
	11. IANA Considerations		10. IANA Considerations
	11.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators		10.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators
	This document defines a new PCEP TLV; IANA is requested to make the		This document defines a new PCEP TLV; IANA is requested to make the
	following allocations from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" sub-		following allocations from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" sub-
	registry of the PCEP Numbers registry, as follows:		registry of the PCEP Numbers registry, as follows:
	Value Name Reference		Value Name Reference
	TBD1 TE-PATH-BINDING This document		TBD1 TE-PATH-BINDING This document
	11.1.1. TE-PATH-BINDING TLV		10.1.1. TE-PATH-BINDING TLV
	IANA is requested to create a sub-registry to manage the value of the		IANA is requested to create a sub-registry to manage the value of the
	Binding Type field in the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV.		Binding Type field in the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV.
	Value Description Reference		Value Description Reference
	0 MPLS Label This document		0 MPLS Label This document
	1 MPLS Label Stack This document		1 MPLS Label Stack This document
	Entry		Entry
	2 SRv6 SID This document		2 SRv6 SID This document
			3 SRv6 SID with This document
			Behavior and
			Structure
	11.1.2. Binding SID Flags		10.1.2. Binding SID Flags
	IANA is requested to create a sub-registry to manage the value of the		IANA is requested to create a sub-registry to manage the value of the
	Binding SID Flags field in the TE-PATH-BINDING-TLV.		Binding SID Flags field in the TE-PATH-BINDING-TLV. New values are
			to be assigned by Standards Action [RFC8126]. Each bit should be
			tracked with the following qualities:
			o Bit number (count from 0 as the most significant bit)
			o Flag Name
			o Reference
	Bit Description Reference		Bit Description Reference
	0 Specified-BSID-Only This document		7 Specified-BSID-Only This document
	Flag (S-Flag)		Flag (S-Flag)
	1 Drop Upon Invalid This document		6 Drop Upon Invalid This document
	Flag (I-Flag)		Flag (I-Flag)
	11.2. PCEP Error Type and Value		10.2. PCEP Error Type and Value
	This document defines a new Error-type and Error-Values for the PCErr		This document defines a new Error-type and Error-Values for the PCErr
	message. IANA is requested to allocate new error-type and error-		message. IANA is requested to allocate new error-type and error-
	values within the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values"		values within the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values"
	subregistry of the PCEP Numbers registry, as follows:		subregistry of the PCEP Numbers registry, as follows:
	Error-Type Meaning		Error-Type Meaning
	---------- -------		---------- -------
	TBD2 Binding label/SID failure:		TBD2 Binding label/SID failure:
	Error-value = TBD3: Invalid SID		Error-value = TBD3: Invalid SID
	Error-value = TBD4: Unable to allocate		Error-value = TBD4: Unable to allocate
	the specified		the specified
	label/SID		label/SID
			Error-value = TBD5: Unable to allocate
			label/SID
	12. Acknowledgements		11. Acknowledgements
	We like to thank Milos Fabian and Mrinmoy Das for thier valuable		We like to thank Milos Fabian and Mrinmoy Das for thier valuable
	comments.		comments.
	13. References		12. References
	13.1. Normative References		12.1. Normative References
	[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>.
	skipping to change at page 15, line 5 ¶		skipping to change at page 15, line 43 ¶
	Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment		Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
	Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,		Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
	July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.		July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
	[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>.
			[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>.
	[I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming]		[I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming]
	Filsfils, C., Camarillo, P., Leddy, J., Voyer, D.,		Filsfils, C., Camarillo, P., Leddy, J., Voyer, D.,
	Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "SRv6 Network Programming",		Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "SRv6 Network Programming",
	draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-24 (work in		draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-24 (work in
	progress), October 2020.		progress), October 2020.
	13.2. Informative References		12.2. Informative References
	[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation		[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
	Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,		Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,		DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
	[RFC8283] Farrel, A., Ed., Zhao, Q., Ed., Li, Z., and C. Zhou, "An		[RFC8283] Farrel, A., Ed., Zhao, Q., Ed., Li, Z., and C. Zhou, "An
	Architecture for Use of PCE and the PCE Communication		Architecture for Use of PCE and the PCE Communication
	Protocol (PCEP) in a Network with Central Control",		Protocol (PCEP) in a Network with Central Control",
	RFC 8283, DOI 10.17487/RFC8283, December 2017,		RFC 8283, DOI 10.17487/RFC8283, December 2017,
End of changes. 46 change blocks.
	69 lines changed or deleted		108 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/