< draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-11.txt   draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-12.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: April 18, 2022 Cisco Systems, Inc. Expires: 28 July 2022 Cisco Systems, Inc.
J. Tantsura J. Tantsura
Microsoft Corporation Microsoft Corporation
S. Previdi S. Previdi
C. Li, Ed. C. Li, Ed.
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
October 15, 2021 24 January 2022
Carrying Binding Label/Segment Identifier in PCE-based Networks. Carrying Binding Label/Segment Identifier in PCE-based Networks.
draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-11 draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-12
Abstract Abstract
In order to provide greater scalability, network confidentiality, and In order to provide greater scalability, network confidentiality, and
service 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 Switched 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 concept of binding value, which can be
Identifier. It further specifies an approach for reporting binding either an MPLS label or Segment Identifier. It further specifies an
label/Segment Identifier (SID) by a Path Computation Client (PCC) to extension to Path Computation Element (PCE) communication
the Path Computation Element (PCE) to support PCE-based Traffic Protocol(PCEP) for reporting the binding value by a Path Computation
Engineering policies. Client (PCC) to the 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
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 18, 2022. This Internet-Draft will expire on 28 July 2022.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2022 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/
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
publication of this document. Please review these documents Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Motivation and Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Summary of the Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Path Binding TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Path Binding TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure . . . . . . . . 7 4.1. SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure . . . . . . . . 8
5. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Binding SID in SR-ERO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. Binding SID in SR-ERO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1. Huawei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 9.1. Huawei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.2. Cisco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 9.2. Cisco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 11. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 11.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 11.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . 15 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
12.1.1. TE-PATH-BINDING TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 12.1.1. TE-PATH-BINDING TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
12.2. LSP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 12.2. LSP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
12.3. PCEP Error Type and Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 12.3. PCEP Error Type and Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
13. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 13. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Appendix A. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
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 set up using either the various constraints. Currently, TE paths are set up using either 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 head-end node to steer a packet flow As per [RFC8402] SR allows a head-end node to steer a packet flow
along any path. The head-end node is said to steer a flow into a along a given path via a Segment Routing Policy (SR Policy). 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 the instantiation of an ordered list of segments on a that enables the instantiation of an ordered list of segments on a
node for implementing a source routing policy with a specific intent node for implementing a source routing policy with a specific intent
for 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 Routing (SR) Policy, instantiation of which may bound to a Segment Routing (SR) Policy, instantiation of which may
involve a list of Segment Identifiers (SIDs). Any packets received involve a list of Segment Identifiers (SIDs). Any packets received
with an active segment equal to a BSID are steered onto the bound SR with an active segment equal to a BSID are steered onto the bound SR
Policy. A BSID may be either a local (SR Local Block (SRLB)) or a Policy. A BSID may be either a local (SR Local Block (SRLB)) or a
global (SR Global Block (SRGB)) SID. As per Section 6.4 of global (SR Global Block (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 interface 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, the term 'binding label/SID' is used to generalize the
binding value for both SR and non-SR paths. allocation of binding value for both SR and non-SR paths.
[RFC5440] describes the PCE communication Protocol(PCEP) for [RFC5440] describes the PCEP for communication between a Path
communication between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a PCE or Computation Client (PCC) and a PCE or between a pair of PCEs as per
between a pair of PCEs as per [RFC4655]. [RFC8231] specifies [RFC4655]. [RFC8231] specifies extensions to PCEP that allow a PCC
extensions to PCEP that allow a PCC to delegate its Label Switched to delegate its Label Switched Paths (LSPs) to a stateful PCE. A
Paths (LSPs) to a stateful PCE. A stateful PCE can then update the stateful PCE can then update the state of LSPs delegated to it.
state of LSPs delegated to it. [RFC8281] specifies a mechanism [RFC8281] specifies a mechanism allowing a PCE to dynamically
allowing a PCE to dynamically instantiate an LSP on a PCC by sending instantiate an LSP on a PCC by sending the path and characteristics.
the path and characteristics. This document specifies an extension to PCEP to manage of binding
label/SID for both SR and non-SR paths.
[RFC8664] provides a mechanism for a PCE (acting as a network [RFC8664] provides a mechanism for a PCE (acting as a network
controller) to instantiate SR-TE paths (candidate paths) for an SR controller) to instantiate SR-TE paths (candidate paths) for an SR
Policy 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].
1.1. Motivation and Example
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 a PCC to report the binding up TE paths, a binding label/SID reported from the PCC to the
label/SID to the stateful PCE for the purpose of enforcing end-to-end stateful PCE is useful for the purpose of enforcing end-to-end TE/SR
TE/SR policy. A sample Data Center (DC) use-case is illustrated in policy. A sample Data Center (DC) use-case is illustrated in
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
[RFC8669]). In the IP/MPLS WAN, an SR-TE LSP is set up using the [RFC8669]). In the IP/MPLS WAN, an SR-TE LSP is set up using the
PCE. The list of SIDs of the SR-TE LSP is {A, B, C, D}. The gateway PCE. The list of SIDs of the SR-TE LSP is {A, B, C, D}. The gateway
node 1 (which is the PCC) allocates a binding SID X and reports it to node 1 (which is the PCC) allocates a binding SID X and reports it to
the PCE. In order for the access node to steer the traffic over the the PCE. In order for the access node to steer the traffic over the
SR-TE LSP, the PCE passes the SID stack {Y, X} where Y is the prefix SR-TE LSP, the PCE passes the SID stack {Y, X} where Y is the prefix
SID of the gateway node-1 to the access node. In the absence of the SID of the gateway node-1 to the access node. In the absence of the
binding SID X, the PCE would pass the SID stack {Y, A, B, C, D} to binding SID X, the PCE would pass the SID stack {Y, A, B, C, D} to
the access node. This example also illustrates the additional the access node. This example also illustrates the additional
skipping to change at page 4, line 36 skipping to change at page 4, line 44
+------+ ( ) +-------+ ( ) +-------+ +------+ ( ) +-------+ ( ) +-------+
|Access|_( MPLS DC Network )_|Gateway|_( IP/MPLS WAN )_|Gateway| |Access|_( MPLS DC Network )_|Gateway|_( IP/MPLS WAN )_|Gateway|
| 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 to the stateful PCE the binding label/SID it Using the extension defined in this document, a PCC could report to
allocated via a Path Computation LSP State Report (PCRpt) message. the stateful PCE the binding label/SID it allocated via a Path
It is also possible for a stateful PCE to request a PCC to allocate a Computation LSP State Report (PCRpt) message. It is also possible
specific binding label/SID by sending a Path Computation LSP Update for a stateful PCE to request a PCC to allocate a specific binding
Request (PCUpd) message. If the PCC can successfully allocate the label/SID by sending a Path Computation LSP Update Request (PCUpd)
specified binding value, it reports the binding value to the PCE. message. If the PCC can successfully allocate the specified binding
Otherwise, the PCC sends an error message to the PCE indicating the value, it reports the binding value to the PCE. Otherwise, the PCC
cause of the failure. A local policy or configuration at the PCC sends an error message to the PCE indicating the cause of the
SHOULD dictate if the binding label/SID needs to be assigned. failure. A local policy or configuration at the PCC 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 1.2. Summary of the Extension
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
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
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
data-plane). Throughout this document, the term "binding value"
means either an MPLS label or a SID.
Additionally, to support the PCE-based central controller [RFC8283] To implement the needed changes to PCEP, in this document, we
operation where the PCE would take responsibility for managing some introduce a new OPTIONAL TLV that a PCC can use in order to report
part of the MPLS label space for each of the routers that it the binding label/SID associated with a TE LSP, or a PCE to request a
controls, the PCE could directly make the binding label/SID PCC to allocate a specific binding label/SID value. This TLV is
allocation and inform the PCC. See Section 8 for details. intended for TE LSPs established using RSVP-TE, 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) or a binding IPv6
SID (e.g., IPv6 address for SR-TE paths with IPv6 data-plane).
Throughout this document, the term "binding value" means either an
MPLS label or a SID.
As another way to use the extension specified in this document, to
support the PCE-based central controller [RFC8283] operation where
the PCE would take responsibility for managing some part of the MPLS
label space for each of the routers that it controls, the PCE could
directly make the binding label/SID allocation and inform the PCC.
See Section 8 for details.
In addition to specifying a new TLV, this document specifies how and
when a PCC and PCE can use this TLV, how they can can allocate a
binding label/SID, and associted error handling.
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
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
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.
binding label/SID: a generic term used for the binding segment for
both SR and non-SR paths.
binding value: a generic term used for the binding segment as it can
be encoded in various formats (as per the binding type(BT)).
LSP: Label Switched Path. LSP: Label Switched Path.
PCC: Path Computation Client. PCC: Path Computation Client.
PCEP: Path Computation Element communication Protocol. PCEP: Path Computation Element communication Protocol.
RSVP-TE: Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering. RSVP-TE: Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering.
SID: Segment Identifier. SID: Segment Identifier.
skipping to change at page 6, line 33 skipping to change at page 7, line 5
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 comprises: the TLV comprises:
Binding Type (BT): A one-octet field that identifies the type of Binding Type (BT): A one-octet field that identifies the type of
binding included in the TLV. This document specifies the following binding included in the TLV. This document specifies the following
BT values: BT values:
o BT = 0: The binding value is a 20-bit MPLS label value. The TLV * 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 (the is padded to 4-bytes alignment. The Length MUST be set to 7 (the
padding is not included in the length, as per [RFC5440] padding is not included in the length, as per [RFC5440]
Section 7.1) and the first 20 bits are used to encode the MPLS Section 7.1) and the first 20 bits are used to encode the MPLS
label value. label value.
o BT = 1: The binding value is a 32-bit MPLS label stack entry as * 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 the format of a * BT = 2: The binding value is an SRv6 SID with the format of a
16-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 * 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. The 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
skipping to change at page 7, line 23 skipping to change at page 7, line 43
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|R| | |R| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Flags Figure 3: Flags
where: where:
o R (Removal - 1 bit): When set, the requesting PCEP peer requires * R (Removal - 1 bit): When set, the requesting PCEP peer requires
the removal of the binding value for the LSP. When unset, the the removal of the binding value for the LSP. When unset, the
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 * 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. When the BT is 0, the 20 bits represent the MPLS a 4-octet boundary. When the BT is 0, the 20 bits represent the MPLS
label. When the BT is 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]. When the BT is 2, the 128 bits represent the entry as per [RFC3032]. When the BT is 2, the 128 bits represent the
SRv6 SID. When the BT is 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.
skipping to change at page 8, line 15 skipping to change at page 8, line 30
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 consists of: The Binding Value consists of:
o SRv6 Binding SID: 16 octets. The 128-bit IPv6 address, * 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 * 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 * 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.
o The following fields are used to advertise the length of each * The following fields are used to advertise the length of each
individual part of the SRv6 SID as defined in [RFC8986]: individual part of the SRv6 SID as defined in [RFC8986]:
* 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 a 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 a 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
skipping to change at page 11, line 38 skipping to change at page 12, line 8
using the PCE as the central controller. using the PCE as the central controller.
When PCECC operations are supported as per [RFC9050], the binding When PCECC operations are supported as per [RFC9050], the binding
label/SID MAY also be allocated by the PCE itself. Both peers need label/SID MAY also be allocated by the PCE itself. Both peers need
to exchange the PCECC capability as described in [RFC9050] before the to exchange the PCECC capability as described in [RFC9050] before the
PCE can allocate the binding label/SID on its own. PCE can 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
that the allocation needs to be made by the PCE: that the allocation needs to be made by the PCE:
o P (PCE-allocated binding label/SID): If the bit is set to 1, it * 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 a binding label/SID. A PCC MUST set this the allocation is for a binding label/SID. A PCC MUST set this
bit to 1 and include a TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in the LSP object if it bit to 1 and include a TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in the LSP object if it
wishes to request for allocation of binding label/SID by the PCE wishes to request for allocation of binding label/SID by the PCE
in the PCEP message. A PCE MUST also set this bit to 1 and in the PCEP message. A PCE MUST also set this bit to 1 and
include a TE-PATH-BINDING TLV to indicate that the binding label/ include a TE-PATH-BINDING TLV to indicate that the binding label/
SID is allocated by PCE and encoded in the PCEP message towards SID is allocated by PCE and encoded in the PCEP message towards
the PCC. Further, a PCE MUST set this bit to 0 and include a TE- the PCC. Further, a PCE MUST set this bit to 0 and include a TE-
PATH-BINDING TLV in the LSP object if it wishes to indicate that PATH-BINDING TLV in the LSP object if it wishes to indicate that
the binding label/SID should be allocated by the PCC as described the binding label/SID should be allocated by the PCC as described
in Section 5. in Section 5.
Note that - Note that -
o A PCE could allocate the binding label/SID of its own accord for a
* 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 allocate the binding label/SID, a PCE MUST set P=0 * To let the PCC allocate the binding label/SID, a PCE MUST set P=0
and include an empty TE-PATH-BINDING TLV ( i.e., no binding value and include an empty TE-PATH-BINDING TLV ( i.e., no binding value
is specified) in the LSP object in PCInitiate/PCUpd message. is specified) in the LSP object in PCInitiate/PCUpd message.
o To request that the PCE allocate the binding label/SID, a PCC MUST * To request that the PCE allocate the binding label/SID, a PCC MUST
set P=1, D=1, and include an empty TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in PCRpt set P=1, D=1, and include an empty TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in PCRpt
message. The PCE SHOULD allocate it and respond to the PCC with message. The PCE SHOULD allocate it and respond to the PCC with
PCUpd message including the allocated binding label/SID in the TE- PCUpd message including the allocated binding label/SID in the TE-
PATH-BINDING TLV and P=1, D=1 in the LSP object. If the PCE is PATH-BINDING TLV and P=1, D=1 in the LSP object. If the PCE is
unable to allocate, it MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type = unable to allocate, it MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type =
TBD2 ("Binding label/SID failure") and Error-Value = TBD5 ("Unable TBD2 ("Binding label/SID failure") and Error-Value = TBD5 ("Unable
to allocate a new binding label/SID"). to allocate a new binding label/SID").
o If one or both speakers (PCE and PCC) have not indicated support * If one or both speakers (PCE and PCC) have not indicated support
and willingness to use the PCEP extensions for the PCECC as per and willingness to use the PCEP extensions for the PCECC as per
[RFC9050] and a PCEP peer receives P=1 in the LSP object, it MUST: [RFC9050] and a PCEP peer receives P=1 in the LSP object, it MUST:
* 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) and capability was not advertised) and
* terminate the PCEP session. - terminate the PCEP session.
o A legacy PCEP speaker that does not recognize the P flag in the * A legacy PCEP speaker that does not recognize the P flag in the
LSP object would ignore it in accordance with [RFC8231]. LSP object would ignore it in accordance with [RFC8231].
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 the scope of set on both PCEP peers. The exact mechanism is out of the scope of
[RFC9050] or this document. Note that the specific BSID could be [RFC9050] or this document. Note that the specific BSID could be
from the PCE-controlled or the PCC-controlled label space. The PCE from the PCE-controlled or the PCC-controlled label space. The PCE
can directly allocate the label from the PCE-controlled label space can directly allocate the label from the PCE-controlled label space
using P=1 as described above, whereas the PCE can request the using P=1 as described above, whereas the PCE can request the
allocation of a specific BSID from the PCC-controlled label space allocation of a specific BSID from the PCC-controlled label space
with P=0 as described in Section 5. with P=0 as described in Section 5.
skipping to change at page 13, line 4 skipping to change at page 13, line 25
with P=0 as described in Section 5. with P=0 as described in Section 5.
9. Implementation Status 9. 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
here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort
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".
9.1. Huawei 9.1. Huawei
o Organization: Huawei * Organization: Huawei
o Implementation: Huawei's Router and Controller * Implementation: Huawei's Router and Controller
o Description: An experimental code-point is used and will be * Description: An experimental code-point is used and will be
modified to the value allocated in this document. modified to the value allocated in this document.
o Maturity Level: Production * Maturity Level: Production
* Coverage: Full
o Coverage: Full
o Contact: c.l@huawei.com * Contact: c.l@huawei.com
9.2. Cisco 9.2. Cisco
o Organization: Cisco Systems * Organization: Cisco Systems
o Implementation: Head-end and controller. * Implementation: Head-end and controller.
o Description: An experimental code-point is used and will be * Description: An experimental code-point is used and will be
modified to the value allocated in this document. modified to the value allocated in this document.
o Maturity Level: Production * Maturity Level: Production
o Coverage: Full * Coverage: Full
o Contact: mkoldych@cisco.com * Contact: mkoldych@cisco.com
10. Security Considerations 10. 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 in [RFC8664], SR allows a network controller to As described in [RFC8664], SR allows a network controller to
instantiate and control paths in the network. A rogue PCE can instantiate and control paths in the network. A rogue PCE can
manipulate binding SID allocations to move traffic around for some manipulate binding SID allocations to move traffic around for some
skipping to change at page 14, line 41 skipping to change at page 15, line 17
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 the PCC needs to apply when allocating the binding label/SID. policy the PCC needs to apply when allocating the binding label/SID.
For BT is 2, the operator needs to have local policy set to decide If BT is set to 2, the operator needs to have local policy set to
the SID structure and the SRv6 Endpoint Behavior of the BSID. decide the SID structure and the SRv6 Endpoint Behavior of the BSID.
11.2. Information and Data Models 11.2. Information and Data Models
The PCEP YANG module [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] will be extended to The PCEP YANG module [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] will 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
The 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
skipping to change at page 15, line 39 skipping to change at page 16, line 11
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
the following early allocations from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" the following early allocations from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators"
subregistry of the PCEP Numbers registry, as follows: subregistry of the PCEP Numbers registry, as follows:
Value Description Reference +=======+=================+===============+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+=======+=================+===============+
+-------+-----------------+---------------+
| 55 | TE-PATH-BINDING | This document |
+-------+-----------------+---------------+
55 TE-PATH-BINDING This document Table 1
12.1.1. TE-PATH-BINDING TLV 12.1.1. TE-PATH-BINDING TLV
IANA is requested to create a new subregistry "TE-PATH-BINDING TLV BT IANA is requested to create a new subregistry "TE-PATH-BINDING TLV BT
field" to manage the value of the Binding Type field in the TE-PATH- field" to manage the value of the Binding Type field in the TE-PATH-
BINDING TLV. Initial values for the subregistry are given below. BINDING TLV. Initial values for the subregistry are given below.
New values are assigned by Standards Action [RFC8126]. New values are assigned by Standards Action [RFC8126].
Value Description Reference +=======+======================================+===============+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+=======+======================================+===============+
+-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
| 0 | MPLS Label | This document |
+-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
| 1 | MPLS Label Stack Entry | This document |
+-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
| 2 | SRv6 SID | This document |
+-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
| 3 | SRv6 SID with Behavior and Structure | This document |
+-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
| 4-255 | Unassigned | This document |
+-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
0 MPLS Label This document Table 2
1 MPLS Label Stack This document
Entry
2 SRv6 SID This document
3 SRv6 SID with This document
Behavior and
Structure
4-255 Unassigned This document
IANA is requested to create a new subregistry "TE-PATH-BINDING TLV IANA is requested to create a new subregistry "TE-PATH-BINDING TLV
Flag field" to manage the Flag field in the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV. New Flag field" to manage the Flag field in the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV. New
values are to be assigned by Standards Action [RFC8126]. Each bit values are to be assigned by Standards Action [RFC8126]. Each bit
should be tracked with the following qualities: should be tracked with the following qualities:
o Bit number (count from 0 as the most significant bit) * Bit number (count from 0 as the most significant bit)
o Description
o Reference * Description
* Reference
Bit Description Reference +=====+=============+===============+
| Bit | Description | Reference |
+=====+=============+===============+
+-----+-------------+---------------+
| 0 | R (Removal) | This document |
+-----+-------------+---------------+
| 1-7 | Unassigned | This document |
+-----+-------------+---------------+
0 R (Removal) This document Table 3
1-7 Unassigned This document
12.2. LSP Object 12.2. LSP Object
IANA is requested to confirm the early allocation for a new code- IANA is requested to confirm the early allocation for a new code-
point in the "LSP Object Flag Field" sub-registry for the new P flag point in the "LSP Object Flag Field" sub-registry for the new P flag
as follows: as follows:
Bit Description Reference +=====+=================================+===============+
| Bit | Description | Reference |
+=====+=================================+===============+
+-----+---------------------------------+---------------+
| 0 | PCE-allocated binding label/SID | This document |
+-----+---------------------------------+---------------+
0 PCE-allocated binding This document Table 4
label/SID
12.3. PCEP Error Type and Value 12.3. PCEP Error Type and Value
This document defines a new Error-type and associated Error-Values This document defines a new Error-type and associated Error-Values
for the PCErr message. IANA is requested to allocate new error-type for the PCErr message. IANA is requested to allocate new error-type
and error-values within the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and and error-values within the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and
Values" subregistry of the PCEP Numbers registry, as follows: Values" subregistry of the PCEP Numbers registry, as follows:
Error-Type Meaning Error-value Reference +============+================+========================+===========+
| Error-Type | Meaning | Error-value | Reference |
+============+================+========================+===========+
+------------+----------------+------------------------+-----------+
| TBD2 | Binding label/ | 0: Unassigned | This |
| | SID failure | | document |
+------------+----------------+------------------------+-----------+
| | | TBD3: Invalid SID | This |
| | | | document |
+------------+----------------+------------------------+-----------+
| | | TBD4: Unable to | This |
| | | allocate the specified | document |
| | | binding value | |
+------------+----------------+------------------------+-----------+
| | | TBD5: Unable to | This |
| | | allocate a new binding | document |
| | | label/SID | |
+------------+----------------+------------------------+-----------+
TBD2 Binding label/SID 0: Unassigned This Table 5
failure document
TBD3: Invalid SID This
document
TBD4: Unable to allocate the This
specified binding value document
TBD5: Unable to allocate a This
new binding label/SID document
13. Acknowledgements 13. Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Milos Fabian, Mrinmoy Das, Andrew Stone, Tom We would like to thank Milos Fabian, Mrinmoy Das, Andrew Stone, Tom
Petch, Aijun Wang, Olivier Dugeon, and Adrian Farrel for their Petch, Aijun Wang, Olivier Dugeon, and Adrian Farrel for their
valuable comments. valuable comments.
Thanks to Julien Meuric for shepherding. Thanks to John Scudder for Thanks to Julien Meuric for shepherding. Thanks to John Scudder for
the AD review. the AD review.
Thanks to Theresa Enghardt for GENART review.
14. References 14. References
14.1. Normative References 14.1. 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>.
[RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y., [RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
skipping to change at page 19, line 21 skipping to change at page 20, line 32
[RFC9050] Li, Z., Peng, S., Negi, M., Zhao, Q., and C. Zhou, "Path [RFC9050] Li, Z., Peng, S., Negi, M., Zhao, Q., and C. Zhou, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Procedures and Extensions for Using the PCE as a Central Procedures and Extensions for Using the PCE as a Central
Controller (PCECC) of LSPs", RFC 9050, Controller (PCECC) of LSPs", RFC 9050,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9050, July 2021, DOI 10.17487/RFC9050, July 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9050>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9050>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6] [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6]
Li, C., Negi, M., Sivabalan, S., Koldychev, M., Li, C., Negi, M., Sivabalan, S., Koldychev, M.,
Kaladharan, P., and Y. Zhu, "PCEP Extensions for Segment Kaladharan, P., and Y. Zhu, "PCEP Extensions for Segment
Routing leveraging the IPv6 data plane", draft-ietf-pce- Routing leveraging the IPv6 data plane", Work in Progress,
segment-routing-ipv6-09 (work in progress), May 2021. Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-11, 10
January 2022, <https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-
ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-11.txt>.
14.2. Informative References 14.2. Informative References
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and J. Ash, "A Path
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, Computation 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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8283>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8283>.
[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", Work in
ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-13 (work in progress), Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-spring-segment-
May 2021. routing-policy-14, 25 October 2021,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-spring-
segment-routing-policy-14.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]
Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V. P., and J. Tantsura, Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V. P., and J. Tantsura,
"A 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)", Work in Progress,
yang-16 (work in progress), February 2021. Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-17, 23 October
2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-
pcep-yang-17.txt>.
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
Dhruv Dhody Dhruv Dhody
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
skipping to change at page 21, line 49 skipping to change at page 22, line 46
Zafar Ali Zafar Ali
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: zali@cisco.com Email: zali@cisco.com
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Siva Sivabalan Siva Sivabalan
Ciena Corporation Ciena Corporation
EMail: msiva282@gmail.com Email: msiva282@gmail.com
Clarence Filsfils Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Pegasus Parc Pegasus Parc
De kleetlaan 6a, DIEGEM BRABANT 1831 BRABANT 1831 De kleetlaan 6a
BELGIUM Belgium
EMail: cfilsfil@cisco.com Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com
Jeff Tantsura Jeff Tantsura
Microsoft Corporation Microsoft Corporation
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 (editor) 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. 85 change blocks. 
161 lines changed or deleted 217 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/