< draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-01.txt   draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-02.txt >
Network Working Group S. Sivabalan Network Working Group S. Sivabalan
Internet-Draft J. Medved Internet-Draft J. Medved
Intended status: Standards Track C. Filsfils Intended status: Standards Track C. Filsfils
Expires: September 10, 2015 Cisco Systems, Inc. Expires: October 22, 2015 Cisco Systems, Inc.
E. Crabbe
R. Raszuk R. Raszuk
Mirantis Inc. Mirantis Inc.
V. Lopez V. Lopez
Telefonica I+D Telefonica I+D
J. Tantsura J. Tantsura
Ericsson Ericsson
W. Henderickx W. Henderickx
Alcatel Lucent Alcatel Lucent
E. Crabbe J. Hardwick
March 9, 2015 Metaswitch Networks
April 20, 2015
PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-01.txt draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-02.txt
Abstract Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) enables any head-end node to select any path Segment Routing (SR) enables any head-end node to select any path
without relying on a hop-by-hop signaling technique (e.g., LDP or without relying on a hop-by-hop signaling technique (e.g., LDP or
RSVP-TE). It depends only on "segments" that are advertised by Link- RSVP-TE). It depends only on "segments" that are advertised by Link-
State Interior Gateway Protocols (IGPs). A Segment Routed Path can State Interior Gateway Protocols (IGPs). A Segment Routed Path can
be derived from a variety of mechanisms, including an IGP Shortest be derived from a variety of mechanisms, including an IGP Shortest
Path Tree (SPT), explicit configuration, or a Path Computation Path Tree (SPT), explicit configuration, or a Path Computation
Element (PCE). This document specifies extensions to the Path Element (PCE). This document specifies extensions to the Path
skipping to change at page 1, line 41 skipping to change at page 1, line 44
compute and initiate Traffic Engineering (TE) paths, as well as a PCC compute and initiate Traffic Engineering (TE) paths, as well as a PCC
to request a path subject to certain constraint(s) and optimization to request a path subject to certain constraint(s) and optimization
criteria in SR networks. criteria in SR networks.
Requirements Language Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://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 September 10, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on October 22, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Overview of PCEP Operation in SR Networks . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Overview of PCEP Operation in SR Networks . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. SR-Specific PCEP Message Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. SR-Specific PCEP Message Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Object Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Object Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. The OPEN Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1. The OPEN Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1.1. The SR PCE Capability TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1.1. The SR PCE Capability TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. The RP/SRP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.2. The RP/SRP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.3. ERO Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.3. ERO Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.3.1. SR-ERO Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.3.1. SR-ERO Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.3.2. NAI Associated with SID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.3.2. NAI Associated with SID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3.3. ERO Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.3.3. ERO Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.4. RRO Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.4. RRO Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.4.1. RRO Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.4.1. RRO Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.5. METRIC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.1. Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7. Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.2. The PCEP Data Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7.1. Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7.2. The PCEP Data Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.1. PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.2. PCEP-Error Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9.1. PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.3. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 9.2. PCEP-Error Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.4. New Path Setup Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 9.3. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.4. New Path Setup Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 9.5. New Metric Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
SR technology leverages the source routing and tunneling paradigms. SR technology leverages the source routing and tunneling paradigms.
A source node can choose a path without relying on hop-by-hop A source node can choose a path without relying on hop-by-hop
signaling protocols such as LDP or RSVP-TE. Each path is specified signaling protocols such as LDP or RSVP-TE. Each path is specified
as a set of "segments" advertised by link-state routing protocols as a set of "segments" advertised by link-state routing protocols
(IS-IS or OSPF). [I-D.filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing] provides an (IS-IS or OSPF). [I-D.filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing] provides an
introduction to SR architecture. The corresponding IS-IS and OSPF introduction to SR architecture. The corresponding IS-IS and OSPF
extensions are specified in extensions are specified in
skipping to change at page 7, line 45 skipping to change at page 8, line 45
5.1.1.1. Exchanging SR Capability 5.1.1.1. Exchanging SR Capability
By including the SR-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV in the OPEN message destined By including the SR-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV in the OPEN message destined
to a PCE, a PCC indicates that it is capable of supporting the head- to a PCE, a PCC indicates that it is capable of supporting the head-
end functions for SR-TE LSP. By including the TLV in the OPEN end functions for SR-TE LSP. By including the TLV in the OPEN
message destined to a PCC, a PCE indicates that it is capable of message destined to a PCC, a PCE indicates that it is capable of
computing SR-TE paths. computing SR-TE paths.
The number of SIDs that can be imposed on a packet depends on PCC's The number of SIDs that can be imposed on a packet depends on PCC's
data plane's capability. The default value of MSD is 0 meaning that data plane's capability. An MSD value of zero means that a PCC does
a PCC does not impose any limitation on the number of SIDs included not impose any default limitation on the number of SIDs included in
in any SR-TE path coming from PCE. Once an SR-capable PCEP session any SR-TE path coming from PCE. Once an SR-capable PCEP session is
is established with a non-default MSD value, the corresponding PCE established with a non-zero MSD value, the corresponding PCE MUST NOT
cannot send SR-TE paths with SIDs exceeding that MSD value. If a PCC send SR-TE paths with SIDs exceeding that MSD value. If a PCC needs
needs to modify the MSD value, the PCEP session MUST be closed and to modify the MSD value, the PCEP session MUST be closed and re-
re-established with the new MSD value. If a PCEP session is established with the new MSD value. If a PCEP session is established
established with a non-default MSD value, and the PCC receives an SR- with a non-zero MSD value, and the PCC receives an SR-TE path
TE path containing more SIDs than specified in the MSD value, the PCC containing more SIDs than specified in the MSD value, the PCC MUST
MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type 10 (Reception of an invalid send a PCErr message with Error-Type 10 (Reception of an invalid
object) and Error-value 3 (Unsupported number of Segment ERO). object) and Error-Value 3 (Unsupported number of Segment ERO). If a
PCEP session is established with an MSD value of zero, then the PCC
MAY specify an MSD for each path computation request that it sends to
the PCE.
The SR Capability TLV is meaningful only in the OPEN message sent The SR Capability TLV is meaningful only in the OPEN message sent
from a PCC to a PCE. As such, a PCE does not need to set MSD value from a PCC to a PCE. As such, a PCE does not need to set MSD value
in outbound message to a PCC. Similarly, a PCC ignores any MSD value in outbound message to a PCC. Similarly, a PCC ignores any MSD value
received from a PCE. If a PCE receives multiple SR-PCE-CAPABILITY received from a PCE. If a PCE receives multiple SR-PCE-CAPABILITY
TLVs in an OPEN message, it processes only the first TLV is TLVs in an OPEN message, it processes only the first TLV is
processed. processed.
5.2. The RP/SRP Object 5.2. The RP/SRP Object
skipping to change at page 11, line 22 skipping to change at page 12, line 22
format of the NAI is shown in the following figure: format of the NAI is shown in the following figure:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local IPv4 address | | Local IPv4 address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote IPv4 address | | Remote IPv4 address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: NAI for IPv4 Adjacency Figure 3: NAI for IPv4 Adjacency
'IPv6 Adjacency' is specified as a pair of IPv6 addresses. In this 'IPv6 Adjacency' is specified as a pair of IPv6 addresses. In this
case, ST valie is 4. The Length is 8, 36 or 40 depending on case, ST valie is 4. The Length is 8, 36 or 40 depending on
whether SID or NAI or both included in the subobject,and the whether SID or NAI or both included in the subobject,and the
format of the NAI is shown in the following figure: format of the NAI is shown in the following figure:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Local IPv6 address (16 bytes) // // Local IPv6 address (16 bytes) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Remote IPv6 address (16 bytes) // // Remote IPv6 address (16 bytes) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: NAI for IPv6 adjacenc y Figure 4: NAI for IPv6 adjacenc y
'Unnumbered Adjacency with IPv4 NodeIDs' is specified as a pair of 'Unnumbered Adjacency with IPv4 NodeIDs' is specified as a pair of
Node ID / Interface ID tuples. In this case, ST value is 5. The Node ID / Interface ID tuples. In this case, ST value is 5. The
Length is 8, 20, or 24 depending on whether SID or NAI or both Length is 8, 20, or 24 depending on whether SID or NAI or both
included in the subobject, and the format of the NAI is shown in included in the subobject, and the format of the NAI is shown in
the following figure: the following figure:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local Node-ID | | Local Node-ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local Interface ID | | Local Interface ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote Node-ID | | Remote Node-ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote Interface ID | | Remote Interface ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: NAI for Unnumbered adjacency with IPv4 Node IDs Figure 5: NAI for Unnumbered adjacency with IPv4 Node IDs
Editorial Note: We are yet to decide if another SID subobject is Editorial Note: We are yet to decide if another SID subobject is
required for unnumbered adjacency with 128 bit node ID. required for unnumbered adjacency with 128 bit node ID.
5.3.3. ERO Processing 5.3.3. ERO Processing
A PCEP speaker that does not recognize the SR-ERO subobject in PCRep, A PCEP speaker that does not recognize the SR-ERO subobject in PCRep,
PCInitiate, PCUpd or PCRpt messages MUST reject the entire PCEP PCInitiate, PCUpd or PCRpt messages MUST reject the entire PCEP
message and MUST send a PCE error message with Error-Type=3 ("Unknown message and MUST send a PCE error message with Error-Type=3 ("Unknown
Object") and Error-Value=2 ("Unrecognized object Type") or Error- Object") and Error-Value=2 ("Unrecognized object Type") or Error-
skipping to change at page 14, line 5 skipping to change at page 15, line 5
NAI are absent, it MUST consider the entire RRO object invalid and NAI are absent, it MUST consider the entire RRO object invalid and
send a PCE error with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid send a PCE error with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid
object") and Error-Value = TBD ("Both SID and NAI are absent in RRO object") and Error-Value = TBD ("Both SID and NAI are absent in RRO
subobject"). subobject").
If a PCE detects that all subobjects of RRO are not identical, and if If a PCE detects that all subobjects of RRO are not identical, and if
it does not handle such RRO, it MUST send PCE error with Error-Type = it does not handle such RRO, it MUST send PCE error with Error-Type =
10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and Error-Value = TBD ("Non- 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and Error-Value = TBD ("Non-
identical RRO subobjects"). identical RRO subobjects").
5.5. METRIC Object
If a PCEP session is established with an MSD value of zero, then the
PCC MAY specify the MSD for an individual path computation request
using the METRIC object defined in [RFC5440]. This document defines
a new type for the METRIC object to be used for this purpose as
follows:
o T = TBD (suggested value 11): Maximum SID Depth of the requested
path.
The PCC sets the metric-value to the MSD for this path. The PCC MUST
set the B (bound) bit to 1 in the METRIC object, which specifies that
the SID depth for the computed path MUST NOT exceed the metric-value.
If a PCEP session is established with a non-zero MSD value, then the
PCC MUST NOT send an MSD METRIC object. If the PCE receives a path
computation request with an MSD METRIC object on a session with a
non-zero MSD value then it MUST consider the request invalid and send
a PCErr with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and
Error-Value TBD ("Default MSD is specified for the PCEP session").
6. Backward Compatibility 6. Backward Compatibility
A PCEP speaker that does not support the SR PCEP capability cannot A PCEP speaker that does not support the SR PCEP capability cannot
recognize the SR-ERO or SR-RRO subobjects. As such, it MUST send a recognize the SR-ERO or SR-RRO subobjects. As such, it MUST send a
PCEP error with Error-Type = 4 (Not supported object) and Error-Value PCEP error with Error-Type = 4 (Not supported object) and Error-Value
= 2 (Not supported object Type) as per [RFC5440]. = 2 (Not supported object Type) as per [RFC5440].
7. Management Considerations 7. Management Considerations
7.1. Policy 7.1. Policy
skipping to change at page 14, line 41 skipping to change at page 16, line 16
8. Security Considerations 8. Security Considerations
The security considerations described in [RFC5440] and The security considerations described in [RFC5440] and
[I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] are applicable to this [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] are applicable to this
specification. No additional security measure is required. specification. No additional security measure is required.
9. IANA Considerations 9. IANA Considerations
9.1. PCEP Objects 9.1. PCEP Objects
IANA is requested to allocate a new ERO subobject and a new RRO This document defines a new sub-object type for the PCEP explicit
subobject types (recommended values = 5 and 6 respectively). route object (ERO), and a new sub-object type for the PCEP record
route object (RRO). The code points for sub-object types of these
objects is maintained in the RSVP parameters registry, under the
EXPLICIT_ROUTE and ROUTE_RECORD objects. IANA is requested to
allocate code points in the RSVP Parameters registry for each of the
new sub-object types defined in this document, as follows:
Object Sub-Object Sub-Object Type
--------------------- -------------------------- ------------------
EXPLICIT_ROUTE SR-ERO TBD (recommended 5)
ROUTE_RECORD SR-RRO TBD (recommended 6)
9.2. PCEP-Error Object 9.2. PCEP-Error Object
This document defines new Error-Type and Error-Value for the IANA is requested to allocate code-points in the PCEP-ERROR Object
following new conditions: Error Types and Values registry for the following new error-values:
Error-Type Meaning Error-Type Meaning
10 Reception of an invalid object. ---------- -------
10 Reception of an invalid object.
Error-value = TBD (recommended 2): Bad label value
Error-value = TBD (recommended 3): Unsupported number
of Segment ERO
subobjects
Error-value = TBD (recommended 4): Bad label format
Error-value = TBD (recommended 5): Non-identical ERO
subobjects
Error-value = TBD (recommended 6): Both SID and NAI
are absent in ERO
subobject
Error-value=2: Bad label value. Error-value = TBD (recommended 7): Both SID and NAI
Error-value=3: Unsupported number of Segment ERO are absent in RRO
subobjects. subobject
Error-value=4: Bad label format. Error-value = TBD (recommended 8): Non-identical RRO
Error-value=5: Non-identical ERO subobjects. subobjects
Error-value=6: Both SID and NAI are absent in ERO Error-value = TBD (recommended 9): Default MSD is
subobject. specified for the
Error-value=7: Both SID and NAI are absent in RRO PCEP session
subobject.
Error-value=8: Non-identical RRO subobjects.
9.3. PCEP TLV Type Indicators 9.3. PCEP TLV Type Indicators
This document defines the following new PCEP TLVs: IANA is requested to allocate a new code point in the PCEP TLV Type
Indicators registry, as follows:
Value Meaning Reference Value Meaning Reference
-------- ------------------------------------ ----------------- ------------------------- ---------------------------- --------------
26 SR-PCE-CAPABILITY This document TBD (recommended 26) SR-PCE-CAPABILITY This document
9.4. New Path Setup Type 9.4. New Path Setup Type
This document defines a new setup type for the PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV as [I-D.ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type] defines the PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV and
requests that IANA creates a registry to manage the value of the
PATH_SETUP_TYPE TLV's PST field. IANA is requested to allocate a new
code point in the PCEP PATH_SETUP_TYPE TLV PST field registry, as
follows: follows:
Value Description Reference Value Description Reference
------------------------- ---------------------------- --------------
1 Traffic engineering path is This document
setup using Segment Routing
technique.
1 Traffic engineering This document 9.5. New Metric Type
path is setup using
Segment Routing IANA is requested to allocate a new code point in the PCEP METRIC
technique. object T field registry, as follows:
Value Description Reference
------------------------- ---------------------------- --------------
TBD (recommended 11) Segment-ID (SID) Depth. This document
10. Contributors 10. Contributors
The following people contributed to this document: The following people contributed to this document:
- Lakshmi Sharma (Cisco Systems) - Lakshmi Sharma (Cisco Systems)
11. Acknowledgements 11. Acknowledgements
We like to thank Ina Minei, George Swallow, Marek Zavodsky and Tomas We like to thank Ina Minei, George Swallow, Marek Zavodsky and Tomas
Janciga for the valuable comments. Janciga for the valuable comments.
12. References 12. References
12.1. Normative References 12.1. Normative References
[I-D.filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing] [I-D.filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., Milojevic, I., Shakir, R., Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., Milojevic, I., Shakir, R.,
Ytti, S., Henderickx, W., Tantsura, J., and E. Crabbe, Ytti, S., Henderickx, W., Tantsura, J., and E. Crabbe,
"Segment Routing Architecture", draft-filsfils-rtgwg- "Segment Routing Architecture",
segment-routing-01 (work in progress), October 2013. draft-filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing-01 (work in
progress), October 2013.
[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions] [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Gredler, H., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Gredler, H.,
Litkowski, S., and J. Tantsura, "IS-IS Extensions for Litkowski, S., and J. Tantsura, "IS-IS Extensions for
Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing- Segment Routing",
extensions-00 (work in progress), April 2014. draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-00 (work in
progress), April 2014.
[I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions]
Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF
Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-segment- Extensions for Segment Routing",
routing-extensions-00 (work in progress), June 2014. draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-00 (work in
progress), June 2014.
[I-D.ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type] [I-D.ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type]
Sivabalan, S., Medved, J., Minei, I., Crabbe, E., and R. Sivabalan, S., Medved, J., Minei, I., Crabbe, E., and R.
Varga, "Conveying path setup type in PCEP messages", Varga, "Conveying path setup type in PCEP messages",
draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-00 (work in progress), draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-00 (work in progress),
October 2014. October 2014.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]
Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "PCEP Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "PCEP
Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
skipping to change at page 16, line 45 skipping to change at page 19, line 8
progress), June 2014. progress), June 2014.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-mib] [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-mib]
Koushik, K., Stephan, E., Zhao, Q., King, D., and J. Koushik, K., Stephan, E., Zhao, Q., King, D., and J.
Hardwick, "PCE communication protocol (PCEP) Management Hardwick, "PCE communication protocol (PCEP) Management
Information Base", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-mib-04 (work in Information Base", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-mib-04 (work in
progress), February 2013. progress), February 2013.
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]
Crabbe, E., Medved, J., Minei, I., and R. Varga, "PCEP Crabbe, E., Medved, J., Minei, I., and R. Varga, "PCEP
Extensions for Stateful PCE", draft-ietf-pce-stateful- Extensions for Stateful PCE",
pce-05 (work in progress), July 2013. draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-05 (work in progress),
July 2013.
[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.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP. and JL. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP. and JL. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element
(PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, March (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
2009. March 2009.
[RFC5462] Andersson, L. and R. Asati, "Multiprotocol Label Switching [RFC5462] Andersson, L. and R. Asati, "Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic (MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic
Class" Field", RFC 5462, February 2009. Class" Field", RFC 5462, February 2009.
12.2. Informative References 12.2. Informative References
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
skipping to change at page 17, line 40 skipping to change at page 20, line 4
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Siva Sivabalan Siva Sivabalan
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
2000 Innovation Drive 2000 Innovation Drive
Kanata, Ontario K2K 3E8 Kanata, Ontario K2K 3E8
Canada Canada
Email: msiva@cisco.com Email: msiva@cisco.com
Jan Medved Jan Medved
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 West Tasman Dr. 170 West Tasman Dr.
San Jose, CA 95134 San Jose, CA 95134
US US
Email: jmedved@cisco.com Email: jmedved@cisco.com
Clarence Filsfils Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Pegasus Parc Pegasus Parc
De kleetlaan 6a, DIEGEM BRABANT 1831 De kleetlaan 6a, DIEGEM BRABANT 1831
BELGIUM BELGIUM
Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com
Edward Crabbe
Robert Raszuk Robert Raszuk
Mirantis Inc. Mirantis Inc.
100-615 National Ave. 100-615 National Ave.
Mountain View, CA 94043 Mountain View, CA 94043
US US
Email: robert@raszuk.net Email: robert@raszuk.net
Victor Lopez Victor Lopez
Telefonica I+D Telefonica I+D
skipping to change at page 18, line 35 skipping to change at page 21, line 4
Email: vlopez@tid.es Email: vlopez@tid.es
Jeff Tantsura Jeff Tantsura
Ericsson Ericsson
300 Holger Way 300 Holger Way
San Jose, CA 95134 San Jose, CA 95134
USA USA
Email: jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com Email: jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com
Wim Henderickx Wim Henderickx
Alcatel Lucent Alcatel Lucent
Copernicuslaan 50 Copernicuslaan 50
Antwerp 2018, CA 95134 Antwerp 2018, CA 95134
BELGIUM BELGIUM
Email: wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com Email: wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com
Edward Crabbe Jon Hardwick
Metaswitch Networks
100 Church Street
Enfield, Middlesex
UK
Email: jon.hardwick@metaswitch.com
 End of changes. 32 change blocks. 
90 lines changed or deleted 155 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/