< draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-08.txt   draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-09.txt >
PCE Working Group S. Sivabalan PCE Working Group S. Sivabalan
Internet-Draft Ciena Corporation Internet-Draft Ciena Corporation
Intended status: Standards Track C. Filsfils Intended status: Standards Track C. Filsfils
Expires: October 16, 2021 Cisco Systems, Inc. Expires: December 5, 2021 Cisco Systems, Inc.
J. Tantsura J. Tantsura
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
S. Previdi S. Previdi
C. Li C. Li, Ed.
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
April 14, 2021 June 3, 2021
Carrying Binding Label/Segment Identifier in PCE-based Networks. Carrying Binding Label/Segment Identifier in PCE-based Networks.
draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-08 draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-09
Abstract Abstract
In order to provide greater scalability, network opacity, and service In order to provide greater scalability, network confidentiality, and
independence, Segment Routing (SR) utilizes a Binding Segment service independence, Segment Routing (SR) utilizes a Binding Segment
Identifier (BSID). It is possible to associate a BSID to an RSVP-TE Identifier (BSID). It is possible to associate a BSID to an RSVP-TE-
signaled Traffic Engineering Label Switching Path or an SR Traffic signaled Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path or an SR Traffic
Engineering path. The BSID can be used by an upstream node for Engineering path. The BSID can be used by an upstream node for
steering traffic into the appropriate TE path to enforce SR policies. steering traffic into the appropriate TE path to enforce SR policies.
This document specifies the binding value as an MPLS label or Segment This document specifies the binding value as an MPLS label or Segment
Identifier. It further specify an approach for reporting binding Identifier. It further specify an approach for reporting binding
label/SID by a Path Computation Client (PCC) to the Path Computation label/SID by a Path Computation Client (PCC) to the Path Computation
Element (PCE) to support PCE-based Traffic Engineering policies. Element (PCE) to support PCE-based Traffic Engineering policies.
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
skipping to change at page 1, line 45 skipping to change at page 1, line 45
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 October 16, 2021. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 5, 2021.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2021 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 25 skipping to change at page 2, line 25
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. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Path Binding TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Path Binding TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure . . . . . . . . 7 4.1. SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure . . . . . . . . 7
5. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Binding SID in SR-ERO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. Binding SID in SR-ERO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Binding SID in SRv6-ERO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7. Binding SID in SRv6-ERO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. PCE Allocation of Binding label/SID . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8. PCE Allocation of Binding label/SID . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 9. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1. Huawei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 9.1. Huawei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.2. Cisco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 9.2. Cisco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 11. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 11.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 11.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . 14 11.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 11.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 11.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 11.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
12.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 12.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
12.1.1. TE-PATH-BINDING TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 12.1.1. TE-PATH-BINDING TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
12.2. LSP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 12.2. LSP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
12.3. PCEP Error Type and Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 12.3. PCEP Error Type and Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
13. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 13. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Appendix A. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
A Path Computation Element (PCE) can compute Traffic Engineering A Path Computation Element (PCE) can compute Traffic Engineering
paths (TE paths) through a network where those paths are subject to paths (TE paths) through a network where those paths are subject to
various constraints. Currently, TE paths are either set up using the various constraints. Currently, TE paths are set up either using the
RSVP-TE signaling protocol or Segment Routing (SR). We refer to such RSVP-TE signaling protocol or Segment Routing (SR). We refer to such
paths as RSVP-TE paths and SR-TE paths respectively in this document. paths as RSVP-TE paths and SR-TE paths respectively in this document.
As per [RFC8402] SR allows a headend node to steer a packet flow As per [RFC8402] SR allows a head-end node to steer a packet flow
along any path. The headend node is said to steer a flow into an along any path. The head-end node is said to steer a flow into a
Segment Routing Policy (SR Policy). Further, as per Segment Routing Policy (SR Policy). Further, as per
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy], an SR Policy is a framework [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy], an SR Policy is a framework
that enables instantiation of an ordered list of segments on a node that enables the instantiation of an ordered list of segments on a
for implementing a source routing policy with a specific intent for node for implementing a source routing policy with a specific intent
traffic steering from that node. for traffic steering from that node.
As described in [RFC8402], a Binding Segment Identifier (BSID) is As described in [RFC8402], a Binding Segment Identifier (BSID) is
bound to a Segment Routed (SR) Policy, instantiation of which may bound to a Segment Routed (SR) Policy, instantiation of which may
involve a list of SIDs. Any packets received with an active segment involve a list of SIDs. Any packets received with an active segment
equal to a BSID are steered onto the bound SR Policy. A BSID may be equal to a BSID are steered onto the bound SR Policy. A BSID may be
either a local (SR Local Block (SRLB)) or a global (SR Global Block either a local (SR Local Block (SRLB)) or a global (SR Global Block
(SRGB)) SID. As per Section 6.4 of (SRGB)) SID. As per Section 6.4 of
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] a BSID can also be [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] a BSID can also be
associated with any type of interfaces or tunnel to enable the use of associated with any type of interface or tunnel to enable the use of
a non-SR interface or tunnel as a segment in a SID-list. In this a non-SR interface or tunnel as a segment in a SID list. In this
document, binding label/SID is used to generalize the allocation of document, binding label/SID is used to generalize the allocation of
binding value for both SR and non-SR paths. binding value for both SR and non-SR paths.
[RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) for [RFC5440] describes the PCE communication Protocol(PCEP) for
communication between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a PCE or communication between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a PCE or
between a pair of PCEs as per [RFC4655]. [RFC8231] specifies between a pair of PCEs as per [RFC4655]. [RFC8231] specifies
extensions to PCEP that allow a PCC to delegate its Label Switched extensions to PCEP that allow a PCC to delegate its Label Switched
Paths (LSPs) to a stateful PCE. A stateful PCE can then update the Paths (LSPs) to a stateful PCE. A stateful PCE can then update the
state of LSPs delegated to it. [RFC8281] specifies a mechanism state of LSPs delegated to it. [RFC8281] specifies a mechanism
allowing a PCE to dynamically instantiate an LSP on a PCC by sending allowing a PCE to dynamically instantiate an LSP on a PCC by sending
the path and characteristics. the path and characteristics.
[RFC8664] provides a mechanism for a network controller (acting as a [RFC8664] provides a mechanism for a PCE (acting as a network
PCE) to instantiate SR-TE paths (candidate paths) for an SR Policy controller) to instantiate SR-TE paths (candidate paths) for an SR
onto a head-end node (acting as a PCC) using PCEP. For more Policy onto a head-end node (acting as a PCC) using PCEP. For more
information on the SR Policy Architecture, see information on the SR Policy Architecture, see
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]. [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].
A binding label/SID has local significance to the ingress node of the A binding label/SID has local significance to the ingress node of the
corresponding TE path. When a stateful PCE is deployed for setting corresponding TE path. When a stateful PCE is deployed for setting
up TE paths, it may be desirable for PCC to report the binding label/ up TE paths, it may be desirable for PCC to report the binding label/
SID to the stateful PCE for the purpose of enforcing end-to-end TE/SR SID to the stateful PCE for the purpose of enforcing end-to-end TE/SR
policy. A sample Data Center (DC) use-case is illustrated in the policy. A sample Data Center (DC) use-case is illustrated in the
Figure 1. In the MPLS DC network, an SR LSP (without traffic Figure 1. In the MPLS DC network, an SR LSP (without traffic
engineering) is established using a prefix SID advertised by BGP (see engineering) is established using a prefix SID advertised by BGP (see
skipping to change at page 4, line 38 skipping to change at page 4, line 38
| Node | ( ==============> ) |Node-1 | ( ================> ) |Node-2 | | Node | ( ==============> ) |Node-1 | ( ================> ) |Node-2 |
+------+ ( SR path ) +-------+ ( SR-TE path ) +-------+ +------+ ( SR path ) +-------+ ( SR-TE path ) +-------+
'--( )--' Prefix '--( )--' '--( )--' Prefix '--( )--'
( ) SID of ( ) ( ) SID of ( )
'-----' Node-1 '-----' '-----' Node-1 '-----'
is Y SIDs for SR-TE LSP: is Y SIDs for SR-TE LSP:
{A, B, C, D} {A, B, C, D}
Figure 1: A sample Use-case of Binding SID Figure 1: A sample Use-case of Binding SID
A PCC could report the binding label/SID allocated by it to the A PCC could report to the stateful PCE the binding label/SID it
stateful PCE via Path Computation State Report (PCRpt) message. It allocated via a Path Computation LSP State Report (PCRpt) message.
is also possible for a stateful PCE to request a PCC to allocate a It is also possible for a stateful PCE to request a PCC to allocate a
specific binding label/SID by sending a Path Computation Update specific binding label/SID by sending aPath Computation LSP Update
Request (PCUpd) message. If the PCC can successfully allocate the Request (PCUpd) message. If the PCC can successfully allocate the
specified binding value, it reports the binding value to the PCE. specified binding value, it reports the binding value to the PCE.
Otherwise, the PCC sends an error message to the PCE indicating the Otherwise, the PCC sends an error message to the PCE indicating the
cause of the failure. A local policy or configuration at the PCC cause of the failure. A local policy or configuration at the PCC
SHOULD dictate if the binding label/SID needs to be assigned. SHOULD dictate if the binding label/SID needs to be assigned.
In this document, we introduce a new OPTIONAL TLV that a PCC can use In this document, we introduce a new OPTIONAL TLV that a PCC can use
in order to report the binding label/SID associated with a TE LSP, or in order to report the binding label/SID associated with a TE LSP, or
a PCE to request a PCC to allocate a specific binding label/SID a PCE to request a PCC to allocate a specific binding label/SID
value. This TLV is intended for TE LSPs established using RSVP-TE, value. This TLV is intended for TE LSPs established using RSVP-TE,
SR, or any other future method. Also, in the case of SR-TE LSPs, the SR, or any other future method. Also, in the case of SR-TE LSPs, the
TLV can carry a binding label (for SR-TE path with MPLS data-plane) TLV can carry a binding label (for SR-TE path with MPLS data-plane)
or a binding IPv6 SID (e.g., IPv6 address for SR-TE paths with IPv6 or a binding IPv6 SID (e.g., IPv6 address for SR-TE paths with IPv6
data-plane). Throughout this document, the term "binding value" data-plane). Throughout this document, the term "binding value"
means either an MPLS label or SID. means either an MPLS label or a SID.
Additionally, to support the PCE based central controller [RFC8283] Additionally, to support the PCE-based central controller [RFC8283]
operation where the PCE would take responsibility for managing some operation where the PCE would take responsibility for managing some
part of the MPLS label space for each of the routers that it part of the MPLS label space for each of the routers that it
controls, the PCE could directly make the binding label/SID controls, the PCE could directly make the binding label/SID
allocation and inform the PCC. See Section 8 for details. allocation and inform the PCC. See Section 8 for details.
2. Requirements Language 2. 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", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
skipping to change at page 5, line 39 skipping to change at page 5, line 39
3. Terminology 3. Terminology
The following terminologies are used in this document: The following terminologies are used in this document:
BSID: Binding Segment Identifier. BSID: Binding Segment Identifier.
LSP: Label Switched Path. LSP: Label Switched Path.
PCC: Path Computation Client. PCC: Path Computation Client.
PCE: Path Computation Element PCEP: Path Computation Element communication Protocol.
PCEP: Path Computation Element Protocol.
RSVP-TE: Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering. RSVP-TE: Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering.
SID: Segment Identifier. SID: Segment Identifier.
SR: Segment Routing. SR: Segment Routing.
TLV: Type, Length, and Value.
4. Path Binding TLV 4. Path Binding TLV
The new optional TLV is called "TE-PATH-BINDING TLV" (whose format is The new optional TLV called "TE-PATH-BINDING TLV" (whose format is
shown in the Figure 2) is defined to carry the binding label/SID for shown in the Figure 2) is defined to carry the binding label/SID for
a TE path. This TLV is associated with the LSP object specified in a TE path. This TLV is associated with the LSP object specified in
[RFC8231]. This TLV can also be carried in the PCEP-ERROR object [RFC8231]. This TLV can also be carried in the PCEP-ERROR object
[RFC5440] in case of error. Multiple instance of TE-PATH-BINDING [RFC5440] in case of error. Multiple instance of TE-PATH-BINDING
TLVs MAY be present in the LSP and PCEP-ERROR object. The type of TLVs MAY be present in the LSP and PCEP-ERROR object. The type of
this TLV is 55 (early allocated by IANA). The length is variable. this TLV is 55 (early allocated by IANA). The length is variable.
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 = 55 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| BT | Flags | Reserved | | BT | Flags | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ 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
binding label/SID (i.e. MPLS label or SRv6 SID). It is formatted binding label/SID (i.e. MPLS label or SRv6 SID). It is formatted
according to the rules specified in [RFC5440]. The value portion of according to the rules specified in [RFC5440]. The value portion of
the TLV comprise of: the TLV comprises:
Binding Type (BT): A one-octet 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 a 20-bit MPLS label value. The TLV o BT = 0: The binding value is a 20-bit MPLS label value. The TLV
is padded to 4-bytes alignment. The Length MUST be set to 7 and is padded to 4-bytes alignment. The Length MUST be set to 7 and
first 20 bits are used to encode the MPLS label value. the first 20 bits are used to encode the MPLS label value.
o BT = 1: The binding value is a 32-bit MPLS label stack entry as o BT = 1: The binding value is a 32-bit MPLS label stack entry as
per [RFC3032] with Label, TC [RFC5462], S, and TTL values encoded. per [RFC3032] with Label, TC [RFC5462], S, and TTL values encoded.
Note that the receiver MAY choose to override TC, S, and TTL Note that the receiver MAY choose to override TC, S, and TTL
values according to its local policy. The Length MUST be set to values according to its local policy. The Length MUST be set to
8. 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
octet IPv6 address, representing the binding SID for SRv6. The 16-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 4.1, that contains the SRv6 SID as well as its Behavior Section 4.1, that contains the SRv6 SID as well as its Behavior
and Structure. The Length MUST be set to 28. and Structure. The Length MUST be set to 28.
Section 12.1.1 defines the IANA registry used to maintain all these Section 12.1.1 defines the IANA registry used to maintain all these
binding types as well as any future ones. Note that, multiple TE- binding types as well as any future ones. Note that multiple TE-
PATH-BINDING TLVs with different Binding Types MAY be present for the PATH-BINDING TLVs with different Binding Types MAY be present for the
same LSP. same LSP.
Flags: 1 octet of flags. Following flag is defined in the new Flags: 1 octet of flags. The following flag is defined in the new
registry "TE-PATH-BINDING TLV Flag field" as described in registry "TE-PATH-BINDING TLV Flag field" as described in
Section 12.1.1: Section 12.1.1:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|R| | |R| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Flags Figure 3: Flags
skipping to change at page 7, line 39 skipping to change at page 7, line 30
PCEP peer indicates that the binding value is added or retained PCEP peer indicates that the binding value is added or retained
for the LSP. This flag is used in the PCRpt and PCUpd messages. for the LSP. This flag is used in the PCRpt and PCUpd messages.
It is ignored in other PCEP messages. It is ignored in other PCEP messages.
o The unassigned flags MUST be set to 0 while sending and ignored on o The unassigned flags MUST be set to 0 while sending and ignored on
receipt. receipt.
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-octet boundary. For the BT as 0, the 20 bits represent the MPLS a 4-octet boundary. When the BT is 0, the 20 bits represent the MPLS
label. For the BT as 1, the 32-bits represent the MPLS label stack label. When the BT is 1, the 32 bits represent the MPLS label stack
entry as per [RFC3032]. For the BT as 2, the 128-bits represent the entry as per [RFC3032]. When the BT is 2, the 128 bits represent the
SRv6 SID. For the BT as 3, the Binding Value also contains the SRv6 SRv6 SID. When the BT is 3, the Binding Value also contains the SRv6
Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure, defined in Section 4.1. Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure, defined in Section 4.1.
4.1. SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure 4.1. SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure
This section specify the format of the Binding Value in the TE-PATH- This section specifies the format of the Binding Value in the TE-
BINDING TLV when the BT is set to 3 for the SRv6 Binding SIDs PATH-BINDING TLV when the BT is set to 3 for the SRv6 Binding SIDs
[RFC8986], as shown in Figure 4. [RFC8986], as shown in Figure 4.
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) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Endpoint Behavior | | Reserved | Endpoint Behavior |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LB Length | LN Length | Fun. Length | Arg. Length | | LB Length | LN Length | Fun. Length | Arg. Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure Figure 4: SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure
The Binding Value consist of: The Binding Value consists of:
o SRv6 Binding SID: 16 octets. The 128-bits IPv6 address, o SRv6 Binding SID: 16 octets. The 128-bit IPv6 address,
representing the binding SID for SRv6. representing the binding SID for SRv6.
o Reserved: 2 octets. It MUST be set to 0 on transmit and ignored o Reserved: 2 octets. It MUST be set to 0 on transmit and ignored
on receipt. on receipt.
o Endpoint Behavior: 2 octets. The Endpoint Behavior code point for o Endpoint Behavior: 2 octets. The Endpoint Behavior code point for
this SRv6 SID as per the IANA subregistry called "SRv6 Endpoint this SRv6 SID as per the IANA subregistry called "SRv6 Endpoint
Behaviors", created by [RFC8986]. When the field is set with the Behaviors", created by [RFC8986]. When the field is set with the
value 0, the endpoint behavior is considered unknown. value 0, the endpoint behavior is considered unknown.
skipping to change at page 8, line 43 skipping to change at page 8, line 43
* 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 5. 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 a
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 a PCErr
with Error-Type = 2 (Capability not supported). with Error-Type = 2 (Capability not supported).
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. In the case of multiple TE-PATH-BINDING TLVs, the given LSP. In the case of multiple TE-PATH-BINDING TLVs, the
existing instances of TE-PATH-BINDING TLVs MAY be included in the LSP existing instances of TE-PATH-BINDING TLVs MAY be included in the LSP
object. In case of an error condition, the whole message is rejected object. In case of an error condition, the whole message is rejected
and the resulting PCErr message MAY include the offending TE-PATH- and the resulting PCErr message MAY include the offending TE-PATH-
BINDING TLV in the PCEP-ERROR object. BINDING TLV in the PCEP-ERROR object.
If a PCE recognizes an invalid binding value (e.g., label value from If a PCE recognizes an invalid binding value (e.g., label value from
the reserved MPLS label space), it MUST send a PCErr message with the reserved MPLS label space), it MUST send a PCErr message with
Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and Error Value = Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and Error Value =
2 ("Bad label value") as specified in [RFC8664]. 2 ("Bad label value") as specified in [RFC8664].
skipping to change at page 9, line 25 skipping to change at page 9, line 25
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. This enables the sender to by setting the BT (Binding Type) to 3. This enables the sender to
have control of the SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure. A have control of the SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure. A
sender MAY choose to set the BT to 2, in which case the receiving sender MAY choose to set the BT to 2, in which case the receiving
implementation chooses how to interpret the SRv6 Endpoint Behavior implementation chooses how to interpret the SRv6 Endpoint Behavior
and SID Structure according to local policy. and SID Structure according to local policy.
If a PCC wishes to withdraw a previously reported binding value, it If a PCC wishes to withdraw a previously reported binding value, it
MUST send a PCRpt message with the specific TE-PATH-BINDING TLV with MUST send a PCRpt message with the specific TE-PATH-BINDING TLV with
R flag set to 1. If a PCC wishes to modify a previously reported R flag set to 1. If a PCC wishes to modify a previously reported
binding, it MUST withdraw the old binding value (with R flag set in binding, it MUST withdraw the former old binding value (with R flag
the old TE-PATH-BINDING TLV) and include a new TE-PATH-BINDING TLV set in the former TE-PATH-BINDING TLV) and include a new TE-PATH-
containing the new binding value. Note that, other instances of TE- BINDING TLV containing the new binding value. Note that other
PATH-BINDING TLVs that are unchanged MAY also be included. instances of TE-PATH-BINDING TLVs that are unchanged MAY also be
included.
If a PCE requires a PCC to allocate a specific binding value(s), it If a PCE requires a PCC to allocate a (or several) specific binding
may do so by sending a PCUpd or PCInitiate message containing a TE- value(s), it may do so by sending a PCUpd or PCInitiate message
PATH-BINDING TLV(s). If the value(s) can be successfully allocated, containing a TE-PATH-BINDING TLV(s). If the value(s) can be
the PCC reports the binding value(s) to the PCE. If the PCC successfully allocated, the PCC reports the binding value(s) to the
considers the binding value specified by the PCE invalid, it MUST PCE. If the PCC considers the binding value specified by the PCE
send a PCErr message with Error-Type = TBD2 ("Binding label/SID invalid, it MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type = TBD2
failure") and Error Value = TBD3 ("Invalid SID"). If the binding ("Binding label/SID failure") and Error Value = TBD3 ("Invalid SID").
value is valid, but the PCC is unable to allocate the binding value, If the binding value is valid, but the PCC is unable to allocate the
it MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type = TBD2 ("Binding label/ binding value, it MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type = TBD2
SID failure") and Error Value = TBD4 ("Unable to allocate the ("Binding label/SID failure") and Error Value = TBD4 ("Unable to
specified binding value"). Note that in case of an error, the PCC allocate the specified binding value"). Note that, in case of an
rejects the PCUpd or PCInitiate message in its entirety and can carry error, the PCC rejects the PCUpd or PCInitiate message in its
the offending TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in the PCEP-ERROR object. entirety and can include the offending TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in the
PCEP-ERROR object.
If a PCE wishes to request withdrawal of a previously reported If a PCE wishes to request the withdrawal of a previously reported
binding value, it MUST send a PCUpd message with the specific TE- binding value, it MUST send a PCUpd message with the specific TE-
PATH-BINDING TLV with R flag set to 1. If a PCE wishes to modify a PATH-BINDING TLV with R flag set to 1. If a PCE wishes to modify a
previously requested binding value, it MUST request withdrawal of the previously requested binding value, it MUST request the withdrawal of
old binding value (with R flag set in the old TE-PATH-BINDING TLV) the former binding value (with R flag set in the former TE-PATH-
and include a new TE-PATH-BINDING TLV containing the new binding BINDING TLV) and include a new TE-PATH-BINDING TLV containing the new
value. binding value.
In some cases, a stateful PCE can request the PCC to allocate any In some cases, a stateful PCE can request the PCC to allocate any
binding value. It instructs the PCC by sending a PCUpd message binding value. It instructs the PCC by sending a PCUpd message
containing an empty TE-PATH-BINDING TLV, i.e., no binding value is containing an 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 specified (bringing the Length field of the TLV to 4). A PCE can
request PCC to allocate a binding value at the time of initiation by also request a PCC to allocate a binding value at the time of
sending a PCInitiate message with an empty TE-PATH-BINDING TLV. Only initiation by sending a PCInitiate message with an empty TE-PATH-
one such instance of empty TE-PATH-BINDING TLV SHOULD be included in BINDING TLV. Only one such instance of empty TE-PATH-BINDING TLV
the LSP object and others ignored on receipt. If the PCC is unable SHOULD be included in the LSP object and others ignored on receipt.
to allocate a new binding value as per the specified BT, it MUST send If the PCC is unable to allocate a new binding value as per the
a PCErr message with Error-Type = TBD2 ("Binding label/SID failure") specified BT, it MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type = TBD2
and Error-Value = TBD5 ("Unable to allocate a new binding label/ ("Binding label/SID failure") and Error-Value = TBD5 ("Unable to
SID"). allocate a new binding label/SID").
As previously noted, if a message contains an invalid TE-PATH-BINDING As previously noted, if a message contains an invalid TE-PATH-BINDING
TLV that leads to an error condition, the whole message is rejected TLV that leads to an error condition, the whole message is rejected
including any other valid instances of TE-PATH-BINDING TLVs, if any. including any other valid instances of TE-PATH-BINDING TLVs, if any.
The resulting error message MAY include the offending TE-PATH-BINDING The resulting error message MAY include the offending TE-PATH-BINDING
TLV in the PCEP-ERROR object. TLV in the PCEP-ERROR object.
If a PCC receives a TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in any message other than If a PCC receives a TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in any message other than
PCUpd or PCInitiate, it MUST close the corresponding PCEP session PCUpd or PCInitiate, it MUST close the corresponding PCEP session
with the reason "Reception of a malformed PCEP message" (according to with the reason "Reception of a malformed PCEP message" (according to
skipping to change at page 11, line 24 skipping to change at page 11, line 27
if these conditions are not met, the entire ERO is considered invalid if these conditions are not met, the entire ERO is considered invalid
and a PCErr message is sent by the PCC with Error-Type = 10 and a PCErr message is sent by the PCC 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").
8. PCE Allocation of Binding label/SID 8. PCE Allocation of Binding label/SID
Section 5 already includes the scenario where a PCE requires a PCC to Section 5 already includes the scenario where a PCE requires a PCC to
allocate a specified binding value by sending a PCUpd or PCInitiate allocate a specified binding value by sending a PCUpd or PCInitiate
message containing a TE-PATH-BINDING TLV. This section specifies an message containing a TE-PATH-BINDING TLV. This section specifies an
OPTIONAL feature for the PCE to allocate the binding label/SID on its OPTIONAL feature for the PCE to allocate the binding label/SID of its
own accord in the case where the PCE also controls the label space of own accord in the case where the PCE also controls the label space of
the PCC and can make the label allocation on its own as described in the PCC and can make the label allocation on its own as described in
[RFC8283]. Note that the act of requesting a specific binding value [RFC8283]. Note that the act of requesting a specific binding value
(Section 5) is different from the act of allocating a binding label/ (Section 5) is different from the act of allocating a binding label/
SID as described in this section. SID as described in this section.
[RFC8283] introduces the architecture for PCE as a central controller [RFC8283] introduces the architecture for PCE as a central controller
as an extension of the architecture described in [RFC4655] and as an extension of the architecture described in [RFC4655] and
assumes the continued use of PCEP as the protocol used between PCE assumes the continued use of PCEP as the protocol used between PCE
and PCC. [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] specifies and PCC. [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] specifies
skipping to change at page 11, line 51 skipping to change at page 12, line 8
exchange the PCECC capability as described in exchange the PCECC capability as described in
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] before the PCE can [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] before the PCE can
allocate the binding label/SID on its own. allocate the binding label/SID on its own.
A new P flag in the LSP object [RFC8231] is introduced to indicate A new P flag in the LSP object [RFC8231] is introduced to indicate
the allocation needs to be made by the PCE: the allocation needs to be made by the PCE:
o P (PCE-allocated binding label/SID): If the bit is set to 1, it o P (PCE-allocated binding label/SID): If the bit is set to 1, it
indicates that the PCC requests PCE to make allocations for this indicates that the PCC requests PCE to make allocations for this
LSP. The TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in the LSP object identifies that LSP. The TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in the LSP object identifies that
the allocation is for binding label/SID. A PCC would set this bit the allocation is for binding label/SID. A PCC MUST set this bit
to 1 and include a TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in the LSP object to to 1 and include a TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in the LSP object to
request for allocation of binding label/SID by the PCE in the PCEP request for allocation of binding label/SID by the PCE in the PCEP
message. A PCE would also set this bit to 1 and include a TE- message. A PCE MUST also set this bit to 1 and include a TE-PATH-
PATH-BINDING TLV to indicate that the binding label/SID is BINDING TLV to indicate that the binding label/SID is allocated by
allocated by PCE and encoded in the PCEP message towards PCC. PCE and encoded in the PCEP message towards the PCC. Further, a
Further, a PCE would set this bit to 0 and include a TE-PATH- PCE MUST set this bit to 0 and include a TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in
BINDING TLV in the LSP object to indicate that the binding label/ the LSP object to indicate that the binding label/SID should be
SID should be allocated by the PCC as described in Section 5. allocated by the PCC as described in Section 5.
Note that - Note that -
o A PCE could allocate the binding label/SID on its own accord for a o A PCE could allocate the binding label/SID of its own accord for a
PCE-initiated or delegated LSP, and inform the PCC in the PCE-initiated or delegated LSP, and inform the PCC in the
PCInitiate message or PCUpd message by setting P=1 and including PCInitiate message or PCUpd message by setting P=1 and including
TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in the LSP object. TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in the LSP object.
o To let the PCC allocates the binding label/SID, a PCE could set o To let the PCC allocates the binding label/SID, a PCE MUST set P=0
P=0 and include an empty TE-PATH-BINDING TLV ( i.e., no binding and include an empty TE-PATH-BINDING TLV ( i.e., no binding value
value is specified) in the LSP object in PCInitiate/PCUpd message. is specified) in the LSP object in PCInitiate/PCUpd message.
o A PCC could request that the PCE allocate the binding label/SID by o To request that the PCE allocate the binding label/SID, a PCC MUST
setting P=1, D=1, and including an empty TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in set P=1, D=1, and include an empty TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in PCRpt
PCRpt message. The PCE would allocate it and respond to the PCC message. The PCE SHOULD allocate it and respond to the PCC with
with PCUpd message including the allocated binding label/SID in PCUpd message including the allocated binding label/SID in the TE-
the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV and P=1, D=1 in the LSP object. PATH-BINDING TLV and P=1, D=1 in the LSP object.
o If both peers have not exchanged the PCECC capabilities as per o If both peers have not exchanged the PCECC capabilities as per
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] and a PCEP peer [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] and a PCEP peer
receives P=1 in the LSP object, it needs to act as per receives P=1 in the LSP object, it needs to act as per
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller]: [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller]:
* Send a PCErr message with Error-Type=19 (Invalid Operation) and * Send a PCErr message with Error-Type=19 (Invalid Operation) and
Error-Value=16 (Attempted PCECC operations when PCECC Error-Value=16 (Attempted PCECC operations when PCECC
capability was not advertised) capability was not advertised)
* Terminate the PCEP session * Terminate the PCEP session
It is assumed that the label range to be used by a PCE is known and It is assumed that the label range to be used by a PCE is known and
set on both PCEP peers. The exact mechanism is out of scope of set on both PCEP peers. The exact mechanism is out of the scope of
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] or this document. [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] or this document.
Note that the specific BSID could be from the PCE-controlled or the Note that the specific BSID could be from the PCE-controlled or the
PCC-controlled label space. The PCE can directly allocate the label PCC-controlled label space. The PCE can directly allocate the label
from the PCE-controlled label space using P=1 as described above, from the PCE-controlled label space using P=1 as described above,
whereas the PCE can request for the allocation of a specific BSID whereas the PCE can request for the allocation of a specific BSID
from the PCC-controlled label space with P=0 as described in from the PCC-controlled label space with P=0 as described in
Section 5. Section 5.
9. Implementation Status 9. Implementation Status
skipping to change at page 13, line 36 skipping to change at page 13, line 38
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".
9.1. Huawei 9.1. 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 will be
request early code-point allocation from IANA after WG adoption. modified to the value allocated in this document.
o Maturity Level: Production o Maturity Level: Production
o Coverage: Full o Coverage: Full
o Contact: chengli13@huawei.com o Contact: c.l@huawei.com
9.2. Cisco 9.2. Cisco
o Organization: Cisco Systems o Organization: Cisco Systems
o Implementation: Head-end and controller. o Implementation: Head-end and controller.
o Description: An experimental code-point is currently used. o Description: An experimental code-point is used and will be
modified to the value allocated in this document.
o Maturity Level: Production o Maturity Level: Production
o Coverage: Full o Coverage: Full
o Contact: mkoldych@cisco.com o Contact: mkoldych@cisco.com
10. Security Considerations 10. Security Considerations
The security considerations described in [RFC5440], [RFC8231], The security considerations described in [RFC5440], [RFC8231],
skipping to change at page 14, line 39 skipping to change at page 14, line 42
11. Manageability Considerations 11. 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.
11.1. Control of Function and Policy 11.1. 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 the PCC needs to apply when allocating the binding label/SID.
11.2. Information and Data Models 11.2. 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.
11.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring 11.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness The 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].
11.4. Verify Correct Operations 11.4. Verify Correct Operations
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new operation The mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new
verification requirements in addition to those already listed in operation verification requirements in addition to those already
[RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC8664]. listed in [RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC8664].
11.5. Requirements On Other Protocols 11.5. Requirements On Other Protocols
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new requirements The mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new
on other protocols. requirements on other protocols.
11.6. Impact On Network Operations 11.6. Impact On Network Operations
Mechanisms defined in [RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC8664] also apply The mechanisms defined in [RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC8664] also
to PCEP extensions defined in this document. Further, the mechanism apply to the PCEP extensions defined in this document. Further, the
described in this document can help the operator to request control mechanism described in this document can help the operator to request
of the LSPs at a particular PCE. control of the LSPs at a particular PCE.
12. IANA Considerations 12. IANA Considerations
IANA maintains the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" IANA maintains the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers"
registry. This document requests IANA actions to allocate code registry. This document requests IANA actions to allocate code
points for the protocol elements defined in this document. points for the protocol elements defined in this document.
12.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators 12.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators
This document defines a new PCEP TLV; IANA is requested to confirm This document defines a new PCEP TLV; IANA is requested to confirm
skipping to change at page 17, line 7 skipping to change at page 17, line 7
12.3. PCEP Error Type and Value 12.3. 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-value Reference Error-Type Meaning Error-value Reference
TBD2 Binding label/SID This TBD2 Binding label/SID 0: Unassigned This
failure document failure document
TBD3: Invalid SID This TBD3: Invalid SID This
document document
TBD4: Unable to allocate the This TBD4: Unable to allocate the This
specified binding value document specified binding value document
TBD5: Unable to allocate a This TBD5: Unable to allocate a This
new binding label/SID document new binding label/SID document
13. Acknowledgements 13. Acknowledgements
skipping to change at page 19, line 6 skipping to change at page 19, line 6
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8986] Filsfils, C., Ed., Camarillo, P., Ed., Leddy, J., Voyer, [RFC8986] Filsfils, C., Ed., Camarillo, P., Ed., Leddy, J., Voyer,
D., Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "Segment Routing over IPv6 D., Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "Segment Routing over IPv6
(SRv6) Network Programming", RFC 8986, (SRv6) Network Programming", RFC 8986,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8986, February 2021, DOI 10.17487/RFC8986, February 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8986>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8986>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller]
Li, Z., Peng, S., Negi, M., Zhao, Q., and C. Zhou, "PCEP Li, Z., Peng, S., Negi, M. S., Zhao, Q., and C. Zhou,
Procedures and Protocol Extensions for Using PCE as a "PCEP Procedures and Protocol Extensions for Using PCE as
Central Controller (PCECC) of LSPs", draft-ietf-pce-pcep- a Central Controller (PCECC) of LSPs", draft-ietf-pce-
extension-for-pce-controller-10 (work in progress), pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-14 (work in progress),
January 2021. March 2021.
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6]
Li, C., Negi, M., Sivabalan, S., Koldychev, M.,
Kaladharan, P., and Y. Zhu, "PCEP Extensions for Segment
Routing leveraging the IPv6 data plane", draft-ietf-pce-
segment-routing-ipv6-09 (work in progress), May 2021.
14.2. Informative References 14.2. 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
skipping to change at page 19, line 34 skipping to change at page 19, line 40
[RFC8669] Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Lindem, A., Ed., Sreekantiah, [RFC8669] Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Lindem, A., Ed., Sreekantiah,
A., and H. Gredler, "Segment Routing Prefix Segment A., and H. Gredler, "Segment Routing Prefix Segment
Identifier Extensions for BGP", RFC 8669, Identifier Extensions for BGP", RFC 8669,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8669, December 2019, DOI 10.17487/RFC8669, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8669>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8669>.
[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-09 (work in progress), ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-11 (work in progress),
November 2020. April 2021.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]
Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V., and J. Tantsura, "A Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V. P., and J. Tantsura,
YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element "A YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element
Communications Protocol (PCEP)", draft-ietf-pce-pcep- Communications Protocol (PCEP)", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-
yang-15 (work in progress), October 2020. yang-16 (work in progress), February 2021.
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6]
Li, C., Negi, M., Sivabalan, S., Koldychev, M.,
Kaladharan, P., and Y. Zhu, "PCEP Extensions for Segment
Routing leveraging the IPv6 data plane", draft-ietf-pce-
segment-routing-ipv6-08 (work in progress), November 2020.
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses Appendix A. Contributor Addresses
Jonathan Hardwick Jonathan Hardwick
Metaswitch Networks Metaswitch Networks
33 Genotin Road 33 Genotin Road
Enfield Enfield
United Kingdom United Kingdom
EMail: Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com EMail: Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com
skipping to change at page 21, line 22 skipping to change at page 21, line 22
Jeff Tantsura Jeff Tantsura
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
EMail: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com EMail: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com
Stefano Previdi Stefano Previdi
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
EMail: stefano@previdi.net EMail: stefano@previdi.net
Cheng Li Cheng Li (editor)
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd. Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095 Beijing 100095
China China
EMail: c.l@huawei.com EMail: c.l@huawei.com
 End of changes. 60 change blocks. 
135 lines changed or deleted 135 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/