| < draft-ietf-pce-disco-proto-isis-05.txt | draft-ietf-pce-disco-proto-isis-06.txt > | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Network Working Group J.L. Le Roux (Editor) | Network Working Group J.L. Le Roux (Editor) | |||
| Internet Draft France Telecom | Internet Draft France Telecom | |||
| Intended Status: Standards Track | Intended Status: Standard Track | |||
| Expires: November 2007 J.P. Vasseur (Editor) | Expires: December 2007 J.P. Vasseur (Editor) | |||
| Cisco System Inc. | Cisco System Inc. | |||
| Yuichi Ikejiri | Yuichi Ikejiri | |||
| NTT Communications | NTT Communications | |||
| Raymond Zhang | Raymond Zhang | |||
| BT Infonet | BT Infonet | |||
| May 2007 | June 2007 | |||
| IS-IS protocol extensions for Path Computation Element (PCE) Discovery | IS-IS protocol extensions for Path Computation Element (PCE) Discovery | |||
| draft-ietf-pce-disco-proto-isis-05.txt | draft-ietf-pce-disco-proto-isis-06.txt | |||
| Status of this Memo | Status of this Memo | |||
| By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any | By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any | |||
| applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware | applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware | |||
| have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes | have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes | |||
| aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. | aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. | |||
| Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | |||
| Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that | Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that | |||
| skipping to change at page 2, line 33 ¶ | skipping to change at page 2, line 33 ¶ | |||
| "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this | "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this | |||
| document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. | document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. | |||
| Table of Contents | Table of Contents | |||
| 1. Terminology.................................................3 | 1. Terminology.................................................3 | |||
| 2. Introduction................................................4 | 2. Introduction................................................4 | |||
| 3. Overview....................................................5 | 3. Overview....................................................5 | |||
| 3.1. PCE Information.............................................5 | 3.1. PCE Information.............................................5 | |||
| 3.1.1. PCE Discovery Information...................................5 | 3.1.1. PCE Discovery Information...................................5 | |||
| 3.1.2. PCE Congestion Information..................................6 | 3.1.2. PCE Overload Information....................................6 | |||
| 3.2. Flooding Scope..............................................6 | 3.2. Flooding Scope..............................................6 | |||
| 4. IS-IS Extensions............................................7 | 4. IS-IS Extensions............................................7 | |||
| 4.1. The IS-IS PCED Sub-TLV......................................7 | 4.1. The IS-IS PCED Sub-TLV......................................7 | |||
| 4.1.1. PCE-ADDRESS Sub-TLV.........................................8 | 4.1.1. PCE-ADDRESS Sub-TLV.........................................8 | |||
| 4.1.2. The PATH-SCOPE Sub-TLV......................................8 | 4.1.2. The PATH-SCOPE Sub-TLV......................................8 | |||
| 4.1.3. PCE-DOMAIN Sub-TLV.........................................10 | 4.1.3. PCE-DOMAIN Sub-TLV.........................................10 | |||
| 4.1.4. NEIG-PCE-DOMAIN Sub-TLV....................................11 | 4.1.4. NEIG-PCE-DOMAIN Sub-TLV....................................11 | |||
| 4.1.5. PCE-CAP-FLAGS Sub-TLV......................................11 | 4.1.5. PCE-CAP-FLAGS Sub-TLV......................................11 | |||
| 4.1.6. The CONGESTION Sub-TLV.....................................12 | 4.1.6. The OVERLOAD Sub-TLV.......................................12 | |||
| 5. Elements of Procedure......................................13 | 5. Elements of Procedure......................................13 | |||
| 5.1.1. CONGESTION Sub-TLV Specific Procedures.....................14 | 5.1.1. OVERLOAD Sub-TLV Specific Procedures.......................14 | |||
| 6. Backward Compatibility.....................................14 | 6. Backward Compatibility.....................................14 | |||
| 7. IANA Considerations........................................15 | 7. IANA Considerations........................................14 | |||
| 7.1. IS-IS Sub-TLV..............................................15 | 7.1. IS-IS Sub-TLV..............................................14 | |||
| 7.2. PCED Sub-TLVs registry.....................................15 | 7.2. PCED Sub-TLVs registry.....................................15 | |||
| 8. Security Considerations....................................15 | 8. Security Considerations....................................15 | |||
| 9. Manageability Considerations...............................16 | 9. Manageability Considerations...............................16 | |||
| 9.1. Control of Policy and Functions............................16 | 9.1. Control of Policy and Functions............................16 | |||
| 9.2. Information and Data Model.................................16 | 9.2. Information and Data Model.................................16 | |||
| 9.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring..........................16 | 9.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring..........................16 | |||
| 9.4. Verify Correct Operations..................................16 | 9.4. Verify Correct Operations..................................16 | |||
| 9.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional | 9.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional | |||
| Components...............................................16 | Components...............................................16 | |||
| 9.6. Impact on Network Operations...............................17 | 9.6. Impact on Network Operations...............................16 | |||
| 10. Acknowledgments............................................17 | 10. Acknowledgments............................................17 | |||
| 11. References.................................................17 | 11. References.................................................17 | |||
| 11.1. Normative References.......................................17 | 11.1. Normative References.......................................17 | |||
| 11.2. Informative References.....................................18 | 11.2. Informative References.....................................18 | |||
| 12. Editors' Addresses:........................................18 | 12. Editors' Addresses:........................................18 | |||
| 13. Contributors' Adresses:....................................18 | 13. Contributors' Adresses:....................................18 | |||
| 14. Intellectual Property Statement............................19 | 14. Intellectual Property Statement............................19 | |||
| 1. Terminology | 1. Terminology | |||
| skipping to change at page 3, line 50 ¶ | skipping to change at page 3, line 50 ¶ | |||
| LSR: Label Switching Router. | LSR: Label Switching Router. | |||
| PCC: Path Computation Client: Any client application requesting a | PCC: Path Computation Client: Any client application requesting a | |||
| path computation to be performed by a Path Computation Element. | path computation to be performed by a Path Computation Element. | |||
| PCE: Path Computation Element: An entity (component, application, | PCE: Path Computation Element: An entity (component, application, | |||
| or network node) that is capable of computing a network path or | or network node) that is capable of computing a network path or | |||
| route based on a network graph, and applying computational | route based on a network graph, and applying computational | |||
| constraints. | constraints. | |||
| PCE-Domain: In a PCE context this refers to any collection of | PCE-Domain: In a PCE context this refers to any collection of | |||
| network elements within a common sphere of address management or | network elements within a common sphere of address management or | |||
| path computational responsibility (referred to as "domain" in | path computational responsibility (referred to as "domain" in | |||
| [RFC4655]). Examples of PCE-Domains include IGP areas and ASes. | [RFC4655]). Examples of PCE-Domains include IGP areas and ASes. | |||
| This should be distinguished from an IS-IS routing domain as | This should be distinguished from an IS-IS routing domain as | |||
| defined by [ISO]. | defined by [ISO]. | |||
| PCEP: Path Computation Element communication Protocol. | PCEP: Path Computation Element communication Protocol. | |||
| TE LSP: Traffic Engineered Label Switched Path. | TE LSP: Traffic Engineered Label Switched Path. | |||
| 2. Introduction | 2. Introduction | |||
| [RFC4655] describes the motivations and architecture for a Path | [RFC4655] describes the motivations and architecture for a Path | |||
| Computation Element (PCE)-based path computation model for Multi | Computation Element (PCE)-based path computation model for Multi | |||
| Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic | Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic | |||
| skipping to change at page 4, line 40 ¶ | skipping to change at page 4, line 40 ¶ | |||
| distinct capabilities. In such a context it is highly desirable to | distinct capabilities. In such a context it is highly desirable to | |||
| have a mechanism for automatic and dynamic PCE discovery, which | have a mechanism for automatic and dynamic PCE discovery, which | |||
| allows PCCs to automatically discover a set of PCEs, along with | allows PCCs to automatically discover a set of PCEs, along with | |||
| additional information about each PCE that may be required for the | additional information about each PCE that may be required for the | |||
| PCC to perform PCE selection. Additionally, it is valuable for a PCC | PCC to perform PCE selection. Additionally, it is valuable for a PCC | |||
| to dynamically detect new PCEs or any modification of the PCE | to dynamically detect new PCEs or any modification of the PCE | |||
| information. Detailed requirements for such a PCE discovery mechanism | information. Detailed requirements for such a PCE discovery mechanism | |||
| are provided in [RFC4674]. | are provided in [RFC4674]. | |||
| Moreover, it may also be useful to discover when a PCE experiences | Moreover, it may also be useful to discover when a PCE experiences | |||
| processing congestion and when it exits such a state, in order for | processing overload and when it exits such a state, in order for the | |||
| the PCCs to take some appropriate actions (e.g. redirect their | PCCs to take some appropriate actions (e.g. redirect their requests | |||
| requests to another PCE). Note that the PCE selection algorithm | to another PCE). Note that the PCE selection algorithm applied by a | |||
| applied by a PCC is out of the scope of this document. | PCC is out of the scope of this document. | |||
| When PCCs are LSRs participating in the IGP (OSPF, IS-IS), and PCEs | When PCCs are LSRs participating in the IGP (OSPF, IS-IS), and PCEs | |||
| are either LSRs or servers also participating in the IGP, an | are either LSRs or servers also participating in the IGP, an | |||
| effective mechanism for PCE discovery within an IGP routing domain | effective mechanism for PCE discovery within an IGP routing domain | |||
| consists of utilizing IGP advertisements. | consists of utilizing IGP advertisements. | |||
| This document defines IS-IS extensions to allow a PCE in an IS-IS | This document defines IS-IS extensions to allow a PCE in an IS-IS | |||
| routing domain to advertise its location along with some information | routing domain to advertise its location along with some information | |||
| useful to a PCC for PCE selection, so as to satisfy dynamic PCE | useful to a PCC for PCE selection, so as to satisfy dynamic PCE | |||
| discovery requirements set forth in [RFC4674]. This document also | discovery requirements set forth in [RFC4674]. This document also | |||
| defines extensions allowing a PCE in an IS-IS routing domain to | defines extensions allowing a PCE in an IS-IS routing domain to | |||
| advertise its processing congestion state. | advertise its processing congestion state. | |||
| Generic capability advertisement mechanisms for IS-IS are defined in | Generic capability advertisement mechanisms for IS-IS are defined in | |||
| [IS-IS-CAP]. These allow a router to advertise its capabilities | [IS-IS-CAP]. These allow a router to advertise its capabilities | |||
| within an IS-IS area or an entire IS-IS routing domain. This document | within an IS-IS area or an entire IS-IS routing domain. This document | |||
| leverages this generic capability advertisement mechanism to fully | leverages this generic capability advertisement mechanism to fully | |||
| satisfy the aforementioned dynamic PCE discovery requirements. | satisfy the aforementioned dynamic PCE discovery requirements. | |||
| This document defines a new sub-TLV (named PCE Discovery (PCED) to be | This document defines a new sub-TLV (named PCE Discovery (PCED)) to | |||
| carried within the IS-IS Router Capability TLV ([IS-IS-CAP]). | be carried within the IS-IS Router Capability TLV ([IS-IS-CAP]). | |||
| The PCE information advertised is detailed in section 3. Protocol | The PCE information advertised is detailed in section 3. Protocol | |||
| extensions and procedures are defined in section 4 and 5. | extensions and procedures are defined in section 4 and 5. | |||
| This document does not define any new IS-IS elements of procedure. | ||||
| The procedures defined in [IS-IS-CAP] MUST be used. | ||||
| The IS-IS extensions defined in this document allow for PCE discovery | The IS-IS extensions defined in this document allow for PCE discovery | |||
| within an IS-IS Routing domain. Solutions for PCE discovery across AS | within an IS-IS Routing domain. Solutions for PCE discovery across AS | |||
| boundaries are beyond the scope of this document, and for further | boundaries are beyond the scope of this document, and for further | |||
| study. | study. | |||
| This document defines a set of sub-TLVs that are nested within each | This document defines a set of sub-TLVs that are nested within each | |||
| other. When the degree of nesting TLVs is 2 (a TLV is carried within | other. When the degree of nesting TLVs is 2 (a TLV is carried within | |||
| another TLV) the TLV carried within a TLV is called a sub-TLV. | another TLV) the TLV carried within a TLV is called a sub-TLV. | |||
| Strictly speaking, when the degree of nesting is 3, a subsub-TLV is | Strictly speaking, when the degree of nesting is 3, a subsub-TLV is | |||
| carried within a sub-TLV that is itself carried within a TLV. For the | carried within a sub-TLV that is itself carried within a TLV. For the | |||
| sake of terminology simplicity, we refer to sub-TLV, a TLV carried | sake of terminology simplicity, we refer to sub-TLV, a TLV carried | |||
| within a TLV regardless of the degree of nesting. | within a TLV regardless of the degree of nesting. | |||
| 3. Overview | 3. Overview | |||
| 3.1. PCE Information | 3.1. PCE Information | |||
| The PCE information advertised via IS-IS falls into two categories: | The PCE information advertised via IS-IS falls into two categories: | |||
| PCE Discovery information and PCE Congestion information. | PCE Discovery information and PCE Overload information. | |||
| 3.1.1. PCE Discovery Information | 3.1.1. PCE Discovery Information | |||
| The PCE Discovery information is comprised of: | The PCE Discovery information is comprised of: | |||
| - The PCE location: an IPv4 and/or IPv6 address that is used to reach | - The PCE location: an IPv4 and/or IPv6 address that is used to reach | |||
| the PCE. It is RECOMMENDED to use an address that is always | the PCE. It is RECOMMENDED to use an address that is always | |||
| reachable; | reachable; | |||
| - The PCE path computation scope (i.e. inter-area, inter-AS, inter- | - The PCE path computation scope (i.e. inter-area, inter-AS, inter- | |||
| skipping to change at page 6, line 21 ¶ | skipping to change at page 6, line 15 ¶ | |||
| Optional elements to describe more complex capabilities may also be | Optional elements to describe more complex capabilities may also be | |||
| advertised. | advertised. | |||
| PCE Discovery information is by nature fairly static and does not | PCE Discovery information is by nature fairly static and does not | |||
| change with PCE activity. Changes in PCE Discovery information may | change with PCE activity. Changes in PCE Discovery information may | |||
| occur as a result of PCE configuration updates, PCE | occur as a result of PCE configuration updates, PCE | |||
| deployment/activation, PCE deactivation/suppression, or PCE failure. | deployment/activation, PCE deactivation/suppression, or PCE failure. | |||
| Hence, this information is not expected to change frequently. | Hence, this information is not expected to change frequently. | |||
| 3.1.2. PCE Congestion Information | 3.1.2. PCE Overload Information | |||
| The PCE Congestion information is optional and can be used to report | The PCE Overload Information is optional and can be used to report | |||
| a PCE's processing congestion state along with an estimated | a PCE's overload state in order to discourage the PCCs to send new | |||
| congestion duration. This is dynamic information, which may change | path computation requests. | |||
| with PCE activity. | ||||
| Procedures for a PCE to move from a processing congestion state to a | A PCE may decide to clear the overload state according to local | |||
| non-congestion state are beyond the scope of this document, but the | implementation triggers (e.g. CPU utilization, average queue length | |||
| rate at which a PCE Status change is advertised MUST NOT impact by | below some pre-defined thresholds). The rate at which a PCE status | |||
| any means the IGP scalability. Particular attention should be given | change is advertised MUST NOT impact by any means the IGP | |||
| on procedures to avoid state oscillations. | scalability. Particular attention should be given on procedures to | |||
| avoid state oscillations. | ||||
| 3.2. Flooding Scope | 3.2. Flooding Scope | |||
| The flooding scope for PCE information advertised through IS-IS can | The flooding scope for PCE information advertised through IS-IS can | |||
| be a single L1 area, a L1 area and the L2 sub-domain, or the entire | be a single L1 area, a L1 area and the L2 sub-domain, or the entire | |||
| IS-IS routing domain. | IS-IS routing domain. | |||
| 4. IS-IS Extensions | 4. IS-IS Extensions | |||
| 4.1. The IS-IS PCED Sub-TLV | 4.1. The IS-IS PCED Sub-TLV | |||
| The IS-IS PCED sub-TLV is made of a set of non ordered sub-TLVs. | The IS-IS PCED sub-TLV is made of a set of non ordered sub-TLVs. | |||
| The format of the IS-IS PCED sub-TLV and its sub-TLVs is identical to | The format of the IS-IS PCED sub-TLV and its sub-TLVs is identical to | |||
| the TLV format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions to IS-IS | the TLV format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions to IS-IS | |||
| [RFC3784]. That is, the TLV is composed of 1 octet for the type, 1 | [RFC3784]. That is, the TLV is comprised of 1 octet for the type, 1 | |||
| octet specifying the TLV length, and a value field. The Length field | octet specifying the TLV length, and a value field. The Length field | |||
| defines the length of the value portion in bytes. | defines the length of the value portion in octets. | |||
| The IS-IS PCED sub-TLV has the following format: | The IS-IS PCED sub-TLV has the following format: | |||
| TYPE: To be assigned by IANA (suggested value = 5) | TYPE: To be assigned by IANA (suggested value = 5) | |||
| LENGTH: Variable | LENGTH: Variable | |||
| VALUE: set of sub-TLVs | VALUE: set of sub-TLVs | |||
| Sub-TLVs types are under IANA control. | Sub-TLVs types are under IANA control. | |||
| Currently six sub-TLVs are defined (suggested type values to be | Currently six sub-TLVs are defined (suggested type values to be | |||
| assigned by IANA): | assigned by IANA): | |||
| Sub-TLV type Length Name | ||||
| Sub-TLV type Length Name | 1 variable PCE-ADDRESS sub-TLV | |||
| 2 3 PATH-SCOPE sub-TLV | ||||
| 1 variable PCE-ADDRESS sub-TLV | 3 variable PCE-DOMAIN sub-TLV | |||
| 2 3 PATH-SCOPE sub-TLV | 4 variable NEIG-PCE-DOMAIN sub-TLV | |||
| 3 variable PCE-DOMAIN sub-TLV | 5 variable PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV | |||
| 4 variable NEIG-PCE-DOMAIN sub-TLV | 6 1 OVERLOAD sub-TLV | |||
| 5 variable PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV | ||||
| 6 1 CONGESTION sub-TLV | ||||
| The PCE-ADDRESS and PATH-SCOPE sub-TLVs MUST always be present within | The PCE-ADDRESS and PATH-SCOPE sub-TLVs MUST always be present within | |||
| the PCED sub-TLV. | the PCED sub-TLV. | |||
| The PCE-DOMAIN and NEIG-PCE-DOMAIN sub-TLVs are optional. They | The PCE-DOMAIN and NEIG-PCE-DOMAIN sub-TLVs are optional. They | |||
| MAY be present in the PCED sub-TLV to facilitate selection of inter- | MAY be present in the PCED sub-TLV to facilitate selection of inter- | |||
| domain PCEs. | domain PCEs. | |||
| The PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV is optional and MAY be present in the PCED | The PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV is optional and MAY be present in the PCED | |||
| sub-TLV to facilitate the PCE selection process. | sub-TLV to facilitate the PCE selection process. | |||
| The CONGESTION sub-TLV is optional and MAY be present in the PCED | The OVERLOAD sub-TLV is optional and MAY be present in the PCED sub- | |||
| sub-TLV, to indicate a PCE's processing congestion state. | TLV, to indicate a PCE's processing congestion state. | |||
| Any non recognized sub-TLV MUST be silently ignored. | Any non recognized sub-TLV MUST be silently ignored. | |||
| Additional sub-TLVs could be added in the future to advertise | Additional sub-TLVs could be added in the future to advertise | |||
| additional PCE information. | additional PCE information. | |||
| The PCED sub-TLV is carried within an IS-IS CAPABILITY TLV defined in | The PCED sub-TLV is carried within an IS-IS CAPABILITY TLV defined in | |||
| [IS-IS-CAP]. | [IS-IS-CAP]. | |||
| The following sub-sections describe the sub-TLVs which may be carried | The following sub-sections describe the sub-TLVs which may be carried | |||
| skipping to change at page 8, line 20 ¶ | skipping to change at page 8, line 17 ¶ | |||
| 4.1.1. PCE-ADDRESS Sub-TLV | 4.1.1. PCE-ADDRESS Sub-TLV | |||
| The PCE-ADDRESS sub-TLV specifies the IP address that can be | The PCE-ADDRESS sub-TLV specifies the IP address that can be | |||
| used to reach the PCE. It is RECOMMENDED to make use of an address | used to reach the PCE. It is RECOMMENDED to make use of an address | |||
| that is always reachable, provided the PCE is alive. | that is always reachable, provided the PCE is alive. | |||
| The PCE-ADDRESS sub-TLV is mandatory; it MUST be present within the | The PCE-ADDRESS sub-TLV is mandatory; it MUST be present within the | |||
| PCED sub-TLV. It MAY appear twice, when the PCE has both an IPv4 and | PCED sub-TLV. It MAY appear twice, when the PCE has both an IPv4 and | |||
| IPv6 address. It MUST NOT appear more than once for the same address | IPv6 address. It MUST NOT appear more than once for the same address | |||
| type. | type. If it appears more than once only the first occurrence MUST be | |||
| processed and other MUST be ignored. | ||||
| The PCE-ADDRESS sub-TLV has the following format: | The PCE-ADDRESS sub-TLV has the following format: | |||
| TYPE: To be assigned by IANA (Suggested value =1) | TYPE: To be assigned by IANA (Suggested value =1) | |||
| LENGTH: 5 for IPv4 address and 17 for IPv6 address | LENGTH: 5 for IPv4 address and 17 for IPv6 address | |||
| VALUE: This comprises one octet indicating the address-type and 4 | VALUE: This comprises one octet indicating the address-type and 4 | |||
| or 16 bytes encoding the IPv4 or IPv6 address to be used | or 16 octets encoding the IPv4 or IPv6 address to be used | |||
| to reach the PCE. | to reach the PCE. | |||
| Address-type: | Address-type: | |||
| 1 IPv4 | 1 IPv4 | |||
| 2 IPv6 | 2 IPv6 | |||
| 4.1.2. The PATH-SCOPE Sub-TLV | 4.1.2. The PATH-SCOPE Sub-TLV | |||
| The PATH-SCOPE sub-TLV indicates the PCE path computation scope, | The PATH-SCOPE sub-TLV indicates the PCE path computation scope, | |||
| which refers to the PCE's ability to compute or take part in the | which refers to the PCE's ability to compute or take part in the | |||
| computation of intra-area, inter-area, inter-AS, or inter-layer_TE | computation of intra-area, inter-area, inter-AS, or inter-layer_TE | |||
| LSP(s). | LSP(s). | |||
| The PATH-SCOPE sub-TLV is mandatory; it MUST be present within the | The PATH-SCOPE sub-TLV is mandatory; it MUST be present within the | |||
| PCED sub-TLV. There MUST be exactly one instance of the PATH-SCOPE | PCED sub-TLV. There MUST be exactly one instance of the PATH-SCOPE | |||
| sub-TLV within each PCED sub-TLV. | sub-TLV within each PCED sub-TLV. If it appears more than once only | |||
| the first occurrence MUST be processed and other MUST be ignored. | ||||
| The PATH-SCOPE sub-TLV contains a set of bit flags indicating the | The PATH-SCOPE sub-TLV contains a set of bit flags indicating the | |||
| supported path scopes, and four fields indicating PCE preferences. | supported path scopes, and four fields indicating PCE preferences. | |||
| The PATH-SCOPE sub-TLV has the following format: | The PATH-SCOPE sub-TLV has the following format: | |||
| TYPE: To be assigned by IANA (Suggested value =2) | TYPE: To be assigned by IANA (Suggested value =2) | |||
| LENGTH: 3 | LENGTH: 3 | |||
| VALUE: This comprises a one-byte flags field where flag | VALUE: This comprises a one-octet flags field where flag | |||
| represents a supported path scope, followed by a 2-bytes | represents a supported path scope, followed by a 2-octets | |||
| preferences field indicating PCE preferences. | preferences field indicating PCE preferences. | |||
| Here is the structure of the bits flag: | Here is the structure of the bits flag: | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| |0|1|2|3|4|5|Res| | |0|1|2|3|4|5|Res| | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| Bit Path Scope | Bit Path Scope | |||
| skipping to change at page 10, line 48 ¶ | skipping to change at page 10, line 51 ¶ | |||
| flooding scope is the entire routing domain (see section 5 for a | flooding scope is the entire routing domain (see section 5 for a | |||
| discussion of how the flooding scope is set and interpreted). | discussion of how the flooding scope is set and interpreted). | |||
| A PCED sub-TLV MAY include multiple PCE-DOMAIN sub-TLVs when the PCE | A PCED sub-TLV MAY include multiple PCE-DOMAIN sub-TLVs when the PCE | |||
| has visibility in multiple PCE-Domains. | has visibility in multiple PCE-Domains. | |||
| The PCE-DOMAIN sub-TLV has the following format: | The PCE-DOMAIN sub-TLV has the following format: | |||
| TYPE: To be assigned by IANA (Suggested value =3) | TYPE: To be assigned by IANA (Suggested value =3) | |||
| LENGTH: Variable | LENGTH: Variable | |||
| VALUE: This comprises one octet indicating the domain-type (area ID | VALUE: This is comprised of one octet indicating the domain-type | |||
| or AS Number) and a variable length IS-IS area ID or a 32 bits AS | (area ID or AS Number) and a variable length IS-IS area ID or a 32 | |||
| number, identifying a PCE-domain where the PCE has visibility. | bits AS number, identifying a PCE-domain where the PCE has visibility. | |||
| Two domain types are defined: | Two domain types are defined: | |||
| 1 Area ID | 1 Area ID | |||
| 2 AS Number | 2 AS Number | |||
| The Area ID is the area address as defined in [ISO]. | The Area ID is the area address as defined in [ISO]. | |||
| When coded in two bytes (which is the current defined format as the | When coded in two octets (which is the current defined format as the | |||
| time of writing this document), the AS Number field MUST have its | time of writing this document), the AS Number field MUST have its | |||
| left two bytes set to 0. | left two octets set to 0. | |||
| 4.1.4. NEIG-PCE-DOMAIN Sub-TLV | 4.1.4. NEIG-PCE-DOMAIN Sub-TLV | |||
| The NEIG-PCE-DOMAIN sub-TLV specifies a neighbour PCE-domain (area, | The NEIG-PCE-DOMAIN sub-TLV specifies a neighbour PCE-domain (area, | |||
| AS) toward which a PCE can compute paths. It means that the PCE can | AS) toward which a PCE can compute paths. It means that the PCE can | |||
| take part in the computation of inter-domain TE LSPs whose path | take part in the computation of inter-domain TE LSPs whose path | |||
| transits this neighbour PCE-domain. | transits this neighbour PCE-domain. | |||
| A PCED sub-TLV MAY include several NEIG-PCE-DOMAIN sub-TLVs when the | A PCED sub-TLV MAY include several NEIG-PCE-DOMAIN sub-TLVs when the | |||
| PCE can compute paths towards several neighbour PCE-domains. | PCE can compute paths towards several neighbour PCE-domains. | |||
| skipping to change at page 11, line 37 ¶ | skipping to change at page 11, line 40 ¶ | |||
| or AS Number) and a variable length IS-IS area ID or a 32 bits AS | or AS Number) and a variable length IS-IS area ID or a 32 bits AS | |||
| number, identifying a PCE-domain towards which the PCE can compute | number, identifying a PCE-domain towards which the PCE can compute | |||
| paths. | paths. | |||
| Two domain types are defined: | Two domain types are defined: | |||
| 1 Area ID | 1 Area ID | |||
| 2 AS Number | 2 AS Number | |||
| The Area ID is the area address as defined in [ISO]. | The Area ID is the area address as defined in [ISO]. | |||
| When coded in two bytes (which is the current defined format as the | When coded in two octets (which is the current defined format as the | |||
| time of writing this document), the AS Number field MUST have its | time of writing this document), the AS Number field MUST have its | |||
| left two bytes set to 0. | first two octets set to 0. | |||
| The NEIG-PCE-DOMAIN sub-TLV MUST be present if the R bit is set and | The NEIG-PCE-DOMAIN sub-TLV MUST be present if the R bit is set and | |||
| the Rd bit is cleared, and/or, if the S bit is set and the Sd bit is | the Rd bit is cleared, and/or, if the S bit is set and the Sd bit is | |||
| cleared. | cleared. | |||
| 4.1.5. PCE-CAP-FLAGS Sub-TLV | 4.1.5. PCE-CAP-FLAGS Sub-TLV | |||
| The PCE-CAP-FLAGs sub-TLV is an optional sub-TLV used to indicate | The PCE-CAP-FLAGs sub-TLV is an optional sub-TLV used to indicate | |||
| PCEP related capabilities. It MAY be present within the PCED sub-TLV. | PCEP related capabilities. It MAY be present within the PCED sub-TLV. | |||
| It MUST NOT be present more than once. | ||||
| It MUST NOT be present more than once. If it appears more than once | ||||
| only the first occurrence MUST be processed and other MUST be ignored. | ||||
| The value field of the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV is made up of an array | The value field of the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV is made up of an array | |||
| of units of 32 bit flags numbered from the most significant as bit | of units of 32 bit flags numbered from the most significant as bit | |||
| zero, where each bit represents one PCE capability. | zero, where each bit represents one PCE capability. | |||
| The PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV has the following format: | The PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV has the following format: | |||
| TYPE: To be assigned by IANA (Suggested value =4) | TYPE: To be assigned by IANA (Suggested value =4) | |||
| LENGTH: Multiple of 4 | LENGTH: Multiple of 4 | |||
| VALUE: This contains an array of units of 32 bit flags numbered | VALUE: This contains an array of units of 32 bit flags numbered | |||
| from the most significant as bit zero, where each bit | from the most significant as bit zero, where each bit | |||
| represents one PCE capability. | represents one PCE capability. | |||
| The PCE capability registry is managed by IANA, it is common | The PCE capability registry is managed by IANA, it is common | |||
| with OSPF and defined in [PCED-OSPF]. | with OSPF and defined in [PCED-OSPF]. | |||
| Reserved bits SHOULD be set to zero on transmission and MUST be | Reserved bits SHOULD be set to zero on transmission and MUST be | |||
| ignored on receipt. | ignored on receipt. | |||
| 4.1.6. The CONGESTION Sub-TLV | 4.1.6. The OVERLOAD Sub-TLV | |||
| The CONGESTION sub-TLV is used to indicate that a PCE is experiencing | The CONGESTION sub-TLV is used to indicate that a PCE is experiencing | |||
| a processing congestion state and may optionally include expected PCE | a processing congestion state and may optionally include expected PCE | |||
| congestion duration. | congestion duration. | |||
| The CONGESTION sub-TLV is optional, it MAY be carried within the PCED | The CONGESTION sub-TLV is optional, it MAY be carried within the PCED | |||
| sub-TLV. It MUST NOT be present more than once. | sub-TLV. It MUST NOT be present more than once. If it appears more | |||
| than once only the first occurrence MUST be processed and other MUST | ||||
| be ignored. | ||||
| The format of the CONGESTION sub-TLV is as follows: | The format of the CONGESTION sub-TLV is as follows: | |||
| TYPE: To be assigned by IANA (Suggested value =6) | TYPE: To be assigned by IANA (Suggested value =6) | |||
| LENGTH: 3 | LENGTH: 1 | |||
| VALUE: This comprises a one byte of bit flags indicating the | VALUE: This comprises a one octet of bit flags indicating the | |||
| congestion status, followed by a 2-bytes field indicating the | overload status. Currently only the first flag is defined. | |||
| congestion duration. | ||||
| Here is the TLV structure | Here is the TLV structure | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| |C| Reserved| Congestion Duration | | |C| Reserved| | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| Value | Value | |||
| -C bit: When set this indicates that the PCE is overloaded | ||||
| -C bit: When set this indicates that the PCE is experiencing | and cannot accept any new request. When cleared this | |||
| congestion and cannot accept any new request. When | indicates that the PCE is not overloaded and can | |||
| cleared this indicates that the PCE is not | accept new requests. | |||
| experiencing congestion and can accept new requests. | ||||
| -Congestion Duration: 2-bytes, the estimated PCE congestion | ||||
| duration in seconds. | ||||
| When C is set and the Congestion Duration field is equal to 0, this | ||||
| means that the Congestion Duration is unknown. | ||||
| When C is cleared the Congestion Duration SHOULD be set to 0 and MUST | ||||
| be ignored. | ||||
| 5. Elements of Procedure | 5. Elements of Procedure | |||
| The PCED sub-TLV is advertised within an IS-IS Router Capability TLV | The PCED sub-TLV is advertised within an IS-IS Router Capability TLV | |||
| defined in [IS-IS-CAP]. As such, elements of procedures are inherited | defined in [IS-IS-CAP]. As such, elements of procedures are inherited | |||
| from those defined in [IS-IS-CAP]. | from those defined in [IS-IS-CAP]. | |||
| The flooding scope is controlled by the S flag in the IS-IS Router | The flooding scope is controlled by the S flag in the IS-IS Router | |||
| Capability TLV (see [IS-IS-CAP]). When the scope of the PCED sub-TLV | Capability TLV (see [IS-IS-CAP]). When the scope of the PCED sub-TLV | |||
| is area local it MUST be carried within an IS-IS Router Capability | is area local it MUST be carried within an IS-IS Router Capability | |||
| skipping to change at page 13, line 31 ¶ | skipping to change at page 13, line 30 ¶ | |||
| local. | local. | |||
| Note that a L1L2 node may include both in its L1 and L2 LSPs a PCED | Note that a L1L2 node may include both in its L1 and L2 LSPs a PCED | |||
| TLV in a Router Capability TLV with the S bit cleared. This allows | TLV in a Router Capability TLV with the S bit cleared. This allows | |||
| restricting the flooding scope to the L1 area and the L2 sub-domain. | restricting the flooding scope to the L1 area and the L2 sub-domain. | |||
| An IS-IS router MUST originate a new IS-IS LSP whenever there is a | An IS-IS router MUST originate a new IS-IS LSP whenever there is a | |||
| change in a PCED TLV associated with a PCE it advertises. | change in a PCED TLV associated with a PCE it advertises. | |||
| When a PCE is deactivated, the IS-IS Router advertising this PCE MUST | When a PCE is deactivated, the IS-IS Router advertising this PCE MUST | |||
| originate a new IS-IS LSP that does no longer include the | originate a new IS-IS LSP that no longer includes the corresponding | |||
| corresponding PCED TLV. | PCED TLV. | |||
| The PCE address(s), i.e. the address(s) indicated within the PCE | The PCE address(s), i.e. the address(s) indicated within the PCE | |||
| ADDRESS sub-TLV, must be reachable via some prefix(es) advertised by | ADDRESS sub-TLV, SHOULD be reachable via some prefix(es) advertised | |||
| IS-IS; this allows speeding up the detection of a PCE failure. Note | by IS-IS; this allows speeding up the detection of a PCE failure. | |||
| that when the PCE address is no longer reachable, this means that the | Note that when the PCE address is no longer reachable, this means | |||
| PCE node has failed or has been torn down, or that there is no longer | that the PCE node has failed or has been torn down, or that there is | |||
| IP connectivity to the PCE node. | no longer IP connectivity to the PCE node. | |||
| The PCED sub-TLV is OPTIONAL. When an IS-IS LSP does not contain any | ||||
| PCED TLV, this means that the PCE information of that node is | ||||
| unknown. | ||||
| A change in PCED information MUST not trigger any SPF computation at | A change in PCED information MUST not trigger any SPF computation at | |||
| a receiving router. | a receiving router. | |||
| The way PCEs determine the information they advertise is out of the | The way PCEs determine the information they advertise is out of the | |||
| scope of this document. Some information may be configured (e.g., | scope of this document. Some information may be configured (e.g., | |||
| address, preferences, scope) and other information may be | address, preferences, scope) and other information may be | |||
| automatically determined by the PCE (e.g. areas of visibility). | automatically determined by the PCE (e.g. areas of visibility). | |||
| 5.1.1. CONGESTION Sub-TLV Specific Procedures | 5.1.1. OVERLOAD Sub-TLV Specific Procedures | |||
| When a PCE enters into a processing congestion state, the conditions | ||||
| of which are implementation dependent, a new IS-IS LSP with a | ||||
| CONGESTION sub-TLV with the C bit set and optionally a non-null | ||||
| expected congestion duration MAY be generated. | ||||
| When a PCE exists from the processing congestion state, the | When a PCE enters into an overload state, the conditions of which are | |||
| conditions of which are implementation dependent, two cases are | implementation dependent, a new IS-IS LSP with an OVERLOAD sub-TLV | |||
| considered: | with the C bit set MAY be generated. | |||
| - If the congestion duration in the previously originated | ||||
| CONGESTION sub-TLV was null, a CONGESTION sub-TLV with the C bit | ||||
| cleared SHOULD be generated; | ||||
| - If the congestion duration in the previously originated | ||||
| CONGESTION sub-TLV was non null, a CONGESTION sub-TLV with the C bit | ||||
| cleared MAY be generated. Note that in some particular cases it may | ||||
| be desired to originate a CONGESTION sub-TLV with the C bit cleared | ||||
| if the congestion duration was over estimated. | ||||
| The congestion duration allows a reduction in the amount of IS-IS | When a PCE exists from an overload state, the conditions of which are | |||
| flooding, as only uncongested-to-congested state transitions are | implementation dependent (e.g. CPU utilization, average queue length | |||
| advertised. | below some pre-defined thresholds), a new IS-IS LSP with an OVERLOAD | |||
| sub-TLV with the C bit cleared SHOULD be generated, if an OVERLOAD | ||||
| sub-TLV with the C bit set had previously been generated. | ||||
| An IS-IS implementation SHOULD support an appropriate dampening | A PCE implementation supporting the IS-IS extensions defined in this | |||
| algorithm so as to dampen flooding of PCE Congestion information in | document SHOULD support an appropriate dampening algorithm so as to | |||
| order to not impact the IS-IS scalability. It is RECOMMENDED to | dampen flooding of PCE Overload information in order to not impact | |||
| introduce some hysteresis for congestion state transition, so as to | the IS-IS scalability. It is RECOMMENDED to introduce some hysteresis | |||
| avoid state oscillations that may impact IS-IS performance. For | for overload state transition, so as to avoid state oscillations that | |||
| instance two thresholds MAY be configured: a resource congestion | may impact IS-IS performance. For instance two thresholds MAY be | |||
| upper-threshold and a resource congestion lower-threshold. An LSR | configured: an upper-threshold and a lower-threshold. An LSR enters | |||
| enters the congested state when the CPU load reaches the upper | the overload state when the CPU load reaches the upper threshold and | |||
| threshold and leaves the congested state when the CPU load goes under | leaves the overload state when the CPU load goes under the lower | |||
| the lower threshold. | threshold. | |||
| Upon receipt of an updated CONGESTION sub-TLV a PCC should take | Upon receipt of an updated OVERLOAD sub-TLV a PCC should take | |||
| appropriate actions. In particular, the PCC SHOULD stop sending | appropriate actions. In particular, the PCC SHOULD stop sending | |||
| requests to a congested PCE, and SHOULD gradually start sending again | requests to an overloaded PCE, and SHOULD gradually start sending | |||
| requests to a PCE that is no longer congested. | again requests to a PCE that is no longer overloaded. | |||
| 6. Backward Compatibility | 6. Backward Compatibility | |||
| The PCED sub-TLV defined in this document does not introduce any | The PCED sub-TLV defined in this document does not introduce any | |||
| interoperability issues. | interoperability issues. | |||
| An IS-IS router not supporting the PCED sub-TLV will just silently | An IS-IS router not supporting the PCED sub-TLV will just silently | |||
| ignore the TLV as specified in [IS-IS-CAP]. | ignore the TLV as specified in [IS-IS-CAP]. | |||
| 7. IANA Considerations | 7. IANA Considerations | |||
| 7.1. IS-IS Sub-TLV | 7.1. IS-IS Sub-TLV | |||
| Once a registry for the IS-IS Router Capability sub-TLVs, defined in | Once a registry for the IS-IS Router Capability sub-TLVs, defined in | |||
| [IS-IS-CAP] has been assigned, IANA will assign a new sub-TLV code- | [IS-IS-CAP] has been assigned, IANA will assign a new sub-TLV code- | |||
| point for the PCED sub-TLV carried within the Router Capability TLV. | point for the PCED sub-TLV carried within the Router Capability TLV. | |||
| Value Sub-TLV References | Value Sub-TLV References | |||
| ----- -------- ---------- | ----- -------- ---------- | |||
| 5 PCED sub-TLV (this document) | 5 PCED sub-TLV (this document) | |||
| 7.2. PCED Sub-TLVs Registry | 7.2. PCED Sub-TLVs registry | |||
| The PCED sub-TLV referenced above is constructed from sub-TLVs. Each | The PCED sub-TLV referenced above is constructed from sub-TLVs. Each | |||
| sub-TLV includes a 8-bit type identifier. | sub-TLV includes a 8-bit type identifier. | |||
| The IANA is requested to create a new sub-registry of the IS-IS | The IANA is requested to create a new sub-registry of the IS-IS | |||
| Router Capability sub-TLVs registry, named the "PCED sub-TLVs" | Router Capability sub-TLVs registry, named the "PCED sub-TLVs" | |||
| registry, and manage sub-TLV type identifiers as follows: | registry, and manage sub-TLV type identifiers as follows: | |||
| - sub-TLV Type | - sub-TLV Type | |||
| - sub-TLV Name | - sub-TLV Name | |||
| - Reference | - Reference | |||
| This document defines five sub-TLVs as follows (suggested values): | This document defines five sub-TLVs as follows (suggested values): | |||
| Sub-TLV Sub-TLV | Sub-TLV Sub-TLV | |||
| Type Name References | Type name References | |||
| ----- -------- ---------- | ----- -------- ---------- | |||
| 1 PCE-ADDRESS This document | 1 PCE-ADDRESS This document | |||
| 2 PATH-SCOPE This document | 2 PATH-SCOPE This document | |||
| 3 PCE-DOMAIN This document | 3 PCE-DOMAIN This document | |||
| 4 NEIG-PCE-DOMAIN This document | 4 NEIG-PCE-DOMAIN This document | |||
| 5 PCE-CAP-FLAGS This document | 5 PCE-CAP-FLAGS This document | |||
| 6 CONGESTION This document | 6 OVERLOAD This document | |||
| New sub-TLV type values may be allocated only by an IETF Consensus | New sub-TLV type values may be allocated only by an IETF Consensus | |||
| action. | action. | |||
| 8. Security Considerations | 8. Security Considerations | |||
| This document defines IS-IS extensions for PCE discovery within an | This document defines IS-IS extensions for PCE discovery within an | |||
| administrative domain. Hence the security of the PCE discovery relies | administrative domain. Hence the security of the PCE discovery relies | |||
| on the security of IS-IS. | on the security of IS-IS. | |||
| Mechanisms defined to ensure authenticity and integrity of IS-IS LSPs | Mechanisms defined to ensure authenticity and integrity of IS-IS LSPs | |||
| [RFC3567], and their TLVs, can be used to secure the PCED sub-TLV as | [RFC3567], and their TLVs, can be used to secure the PCED sub-TLV as | |||
| well. | well. | |||
| IS-IS provides no mechanism for protecting the privacy of LSPs, and | IS-IS provides no encryption mechanism for protecting the privacy of | |||
| in particular the privacy of the PCE discovery information. | LSPs, and in particular the privacy of the PCE discovery information. | |||
| 9. Manageability Considerations | 9. Manageability Considerations | |||
| Manageability considerations for PCE Discovery are addressed in | Manageability considerations for PCE Discovery are addressed in | |||
| section 4.10 of [RFC4674]. | section 4.10 of [RFC4674]. | |||
| 9.1. Control of Policy and Functions | 9.1. Control of Policy and Functions | |||
| Requirements on the configuration of PCE discovery parameters on PCCs | Requirements on the configuration of PCE discovery parameters on PCCs | |||
| and PCEs are discussed in section 4.10.1 of [RFC4674]. | and PCEs are discussed in section 4.10.1 of [RFC4674]. | |||
| skipping to change at page 16, line 52 ¶ | skipping to change at page 16, line 49 ¶ | |||
| 9.4. Verify Correct Operations | 9.4. Verify Correct Operations | |||
| The correlation of information advertised against information | The correlation of information advertised against information | |||
| received can be achieved by comparing the PCED information in the PCC | received can be achieved by comparing the PCED information in the PCC | |||
| and in the PCE, which is stored in the PCED MIB [PCED-MIB]. The | and in the PCE, which is stored in the PCED MIB [PCED-MIB]. The | |||
| number of dropped, corrupt, and rejected information elements are | number of dropped, corrupt, and rejected information elements are | |||
| stored in the PCED MIB. | stored in the PCED MIB. | |||
| 9.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components | 9.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components | |||
| The IS-IS extensions defined in this documents do not imply any | The IS-IS extensions defined in this document do not imply any | |||
| requirement on other protocols. | requirement on other protocols. | |||
| 9.6. Impact on Network Operations | 9.6. Impact on Network Operations | |||
| Frequent changes in PCE information, and particularly in PCE | Frequent changes in PCE information, and particularly in PCE | |||
| congestion information, may have a significant impact on IS-IS and | overload information, may have a significant impact on IS-IS and | |||
| might destabilize the operation of the network by causing the PCCs to | might destabilize the operation of the network by causing the PCCs to | |||
| swap between PCEs. | swap between PCEs. | |||
| As discussed in section 5.1, a PCE implementation SHOULD support an | As discussed in section 5.1, a PCE implementation SHOULD support an | |||
| appropriate dampening algorithm so as to dampen IS-IS flooding in | appropriate dampening algorithm so as to dampen IS-IS flooding in | |||
| order to not impact the IS-IS scalability. | order to not impact the IS-IS scalability. | |||
| Also, as discussed in section 4.10.4 of [RFC4674], it MUST be | Also, as discussed in section 4.10.4 of [RFC4674], it MUST be | |||
| possible to apply at least the following controls: | possible to apply at least the following controls: | |||
| - Configurable limit on the rate of announcement of changed | - Configurable limit on the rate of announcement of changed | |||
| parameters at a PCE. | parameters at a PCE. | |||
| - Control of the impact on PCCs such as through discovery messages | - Control of the impact on PCCs such as through discovery messages | |||
| rate-limiting. | rate-limiting. | |||
| - Configurable control of triggers that cause a PCC to swap to | - Configurable control of triggers that cause a PCC to swap to | |||
| another PCE. | another PCE. | |||
| 10. Acknowledgments | 10. Acknowledgments | |||
| We would like to thank Lucy Wong, Adrian Farrel, Les Ginsberg, Mike | We would like to thank Lucy Wong, Adrian Farrel, Les Ginsberg, Mike | |||
| Shand and Lou Berger for their useful comments and suggestions. | Shand, Lou Berger, and David Ward, for their useful comments and | |||
| suggestions. | ||||
| 11. References | 11. References | |||
| 11.1. Normative References | 11.1. 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, March 1997. | Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. | |||
| [ISO] "Intermediate System to Intermediate System Intra-Domain | [ISO] "Intermediate System to Intermediate System Intra-Domain | |||
| Routeing Exchange Protocol for use in Conjunction with the | Routeing Exchange Protocol for use in Conjunction with the | |||
| Protocol for Providing the Connectionless-mode Network | Protocol for Providing the Connectionless-mode Network Service | |||
| Service (ISO 8473)", ISO DP 10589, February 1990. | (ISO 8473)", ISO DP 10589, February 1990. | |||
| [RFC3784] Li, T., Smit, H., "IS-IS extensions for Traffic | [RFC3784] Li, T., Smit, H., "IS-IS extensions for Traffic | |||
| Engineering", RFC 3784, June 2004. | Engineering", RFC 3784, June 2004. | |||
| [IS-IS-CAP] Vasseur, J.P. et al., "IS-IS extensions for advertising | [IS-IS-CAP] Vasseur, J.P. et al., "IS-IS extensions for advertising | |||
| router information", draft-ietf-isis-caps, work in | router information", draft-ietf-isis-caps, work in progress. | |||
| progress. | ||||
| [RFC3567] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "Intermediate System to | [RFC3567] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "Intermediate System to | |||
| Intermediate System (IS-IS) Cryptographic Authentication", | Intermediate System (IS-IS) Cryptographic Authentication", RFC 3567, | |||
| RFC 3567, July 2003. | July 2003. | |||
| [PCED-OSPF] Le Roux, Vasseur, et al. "OSPF protocol extensions for | [PCED-OSPF] Le Roux, Vasseur, et al. "OSPF protocol extensions for | |||
| Path Computation Element (PCE) Discovery", draft-ietf- | Path Computation Element (PCE) Discovery", draft-ietf-pce-disco- | |||
| pce-disco-proto-ospf, work in progress. | proto-ospf, work in progress. | |||
| 11.2. Informative References | 11.2. Informative References | |||
| [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.P., Ash, J., "Path Computation | ||||
| Element (PCE)-based Architecture", RFC4655, August 2006. | ||||
| [RFC4657] Ash, J., Le Roux, J.L., "PCE Communication Protocol Generic | [RFC4657] Ash, J., Le Roux, J.L., "PCE Communication Protocol Generic | |||
| Requirements", RFC4657, September 2006. | Requirements", RFC4657, September 2006. | |||
| [RFC4674] Le Roux, J.L., et al. "Requirements for PCE discovery", | ||||
| RFC4674, October 2006. | ||||
| [PCEP] Vasseur, Le Roux, et al., "Path Computation Element (PCE) | [PCEP] Vasseur, Le Roux, et al., "Path Computation Element (PCE) | |||
| communication Protocol (PCEP) - Version 1", draft-ietf-pce- | communication Protocol (PCEP) - Version 1", draft-ietf-pce-pcep, work | |||
| pcep, work in progress. | in progress. | |||
| [PCED-MIB] Stephan, E., "Definitions of Managed Objects for Path | [PCED-MIB] Stephan, E., "Definitions of Managed Objects for Path | |||
| Computation Element Discovery", draft-ietf-pce-disc-mib, | Computation Element Discovery", draft-ietf-pce-disc-mib, work in | |||
| work in progress. | progress. | |||
| [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.P., Ash, J., "Path Computation | ||||
| Element (PCE)-based Architecture", RFC4655, august 2006. | ||||
| [RFC4674] Le Roux, J.L., et al. "Requirements for PCE discovery", | ||||
| RFC4674, October 2006. | ||||
| 12. Editors' Addresses: | 12. Editors' Addresses: | |||
| Jean-Louis Le Roux (Editor) | Jean-Louis Le Roux (Editor) | |||
| France Telecom | France Telecom | |||
| 2, avenue Pierre-Marzin | 2, avenue Pierre-Marzin | |||
| 22307 Lannion Cedex | 22307 Lannion Cedex | |||
| FRANCE | FRANCE | |||
| Email: jeanlouis.leroux@orange-ftgroup.com | Email: jeanlouis.leroux@orange-ftgroup.com | |||
| End of changes. 64 change blocks. | ||||
| 172 lines changed or deleted | 146 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/ | ||||