< draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-05.txt   draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-06.txt >
PCE Working Group M. Koldychev PCE Working Group M. Koldychev
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc. Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track S. Sivabalan Intended status: Standards Track S. Sivabalan
Expires: November 24, 2021 Ciena Corporation Expires: 25 April 2022 Ciena Corporation
C. Barth C. Barth
Juniper Networks, Inc. Juniper Networks, Inc.
S. Peng S. Peng
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
H. Bidgoli H. Bidgoli
Nokia Nokia
May 23, 2021 October 2021
PCEP extension to support Segment Routing Policy Candidate Paths PCEP extension to support Segment Routing Policy Candidate Paths
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-05 draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-06
Abstract Abstract
This document introduces a mechanism to specify a Segment Routing This document introduces a mechanism to specify a Segment Routing
(SR) policy, as a collection of SR candidate paths. An SR policy is (SR) policy, as a collection of SR candidate paths. An SR policy is
identified by <headend, color, endpoint> tuple. An SR policy can identified by <headend, color, endpoint> tuple. An SR policy can
contain one or more candidate paths where each candidate path is contain one or more candidate paths where each candidate path is
identified in PCEP by its uniquely assigned PLSP-ID. This document identified in PCEP by its uniquely assigned PLSP-ID. This document
proposes extension to PCEP to support association among candidate proposes extension to PCEP to support association among candidate
paths of a given SR policy. The mechanism proposed in this document paths of a given SR policy. The mechanism proposed in this document
skipping to change at page 2, line 7 skipping to change at page 2, line 10
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 November 24, 2021. This Internet-Draft will expire on 4 April 2022.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
(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 Simplified BSD License text
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of as 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 Simplified BSD License.
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Group Candidate Paths belonging to the same SR policy . . 5 3.1. Group Candidate Paths belonging to the same SR policy . . 5
3.2. Instantiation of SR policy candidate paths . . . . . . . 5 3.2. Instantiation of SR policy candidate paths . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Avoid computing lower preference candidate paths . . . . 5 3.3. Avoid computing lower preference candidate paths . . . . 5
3.4. Minimal signaling overhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.4. Minimal signaling overhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1.1. SR Policy Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1.1. SR Policy Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1.2. SR Policy Candidate Path Identifiers . . . . . . . . 7 4.1.2. SR Policy Candidate Path Identifiers . . . . . . . . 7
4.1.3. SR Policy Candidate Path Attributes . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1.3. SR Policy Candidate Path Attributes . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Multiple Optimization Objectives and Constraints . . . . 7 4.2. Multiple Optimization Objectives and Constraints . . . . 8
5. SR Policy Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. SR Policy Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Association Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.1. Association Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. Association Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.2. Association Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2.1. SR Policy Name TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.2.1. SR Policy Name TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2.2. SR Policy Candidate Path Identifiers TLV . . . . . . 10 5.2.2. SR Policy Candidate Path Identifiers TLV . . . . . . 11
5.2.3. SR Policy Candidate Path Name TLV . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.2.3. SR Policy Candidate Path Name TLV . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2.4. SR Policy Candidate Path Preference TLV . . . . . . . 12 5.2.4. SR Policy Candidate Path Preference TLV . . . . . . . 12
6. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6. Generic Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.1. PCC Initiated SR Policy with single candidate-path . . . 13 6.1. Computation Priority TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.2. PCC Initiated SR Policy with multiple candidate-paths . . 13 6.2. Explicit Null Label Policy (ENLP) TLV . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.3. PCE Initiated SR Policy with single candidate-path . . . 14 6.3. Invalidation TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.4. PCE Initiated SR Policy with multiple candidate-paths . . 14 6.4. Specified-BSID-only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.1. Association Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.2. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7.1. PCC Initiated SR Policy with single candidate-path . . . 15
7.3. PCEP Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7.2. PCC Initiated SR Policy with multiple candidate-paths . . 16
8. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7.3. PCE Initiated SR Policy with single candidate-path . . . 16
8.1. Cisco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7.4. PCE Initiated SR Policy with multiple candidate-paths . . 17
8.2. Juniper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8.1. Association Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
10. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 8.2. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 8.3. PCEP Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 8.4. TE-PATH-BINDING TLV Flag field . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 9. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Appendix A. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 9.1. Cisco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 9.2. Juniper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
11. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Appendix A. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP) Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)
[RFC5440] enables the communication between a Path Computation Client [RFC5440] enables the communication between a Path Computation Client
(PCC) and a Path Computation Element (PCE), or between two PCEs based (PCC) and a Path Computation Element (PCE), or between two PCEs based
on the PCE architecture [RFC4655]. on the PCE architecture [RFC4655].
PCEP Extensions for the Stateful PCE Model [RFC8231] describes a set PCEP Extensions for the Stateful PCE Model [RFC8231] describes a set
of extensions to PCEP to enable active control of Multiprotocol Label of extensions to PCEP to enable active control of Multiprotocol Label
skipping to change at page 6, line 32 skipping to change at page 6, line 42
Candidate Path is described in [I-D.koldychev-pce-multipath]. Candidate Path is described in [I-D.koldychev-pce-multipath].
This document defines a new Association Type called "SR Policy This document defines a new Association Type called "SR Policy
Association", of value 6 based on the generic ASSOCIATION object. Association", of value 6 based on the generic ASSOCIATION object.
The new Association Type is also called "SRPAT", for "SR Policy The new Association Type is also called "SRPAT", for "SR Policy
Association Type". We say "SRPAT ASSOCIATION" to mean "ASSOCIATION Association Type". We say "SRPAT ASSOCIATION" to mean "ASSOCIATION
object of type SR Policy Association". The group of LSPs that are object of type SR Policy Association". The group of LSPs that are
part of the SR Policy Association is called "SRPAG", for "SR Policy part of the SR Policy Association is called "SRPAG", for "SR Policy
Association Group". Association Group".
As per the processing rules specified in section 5.4 of [RFC8697], if As per the processing rules specified in section 6.4 of [RFC8697], if
a PCEP speaker does not support the SRPAT, it MUST return a PCErr a PCEP speaker does not support the SRPAT, it MUST return a PCErr
message with Error-Type = 26 "Association Error", Error-Value = 1 message with Error-Type = 26 "Association Error", Error-Value = 1
"Association-type is not supported". "Association-type is not supported".
A given LSP MUST belong to at most one SRPAG, since an SR Policy A given LSP MUST belong to at most one SRPAG, since an SR Policy
Candidate Path cannot belong to multiple SR Policies. If a PCEP Candidate Path cannot belong to multiple SR Policies. If a PCEP
speaker receives a PCEP message with more than one SRPAT ASSOCIATION speaker receives a PCEP message with more than one SRPAT ASSOCIATION
for the same LSP, then the PCEP speaker MUST send a PCErr message for the same LSP, then the PCEP speaker MUST send a PCErr message
with Error-Type = 26 "Association Error", Error-Value = 7 "Cannot with Error-Type = 26 "Association Error", Error-Value = 7 "Cannot
join the association group". join the association group".
skipping to change at page 7, line 8 skipping to change at page 7, line 18
4.1.1. SR Policy Identifiers 4.1.1. SR Policy Identifiers
SR Policy Identifiers uniquely identify the SR policy within the SR Policy Identifiers uniquely identify the SR policy within the
context of the headend. SR Policy Identifiers MUST be the same for context of the headend. SR Policy Identifiers MUST be the same for
all SR Policy Candidate Paths in the same SRPAG. SR Policy all SR Policy Candidate Paths in the same SRPAG. SR Policy
Identifiers MUST NOT change for a given SR Policy Candidate Path Identifiers MUST NOT change for a given SR Policy Candidate Path
during its lifetime. SR Policy Identifiers MUST be different for during its lifetime. SR Policy Identifiers MUST be different for
different SRPAGs. SR Policy Identifiers consist of: different SRPAGs. SR Policy Identifiers consist of:
o Headend router where the SR Policy originates. * Headend router where the SR Policy originates.
o Color of SR Policy. * Color of SR Policy.
o Endpoint of SR Policy. * Endpoint of SR Policy.
4.1.2. SR Policy Candidate Path Identifiers 4.1.2. SR Policy Candidate Path Identifiers
SR Policy Candidate Path Identifiers uniquely identify the SR Policy SR Policy Candidate Path Identifiers uniquely identify the SR Policy
Candidate Path within the context of an SR Policy. SR Policy Candidate Path within the context of an SR Policy. SR Policy
Candidate Path Identifiers MUST NOT change for a given LSP during its Candidate Path Identifiers MUST NOT change for a given LSP during its
lifetime. SR Policy Candidate Path Identifiers MUST be different for lifetime. SR Policy Candidate Path Identifiers MUST be different for
different LSPs within the same SRPAG. When these rules are not different LSPs within the same SRPAG. When these rules are not
satisfied, the PCE MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type = 26 satisfied, the PCE MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type = 26
"Association Error", Error Value = TBD8 "SR Policy Candidate Path "Association Error", Error Value = TBD8 "SR Policy Candidate Path
Identifiers Mismatch". SR Policy Candidate Path Identifiers consist Identifiers Mismatch". SR Policy Candidate Path Identifiers consist
of: of:
o Protocol Origin. * Protocol Origin.
o Originator. * Originator.
o Discriminator. * Discriminator.
4.1.3. SR Policy Candidate Path Attributes 4.1.3. SR Policy Candidate Path Attributes
SR Policy Candidate Path Attributes carry non-key information about SR Policy Candidate Path Attributes carry non-key information about
the candidate path and MAY change during the lifetime of the LSP. SR the candidate path and MAY change during the lifetime of the LSP. SR
Policy Candidate Path Attributes consist of: Policy Candidate Path Attributes consist of:
o Preference. * Preference.
o Optionally, the SR Policy Candidate Path name. * Optionally, the SR Policy Candidate Path name.
o Optionally, the SR Policy name. * Optionally, the SR Policy name.
4.2. Multiple Optimization Objectives and Constraints 4.2. Multiple Optimization Objectives and Constraints
In certain scenarios, it is desired for each SR Policy Candidate Path In certain scenarios, it is desired for each SR Policy Candidate Path
to contain multiple sub-candidate paths, each of which has a to contain multiple sub-candidate paths, each of which has a
different optimization objective and constraints. Traffic is then different optimization objective and constraints. Traffic is then
sent ECMP or UCMP among these sub-candidate paths. sent ECMP or UCMP among these sub-candidate paths.
This is represented in PCEP by a many-to-one mapping between PCEP This is represented in PCEP by a many-to-one mapping between PCEP
Tunnels and SR Policy Candidate Paths. This means that multiple PCEP Tunnels and SR Policy Candidate Paths. This means that multiple PCEP
skipping to change at page 8, line 32 skipping to change at page 8, line 39
5.1. Association Parameters 5.1. Association Parameters
As per [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy], an SR Policy is As per [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy], an SR Policy is
identified through the tuple <headend, color, endpoint>. the headend identified through the tuple <headend, color, endpoint>. the headend
is encoded as the Association Source in the ASSOCIATION object and is encoded as the Association Source in the ASSOCIATION object and
the color and endpoint are encoded as part of Extended Association ID the color and endpoint are encoded as part of Extended Association ID
TLV. TLV.
The Association Parameters (see Section 2) consist of: The Association Parameters (see Section 2) consist of:
o Association Type: set to 6 "SR Policy Association". * Association Type: set to 6 "SR Policy Association".
o Association Source (IPv4/IPv6): set to the headend IP address. * Association Source (IPv4/IPv6): set to the headend IP address.
o Association ID (16-bit): set to "1". * Association ID (16-bit): set to "1".
o Extended Association ID TLV: encodes the Color and Endpoint of the * Extended Association ID TLV: encodes the Color and Endpoint of the
SR Policy. SR Policy.
The Association Source MUST be set to the headend value of the SR The Association Source MUST be set to the headend value of the SR
Policy, as defined in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] Policy, as defined in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
Section 2.1. If the PCC receives a PCInit message for a non-existent Section 2.1. If the PCC receives a PCInit message for a non-existent
SR Policy, where the Association Source is set not to the headend SR Policy, where the Association Source is set not to the headend
value but to some globally unique IP address that the PCC owns, then value but to some globally unique IP address that the PCC owns, then
the PCC SHOULD accept the PCInit message and create the SR Policy the PCC SHOULD accept the PCInit message and create the SR Policy
Association with the Association Source that was sent in the PCInit Association with the Association Source that was sent in the PCInit
message. message.
skipping to change at page 9, line 18 skipping to change at page 9, line 24
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 31 | Length = 8 or 20 | | Type = 31 | Length = 8 or 20 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Color | | Color |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Endpoint ~ ~ Endpoint ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Extended Association ID TLV format Figure 1: Extended Association ID TLV format
Type: Extended Association ID TLV, type = 31. Type: Extended Association ID TLV, type = 31.
Length: Either 8 or 20, depending on whether IPv4 or IPv6 address is Length: Either 8 or 20, depending on whether IPv4 or IPv6 address is
encoded in the Endpoint. encoded in the Endpoint.
Color: SR Policy color value. Color: SR Policy color value.
Endpoint: can be either IPv4 or IPv6, depending on whether the policy Endpoint: can be either IPv4 or IPv6, depending on whether the policy
endpoint is IPv4 or IPv6. This value MAY be different from the one endpoint is IPv4 or IPv6. This value MAY be different from the one
skipping to change at page 9, line 50 skipping to change at page 10, line 9
multiple PCEP speakers want to create the same SR Policy at the same multiple PCEP speakers want to create the same SR Policy at the same
time. By adhering to this format, all PCEP speakers come up with the time. By adhering to this format, all PCEP speakers come up with the
same Association Parameters independently of each other. Thus, there same Association Parameters independently of each other. Thus, there
is no chance that different PCEP speakers will come up with different is no chance that different PCEP speakers will come up with different
Association Parameters for the same SR Policy. Association Parameters for the same SR Policy.
5.2. Association Information 5.2. Association Information
The SRPAT ASSOCIATION contains the following TLVs: The SRPAT ASSOCIATION contains the following TLVs:
o SRPOLICY-POL-NAME TLV: (optional) encodes SR Policy Name string. * SRPOLICY-POL-NAME TLV: (optional) encodes SR Policy Name string.
o SRPOLICY-CPATH-ID TLV: (mandatory) encodes SR Policy Candidate * SRPOLICY-CPATH-ID TLV: (mandatory) encodes SR Policy Candidate
Path Identifiers. Path Identifiers.
o SRPOLICY-CPATH-NAME TLV: (optional) encodes SR Policy Candidate * SRPOLICY-CPATH-NAME TLV: (optional) encodes SR Policy Candidate
Path string name. Path string name.
o SRPOLICY-CPATH-PREFERENCE TLV: (optional) encodes SR Policy * SRPOLICY-CPATH-PREFERENCE TLV: (optional) encodes SR Policy
Candidate Path preference value. Candidate Path preference value.
Of these new TLVs, SRPOLICY-CPATH-ID TLV is mandatory. When a Of these new TLVs, SRPOLICY-CPATH-ID TLV is mandatory. When a
mandatory TLV is missing from the SRPAT ASSOCIATION object, the PCE mandatory TLV is missing from the SRPAT ASSOCIATION object, the PCE
MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type = 6 "Mandatory Object MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type = 6 "Mandatory Object
Missing", Error-Value = TBD6 "Missing Mandatory TLV". Missing", Error-Value = TBD6 "Missing Mandatory TLV".
5.2.1. SR Policy Name TLV 5.2.1. SR Policy Name TLV
The SRPOLICY-POL-NAME TLV is an optional TLV for the SRPAT The SRPOLICY-POL-NAME TLV is an optional TLV for the SRPAT
skipping to change at page 10, line 36 skipping to change at page 10, line 42
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
~ SR Policy Name ~ ~ SR Policy Name ~
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: The SRPOLICY-POL-NAME TLV format Figure 2: The SRPOLICY-POL-NAME TLV format
Type: 56 for "SRPOLICY-POL-NAME" TLV. Type: 56 for "SRPOLICY-POL-NAME" TLV.
Length: indicates the length of the value portion of the TLV in Length: indicates the length of the value portion of the TLV in
octets and MUST be greater than 0. The TLV MUST be zero-padded so octets and MUST be greater than 0. The TLV MUST be zero-padded so
that the TLV is 4-octet aligned. that the TLV is 4-octet aligned.
SR Policy Name: SR Policy name, as defined in SR Policy Name: SR Policy name, as defined in
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]. It SHOULD be a string of [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]. It SHOULD be a string of
printable ASCII characters, without a NULL terminator. printable ASCII characters, without a NULL terminator.
skipping to change at page 11, line 12 skipping to change at page 11, line 17
The SRPOLICY-CPATH-ID TLV is a mandatory TLV for the SRPAT The SRPOLICY-CPATH-ID TLV is a mandatory TLV for the SRPAT
ASSOCIATION. Only one SRPOLICY-CPATH-ID TLV SHOULD be encoded by the ASSOCIATION. Only one SRPOLICY-CPATH-ID TLV SHOULD be encoded by the
sender and only the first occurrence is processed and any others MUST sender and only the first occurrence is processed and any others MUST
be ignored. be ignored.
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Proto. Origin | Reserved | | Proto. Origin | MBZ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Originator ASN | | Originator ASN |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
| Originator Address | | Originator Address |
| | | |
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Discriminator | | Discriminator |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: The SRPOLICY-CPATH-ID TLV format Figure 3: The SRPOLICY-CPATH-ID TLV format
Type: 57 for "SRPOLICY-CPATH-ID" TLV. Type: 57 for "SRPOLICY-CPATH-ID" TLV.
Length: 28. Length: 28.
Protocol Origin: 8-bit value that encodes the protocol origin, as Protocol Origin: 8-bit value that encodes the protocol origin, as
specified in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] Section 2.3. specified in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] Section 2.3.
Note that in PCInit messages, the Protocol Origin is always set to
Reserved: MUST be set to zero on transmission and ignored on receipt. "PCEP".
Originator ASN: Represented as 4 byte number, part of the originator Originator ASN: Represented as 4 byte number, part of the originator
identifier, as specified in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] identifier, as specified in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
Section 2.4. Section 2.4.
Originator Address: Represented as 128 bit value where IPv4 address Originator Address: Represented as 128 bit value where IPv4 address
are encoded in lowest 32 bits, part of the originator identifier, as are encoded in lowest 32 bits, part of the originator identifier, as
specified in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] Section 2.4. specified in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] Section 2.4.
Discriminator: 32-bit value that encodes the Discriminator of the Discriminator: 32-bit value that encodes the Discriminator of the
skipping to change at page 12, line 15 skipping to change at page 12, line 22
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
~ SR Policy Candidate Path Name ~ ~ SR Policy Candidate Path Name ~
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: The SRPOLICY-CPATH-NAME TLV format Figure 4: The SRPOLICY-CPATH-NAME TLV format
Type: 58 for "SRPOLICY-CPATH-NAME" TLV. Type: 58 for "SRPOLICY-CPATH-NAME" TLV.
Length: indicates the length of the value portion of the TLV in Length: indicates the length of the value portion of the TLV in
octets and MUST be greater than 0. The TLV MUST be zero-padded so octets and MUST be greater than 0. The TLV MUST be zero-padded so
that the TLV is 4-octet aligned. that the TLV is 4-octet aligned.
SR Policy Candidate Path Name: SR Policy Candidate Path Name, as SR Policy Candidate Path Name: SR Policy Candidate Path Name, as
defined in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]. It SHOULD be a defined in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]. It SHOULD be a
string of printable ASCII characters, without a NULL terminator. string of printable ASCII characters, without a NULL terminator.
skipping to change at page 12, line 42 skipping to change at page 12, line 49
any others MUST be ignored. any others MUST be ignored.
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Preference | | Preference |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: The SRPOLICY-CPATH-PREFERENCE TLV format Figure 5: The SRPOLICY-CPATH-PREFERENCE TLV format
Type: 59 for "SRPOLICY-CPATH-PREFERENCE" TLV. Type: 59 for "SRPOLICY-CPATH-PREFERENCE" TLV.
Length: 4. Length: 4.
Preference: Numerical preference of the candidate path, as specified Preference: Numerical preference of the candidate path, as specified
in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] Section 2.7. in Section 2.7 of [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].
If the TLV is missing, a default preference of 100 as specified in If the TLV is missing, a default Preference value of 100 is used, as
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] is used. specified in Section 2.7 of [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].
6. Examples 6. Generic Mechanisms
6.1. PCC Initiated SR Policy with single candidate-path This section describes various mechanisms that are standardized for
SR Policies in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy], but are
equally applicable to other tunnel types, such as RSVP-TE tunnels.
Hence this section does not make use of the SRPAT ASSOCIATION.
6.1. Computation Priority TLV
The COMPUTATION-PRIORITY TLV is an optional TLV for the LSP object.
It is used to signal the numerical computation priority, as specified
in Section 2.12 of [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]. If the
TLV is absent from the LSP object, a default Priority value of 128 is
used.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Priority | MBZ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: The COMPUTATION-PRIORITY TLV format
Type: TBD1 for "COMPUTATION-PRIORITY" TLV.
Length: 4.
Priority: Numerical priority with which this LSP is to be recomputed
by the PCE upon topology change.
6.2. Explicit Null Label Policy (ENLP) TLV
The ENLP TLV is an optional TLV for the LSP object. It is used to
implement the "Explicit Null Label Policy", as specified in
Section 2.4.5 of [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy].
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ENLP | MBZ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7: The Explicit Null Label Policy (ENLP) TLV format
Type: TBD2 for "ENLP" TLV.
Length: 4.
ENLP (Explicit NULL Label Policy): same values as in Section 2.4.5 of
[I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy].
6.3. Invalidation TLV
The INVALIDATION TLV is an optional TLV for the LSP object. It is
used to specify LSP behavior when the LSP is operationally down, in
particular to facilitate the "Drop upon invalid" behavior, specified
in Section 8.2 of [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Config | State | MBZ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 8: The INVALIDATION TLV format
Type: TBD3 for "INVALIDATION" TLV.
Length: 4.
Config: specifies the action to take when the LSP becomes invalid:
* 0: (default) bring down the LSP and forward traffic somewhere else
(i.e., IGP, etc.).
* 1: drop traffic when the LSP is invalid.
* 2-255: Reserved.
State: specifies the current state of the LSP:
* 0: (default) traffic is not being dropped.
* 1: traffic is being dropped, due to LSP being down and "Drop upon
invalid" being set.
* 2-255: Reserved.
The "State" field only has meaning when sent from PCC to the PCE in
PCRpt messages, it is set to 0 when sent from PCE to PCC. The
"Config" field is valid in both directions on the PCEP session, i.e.,
from PCC in PCRpt and from PCE in PCUpd and PCInit messages.
6.4. Specified-BSID-only
Specified-BSID-only functionality is defined in Section 6.2.3 of
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]. When specified-BSID-only
is enabled for a particular binding SID, it means that the given
binding SID is required to be allocated and programmed for the LSP to
be operationally up. If the binding SID cannot be allocated or
programmed for some reason, then the LSP must stay down.
To signal specified-BSID-only, a new bit: S (Specified-BSID-only) is
allocated in the "TE-PATH-BINDING TLV Flag field" of the TE-PATH-
BINDING TLV. When this bit is set for a particular BSID, it means
that the BSID follows the Specified-BSID-only behavior. It is
possible to have a mix of BSIDs for the same LSP: some with S=1 and
some with S=0.
7. Examples
7.1. PCC Initiated SR Policy with single candidate-path
PCReq and PCRep messages are exchanged in the following sequence: PCReq and PCRep messages are exchanged in the following sequence:
1. PCC sends PCReq message to the PCE, encoding the SRPAT 1. PCC sends PCReq message to the PCE, encoding the SRPAT
ASSOCIATION and TLVs in the PCReq message. ASSOCIATION and TLVs in the PCReq message.
2. PCE returns the path in PCRep message, and echoes back the SRPAT 2. PCE returns the path in PCRep message, and echoes back the SRPAT
ASSOCIATION. ASSOCIATION.
PCRpt and PCUpd messages are exchanged in the following sequence: PCRpt and PCUpd messages are exchanged in the following sequence:
1. PCC sends PCRpt message to the PCE, including the LSP object and 1. PCC sends PCRpt message to the PCE, including the LSP object and
the SRPAT ASSOCIATION. the SRPAT ASSOCIATION.
2. PCE computes path, possibly making use of the Association 2. PCE computes path, possibly making use of the Association
Information from the SRPAT ASSOCIATION. Information from the SRPAT ASSOCIATION.
3. PCE updates the SR policy candidate path's ERO using PCUpd 3. PCE updates the SR policy candidate path's ERO using PCUpd
message. message.
6.2. PCC Initiated SR Policy with multiple candidate-paths 7.2. PCC Initiated SR Policy with multiple candidate-paths
PCRpt and PCUpd messages are exchanged in the following sequence: PCRpt and PCUpd messages are exchanged in the following sequence:
1. For each candidate path of the SR Policy, the PCC generates a 1. For each candidate path of the SR Policy, the PCC generates a
different PLSP-ID and symbolic-name and sends multiple PCRpt different PLSP-ID and symbolic-name and sends multiple PCRpt
messages (or one message with multiple LSP objects) to the PCE. messages (or one message with multiple LSP objects) to the PCE.
Each LSP object is followed by SRPAT ASSOCIATION with identical Each LSP object is followed by SRPAT ASSOCIATION with identical
Color and Endpoint values. The Association Source is set to the Color and Endpoint values. The Association Source is set to the
IP address of the PCC and the Association ID is set to a number IP address of the PCC and the Association ID is set to a number
that PCC locally chose to represent the SR Policy. that PCC locally chose to represent the SR Policy.
skipping to change at page 14, line 5 skipping to change at page 16, line 32
LSP and sends PCUpd message(s) back to the PCC. LSP and sends PCUpd message(s) back to the PCC.
3. If a new candidate path is added on the PCC by the operator, then 3. If a new candidate path is added on the PCC by the operator, then
a new PLSP-ID and symbolic name is generated for that candidate a new PLSP-ID and symbolic name is generated for that candidate
path and a new PCRpt is sent to the PCE. path and a new PCRpt is sent to the PCE.
4. If an existing candidate path is removed from the PCC by the 4. If an existing candidate path is removed from the PCC by the
operator, then that PLSP-ID is deleted from the PCE by sending operator, then that PLSP-ID is deleted from the PCE by sending
PCRpt with the R-flag in the LSP object set. PCRpt with the R-flag in the LSP object set.
6.3. PCE Initiated SR Policy with single candidate-path 7.3. PCE Initiated SR Policy with single candidate-path
A candidate-path is created using the following steps: A candidate-path is created using the following steps:
1. PCE sends PCInitiate message, containing the SRPAT ASSOCIATION. 1. PCE sends PCInitiate message, containing the SRPAT ASSOCIATION.
The Association Source and the Association ID are set as The Association Source and the Association ID are set as
described in Section 5.1. described in Section 5.1.
2. PCC uses the color, endpoint and preference from the SRPAT 2. PCC uses the color, endpoint and preference from the SRPAT
ASSOCIATION to create a new candidate path. If no SR policy ASSOCIATION to create a new candidate path. If no SR policy
exists to hold the candidate path, then a new SR policy is exists to hold the candidate path, then a new SR policy is
skipping to change at page 14, line 33 skipping to change at page 17, line 12
A candidate-path is deleted using the following steps: A candidate-path is deleted using the following steps:
1. PCE sends PCInitiate message, setting the R-flag in the LSP 1. PCE sends PCInitiate message, setting the R-flag in the LSP
object. object.
2. PCC uses the PLSP-ID from the LSP object to find the candidate 2. PCC uses the PLSP-ID from the LSP object to find the candidate
path and delete it. If this is the last candidate path under the path and delete it. If this is the last candidate path under the
SR policy, then the containing SR policy is deleted as well. SR policy, then the containing SR policy is deleted as well.
6.4. PCE Initiated SR Policy with multiple candidate-paths 7.4. PCE Initiated SR Policy with multiple candidate-paths
A candidate-path is created using the following steps: A candidate-path is created using the following steps:
1. PCE sends a separate PCInitiate message for every candidate path 1. PCE sends a separate PCInitiate message for every candidate path
that it wants to create, or it sends multiple LSP objects within that it wants to create, or it sends multiple LSP objects within
a single PCInitiate message. The SRPAT ASSOCIATION is sent for a single PCInitiate message. The SRPAT ASSOCIATION is sent for
every LSP in the PCInitiate message. The Association Source and every LSP in the PCInitiate message. The Association Source and
the Association ID are set as described in Section 5.1. the Association ID are set as described in Section 5.1.
2. PCC creates multiple candidate paths under the same SR policy, 2. PCC creates multiple candidate paths under the same SR policy,
skipping to change at page 15, line 11 skipping to change at page 17, line 38
set as described in Section 5.1. set as described in Section 5.1.
A candidate path is deleted using the following steps: A candidate path is deleted using the following steps:
1. PCE sends PCInitiate message, setting the R-flag in the LSP 1. PCE sends PCInitiate message, setting the R-flag in the LSP
object. object.
2. PCC uses the PLSP-ID from the LSP object to find the candidate 2. PCC uses the PLSP-ID from the LSP object to find the candidate
path and delete it. path and delete it.
7. IANA Considerations 8. IANA Considerations
7.1. Association Type 8.1. Association Type
This document defines a new association type: SR Policy Association. This document defines a new association type: SR Policy Association.
IANA is requested to make the following codepoint assignment in the IANA is requested to make the following codepoint assignment in the
"ASSOCIATION Type Field" subregistry [RFC8697] within the "Path "ASSOCIATION Type Field" subregistry [RFC8697] within the "Path
Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry: Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry:
+-----------+-------------------------------------------+-----------+ +-----------+-------------------------------------------+-----------+
| Type | Name | Reference | | Type | Name | Reference |
+-----------+-------------------------------------------+-----------+ +-----------+-------------------------------------------+-----------+
| 6 | SR Policy Association | This.I-D | | 6 | SR Policy Association | This.I-D |
+-----------+-------------------------------------------+-----------+ +-----------+-------------------------------------------+-----------+
7.2. PCEP TLV Type Indicators 8.2. PCEP TLV Type Indicators
This document defines four new TLVs for carrying additional This document defines four new TLVs for carrying additional
information about SR policy and SR candidate paths. IANA is information about SR policy and SR candidate paths. IANA is
requested to make the assignment of a new value for the existing requested to make the assignment of a new value for the existing
"PCEP TLV Type Indicators" registry as follows: "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" registry as follows:
+-----------+-------------------------------------------+-----------+ +-----------+-------------------------------------------+-----------+
| Value | Description | Reference | | Value | Description | Reference |
+-----------+-------------------------------------------+-----------+ +-----------+-------------------------------------------+-----------+
| 56 | SRPOLICY-POL-NAME | This.I-D | | 56 | SRPOLICY-POL-NAME | This.I-D |
+-----------+-------------------------------------------+-----------+ +-----------+-------------------------------------------+-----------+
| 57 | SRPOLICY-CPATH-ID | This.I-D | | 57 | SRPOLICY-CPATH-ID | This.I-D |
+-----------+-------------------------------------------+-----------+ +-----------+-------------------------------------------+-----------+
| 58 | SRPOLICY-CPATH-NAME | This.I-D | | 58 | SRPOLICY-CPATH-NAME | This.I-D |
+-----------+-------------------------------------------+-----------+ +-----------+-------------------------------------------+-----------+
| 59 | SRPOLICY-CPATH-PREFERENCE | This.I-D | | 59 | SRPOLICY-CPATH-PREFERENCE | This.I-D |
+-----------+-------------------------------------------+-----------+ +-----------+-------------------------------------------+-----------+
| TBD1 | COMPUTATION-PRIORITY | This.I-D |
+-----------+-------------------------------------------+-----------+
| TBD2 | EXPLICIT-NULL-LABEL-POLICY | This.I-D |
+-----------+-------------------------------------------+-----------+
| TBD3 | INVALIDATION | This.I-D |
+-----------+-------------------------------------------+-----------+
7.3. PCEP Errors 8.3. PCEP Errors
This document defines one new Error-Value within the "Mandatory This document defines one new Error-Value within the "Mandatory
Object Missing" Error-Type and two new Error-Values within the Object Missing" Error-Type and two new Error-Values within the
"Association Error" Error-Type. IANA is requested to allocate new "Association Error" Error-Type. IANA is requested to allocate new
error values within the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" error values within the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values"
sub-registry of the PCEP Numbers registry, as follows: sub-registry of the PCEP Numbers registry, as follows:
+------------+------------------+-----------------------+-----------+ +------------+------------------+-----------------------+-----------+
| Error-Type | Meaning | Error-value | Reference | | Error-Type | Meaning | Error-value | Reference |
+------------+------------------+-----------------------+-----------+ +------------+------------------+-----------------------+-----------+
skipping to change at page 16, line 25 skipping to change at page 19, line 25
| | Error | | | | | Error | | |
+------------+------------------+-----------------------+-----------+ +------------+------------------+-----------------------+-----------+
| | | TBD7: SR Policy | This.I-D | | | | TBD7: SR Policy | This.I-D |
| | | Identifers Mismatch | | | | | Identifers Mismatch | |
+------------+------------------+-----------------------+-----------+ +------------+------------------+-----------------------+-----------+
| | | TBD8: SR Policy | This.I-D | | | | TBD8: SR Policy | This.I-D |
| | | Candidate Path | | | | | Candidate Path | |
| | | Identifiers Mismatch | | | | | Identifiers Mismatch | |
+------------+------------------+-----------------------+-----------+ +------------+------------------+-----------------------+-----------+
8. Implementation Status 8.4. TE-PATH-BINDING TLV Flag field
IANA is requested to allocate new bit within the "TE-PATH-BINDING TLV
Flag field" sub-registry of the PCEP Numbers registry, as follows:
+------------+------------------------------------------+-----------+
| Bit position | Description | Reference |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+-----------+
| 1 | Specified-BSID-only | This.I-D |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+-----------+
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
skipping to change at page 17, line 5 skipping to change at page 20, line 12
features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
exist. exist.
According to [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and working groups According to [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and working groups
to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature. and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
they see fit". they see fit".
8.1. Cisco 9.1. Cisco
o Organization: Cisco Systems * Organization: Cisco Systems
o Implementation: IOS-XR PCC and PCE. * Implementation: IOS-XR PCC and PCE.
o Description: An experimental code-point is currently used. * Description: An experimental code-point is currently used.
o Maturity Level: Proof of concept. * Maturity Level: Proof of concept.
o Coverage: Full. * Coverage: Full.
o Contact: mkoldych@cisco.com * Contact: mkoldych@cisco.com
8.2. Juniper 9.2. Juniper
o Organization: Juniper Networks * Organization: Juniper Networks
o Implementation: Head-end and controller. * Implementation: Head-end and controller.
o Description: An experimental code-point is currently used. * Description: An experimental code-point is currently used.
o Maturity Level: Proof of concept. * Maturity Level: Proof of concept.
o Coverage: Partial. * Coverage: Partial.
o Contact: cbarth@juniper.net * Contact: cbarth@juniper.net
9. Security Considerations 10. Security Considerations
This document defines one new type for association, which do not add This document defines one new type for association, which do not add
any new security concerns beyond those discussed in [RFC5440], any new security concerns beyond those discussed in [RFC5440],
[RFC8231], [RFC8664], [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6] and [RFC8231], [RFC8664], [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6] and
[RFC8697] in itself. [RFC8697] in itself.
The information carried in the SRPAT ASSOCIATION, as per this The information carried in the SRPAT ASSOCIATION, as per this
document is related to SR Policy. It often reflects information that document is related to SR Policy. It often reflects information that
can also be derived from the SR Database, but association provides a can also be derived from the SR Database, but association provides a
much easier grouping of related LSPs and messages. The SRPAT much easier grouping of related LSPs and messages. The SRPAT
ASSOCIATION could provide an adversary with the opportunity to ASSOCIATION could provide an adversary with the opportunity to
eavesdrop on the relationship between the LSPs. Thus securing the eavesdrop on the relationship between the LSPs. Thus securing the
PCEP session using Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8253], as per PCEP session using Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8253], as per
the recommendations and best current practices in [RFC7525], is the recommendations and best current practices in [RFC7525], is
RECOMMENDED. RECOMMENDED.
10. Acknowledgement 11. Acknowledgement
Would like to thank Stephane Litkowski, Praveen Kumar and Tom Petch Would like to thank Stephane Litkowski, Praveen Kumar and Tom Petch
for review comments. for review comments.
11. References 12. References
11.1. Normative References 12.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
skipping to change at page 18, line 47 skipping to change at page 21, line 50
Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017, Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281>.
[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running [RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205, Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016, RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.
[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-11 (work in progress), Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-spring-segment-
April 2021. routing-policy-13, 28 May 2021,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-spring-
segment-routing-policy-13.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy]
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Mattes, P.,
Rosen, E., Jain, D., and S. Lin, "Advertising Segment
Routing Policies in BGP", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-13, 7 June
2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-idr-
segment-routing-te-policy-13.txt>.
[RFC8697] Minei, I., Crabbe, E., Sivabalan, S., Ananthakrishnan, H., [RFC8697] Minei, I., Crabbe, E., Sivabalan, S., Ananthakrishnan, H.,
Dhody, D., and Y. Tanaka, "Path Computation Element Dhody, D., and Y. Tanaka, "Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Establishing Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Establishing
Relationships between Sets of Label Switched Paths Relationships between Sets of Label Switched Paths
(LSPs)", RFC 8697, DOI 10.17487/RFC8697, January 2020, (LSPs)", RFC 8697, DOI 10.17487/RFC8697, January 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8697>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8697>.
[RFC8664] Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W., [RFC8664] Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,
and J. Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication and J. Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8664, Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8664,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8664, December 2019, DOI 10.17487/RFC8664, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8664>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8664>.
[I-D.koldychev-pce-operational] [I-D.koldychev-pce-operational]
Koldychev, M., Sivabalan, S., Peng, S., Achaval, D., and Koldychev, M., Sivabalan, S., Peng, S., Achaval, D., and
H. Kotni, "PCEP Operational Clarification", draft- H. Kotni, "PCEP Operational Clarification", Work in
koldychev-pce-operational-03 (work in progress), February Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-koldychev-pce-operational-
2021. 04, 19 August 2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/
draft-koldychev-pce-operational-04.txt>.
[I-D.koldychev-pce-multipath] [I-D.koldychev-pce-multipath]
Koldychev, M., Sivabalan, S., Saad, T., Beeram, V. P., Koldychev, M., Sivabalan, S., Saad, T., Beeram, V. P.,
Bidgoli, H., Yadav, B., and S. Peng, "PCEP Extensions for Bidgoli, H., Yadav, B., and S. Peng, "PCEP Extensions for
Signaling Multipath Information", draft-koldychev-pce- Signaling Multipath Information", Work in Progress,
multipath-05 (work in progress), February 2021. Internet-Draft, draft-koldychev-pce-multipath-05, 16
February 2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-
koldychev-pce-multipath-05.txt>.
11.2. Informative References 12.2. 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>.
[RFC7525] Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre, [RFC7525] Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre,
"Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer "Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer
Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
(DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 7525, DOI 10.17487/RFC7525, May (DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 7525, DOI 10.17487/RFC7525, May
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7525>. 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7525>.
[RFC8253] Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody, [RFC8253] Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody,
"PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the "PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)", Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)",
RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017, RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253>.
[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-ipv6-08 (work in progress), November 2020. Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-09, 27
May 2021, <https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-
ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-09.txt>.
Appendix A. Contributors Appendix A. Contributors
Dhruv Dhody Dhruv Dhody
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560066 Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
India India
Email: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com Email: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
Cheng Li Cheng Li
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd. Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing, 10095 Beijing, 10095
China China
Email: chengli13@huawei.com Email: chengli13@huawei.com
Samuel Sidor
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Eurovea Central 3.
Pribinova 10
811 09 Bratislava
Slovakia
Email: ssidor@cisco.com
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Mike Koldychev Mike Koldychev
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
2000 Innovation Drive 2000 Innovation Drive
Kanata, Ontario K2K 3E8 Kanata Ontario K2K 3E8
Canada Canada
Email: mkoldych@cisco.com Email: mkoldych@cisco.com
Siva Sivabalan Siva Sivabalan
Ciena Corporation Ciena Corporation
385 Terry Fox Dr. 385 Terry Fox Dr.
Kanata, Ontario K2K 0L1 Kanata Ontario K2K 0L1
Canada Canada
Email: ssivabal@ciena.com Email: ssivabal@ciena.com
Colby Barth Colby Barth
Juniper Networks, Inc. Juniper Networks, Inc.
Email: cbarth@juniper.net Email: cbarth@juniper.net
Shuping Peng Shuping Peng
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd. Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095 Beijing
100095
China China
Email: pengshuping@huawei.com Email: pengshuping@huawei.com
Hooman Bidgoli Hooman Bidgoli
Nokia Nokia
Email: hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com Email: hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com
 End of changes. 78 change blocks. 
110 lines changed or deleted 274 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/