idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (July 18, 2016) is 2839 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'TBD' is mentioned on line 888, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'This I-D' is mentioned on line 1087, but not defined ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6006 (Obsoleted by RFC 8306) == Outdated reference: A later version (-21) exists of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-14 == Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-05 == Outdated reference: A later version (-11) exists of draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-06 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) == Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app-06 == Outdated reference: A later version (-18) exists of draft-ietf-pce-pceps-10 Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 8 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 PCE Working Group U. Palle 3 Internet-Draft D. Dhody 4 Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies 5 Expires: January 19, 2017 Y. Tanaka 6 NTT Communications 7 Z. Ali 8 Cisco Systems 9 V. Beeram 10 Juniper Networks 11 July 18, 2016 13 Path Computation Element (PCE) Protocol Extensions for Stateful PCE 14 usage for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths 15 draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp-00 17 Abstract 19 The Path Computation Element (PCE) has been identified as an 20 appropriate technology for the determination of the paths of point- 21 to-multipoint (P2MP) TE LSPs. This document provides extensions 22 required for Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) 23 so as to enable the usage of a stateful PCE capability in supporting 24 P2MP TE LSPs. 26 Status of This Memo 28 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 29 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 31 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 32 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 33 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 34 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 36 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 37 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 38 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 39 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 41 This Internet-Draft will expire on January 19, 2017. 43 Copyright Notice 45 Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 46 document authors. All rights reserved. 48 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 49 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 50 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 51 publication of this document. Please review these documents 52 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 53 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 54 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 55 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 56 described in the Simplified BSD License. 58 Table of Contents 60 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 61 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 3. Supporting P2MP TE LSP for Stateful PCE . . . . . . . . . . . 4 64 3.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 65 3.2. Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 66 4. Functions to Support P2MP TE LSPs for Stateful PCEs . . . . . 5 67 5. Architectural Overview of Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . 6 68 5.1. Extension of PCEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 69 5.2. Capability Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 70 5.3. IGP Extensions for Stateful PCE P2MP Capabilities 71 Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 72 5.4. State Synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 73 5.5. LSP Delegation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 74 5.6. LSP Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 75 5.6.1. Passive Stateful PCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 76 5.6.2. Active Stateful PCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 77 5.6.3. PCE-Initiated LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 78 5.6.3.1. P2MP TE LSP Instantiation . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 79 5.6.3.2. P2MP TE LSP Deletion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 80 5.6.3.3. Adding and Pruning Leaves for the P2MP TE LSP . . 9 81 5.6.3.4. P2MP TE LSP Delegation and Cleanup . . . . . . . 10 82 6. PCEP Message Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 83 6.1. The PCRpt Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 84 6.2. The PCUpd Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 85 6.3. The PCReq Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 86 6.4. The PCRep Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 87 6.5. The PCInitiate message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 88 6.6. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 89 6.6.1. P2MP TE LSP Update Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 90 6.6.2. P2MP TE LSP Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 91 7. PCEP Object Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 92 7.1. Extension of LSP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 93 7.2. P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIER TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 94 7.3. S2LS Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 95 8. Message Fragmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 96 8.1. Report Fragmentation Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 97 8.2. Update Fragmentation Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 98 8.3. PCIntiate Fragmentation Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 99 9. Non-Support of P2MP TE LSPs for Stateful PCE . . . . . . . . 23 100 10. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 101 10.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 102 10.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 103 10.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . 25 104 10.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 105 10.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 106 10.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 107 11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 108 11.1. PCE Capabilities in IGP Advertisements . . . . . . . . . 25 109 11.2. STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 110 11.3. Extension of LSP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 111 11.4. Extension of PCEP-Error Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 112 11.5. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 113 12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 114 13. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 115 14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 116 14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 117 14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 118 Appendix A. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 119 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 121 1. Introduction 123 As per [RFC4655], the Path Computation Element (PCE) is an entity 124 that is capable of computing a network path or route based on a 125 network graph, and applying computational constraints. A Path 126 Computation Client (PCC) may make requests to a PCE for paths to be 127 computed. 129 [RFC4857] describes how to set up point-to-multipoint (P2MP) Traffic 130 Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) for use in Multiprotocol 131 Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks. The 132 PCE has been identified as a suitable application for the computation 133 of paths for P2MP TE LSPs ([RFC5671]). 135 The PCEP is designed as a communication protocol between PCCs and 136 PCEs for point-to-point (P2P) path computations and is defined in 137 [RFC5440]. The extensions of PCEP to request path computation for 138 P2MP TE LSPs are described in [RFC6006]. 140 Stateful PCEs are shown to be helpful in many application scenarios, 141 in both MPLS and GMPLS networks, as illustrated in 142 [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app]. These scenarios apply equally to 143 P2P and P2MP TE LSPs. [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] provides the 144 fundamental extensions needed for stateful PCE to support general 145 functionality for P2P TE LSP. [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] 146 provides the an extensions needed for stateful PCE-initiated P2P TE 147 LSP. Complementarily, this document focuses on the extensions that 148 are necessary in order for the deployment of stateful PCEs to support 149 P2MP TE LSPs. This document describes the setup, maintenance and 150 teardown of PCE-initiated P2MP LSPs under the stateful PCE model. 152 1.1. Requirements Language 154 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 155 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 156 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 158 2. Terminology 160 Terminology used in this document is same as terminology used in 161 [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce], [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp], and 162 [RFC6006]. 164 3. Supporting P2MP TE LSP for Stateful PCE 166 3.1. Motivation 168 [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app] presents several use cases, 169 demonstrating scenarios that benefit from the deployment of a 170 stateful PCE including optimization, recovery, etc which are equally 171 applicable to P2MP TE LSPs. [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] defines the 172 extensions to PCEP for P2P TE LSPs. Complementarily, this document 173 focuses on the extensions that are necessary in order for the 174 deployment of stateful PCEs to support P2MP TE LSPs. 176 In addition to that, the stateful nature of a PCE simplifies the 177 information conveyed in PCEP messages since it is possible to refer 178 to the LSPs via PLSP-ID ([I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]). For P2MP this 179 is an added advantage, where the size of message is much larger. 180 Incase of stateless PCE, a modification of P2MP tree requires 181 encoding of all leaves along with the paths in PCReq message, but 182 using a stateful PCE with P2MP capability, the PCEP message can be 183 used to convey only the modifications (the other information can be 184 retrieved from the P2MP LSP identifier in the LSP database (LSPDB)). 186 In environments where the P2MP TE LSP placement needs to change in 187 response to application demands, it is useful to support dynamic 188 creation and tear down of P2MP TE LSPs. The ability for a PCE to 189 trigger the creation of P2MP TE LSPs on demand can be seamlessly 190 integrated into a controller-based network architecture, where 191 intelligence in the controller can determine when and where to set up 192 paths. Section 3 of [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] further 193 describes the motivation behind the PCE-Initiation capability, which 194 are equally applicable for P2MP TE LSPs. 196 3.2. Objectives 198 The objectives for the protocol extensions to support P2MP TE LSP for 199 stateful PCE are same as the objectives described in section 3.2 of 200 [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]. 202 4. Functions to Support P2MP TE LSPs for Stateful PCEs 204 [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] specifies new functions to support a 205 stateful PCE. It also specifies that a function can be initiated 206 either from a PCC towards a PCE (C-E) or from a PCE towards a PCC 207 (E-C). 209 This document extends these functions to support P2MP TE LSPs. 211 Capability Advertisement (E-C,C-E): both the PCC and the PCE must 212 announce during PCEP session establishment that they support PCEP 213 Stateful PCE extensions for P2MP using mechanisms defined in 214 Section 5.2. 216 LSP State Synchronization (C-E): after the session between the PCC 217 and a stateful PCE with P2MP capability is initialized, the PCE 218 must learn the state of a PCC's P2MP TE LSPs before it can perform 219 path computations or update LSP attributes in a PCC. 221 LSP Update Request (E-C): a stateful PCE with P2MP capability 222 requests modification of attributes on a PCC's P2MP TE LSP. 224 LSP State Report (C-E): a PCC sends an LSP state report to a PCE 225 whenever the state of a P2MP TE LSP changes. 227 LSP Control Delegation (C-E,E-C): a PCC grants to a PCE the right to 228 update LSP attributes on one or more P2MP TE LSPs; the PCE becomes 229 the authoritative source of the LSP's attributes as long as the 230 delegation is in effect (See Section 5.7 of 231 [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]); the PCC may withdraw the delegation 232 or the PCE may give up the delegation at any time. 234 PCE-initiated LSP instantiation (E-C): a PCE sends an LSP Initiate 235 Message to a PCC to instantiate or delete a P2MP TE LSP. 237 5. Architectural Overview of Protocol Extensions 239 5.1. Extension of PCEP Messages 241 New PCEP messages are defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] to 242 support stateful PCE for P2P TE LSPs. In this document these 243 messages are extended to support P2MP TE LSPs. 245 Path Computation State Report (PCRpt): Each P2MP TE LSP State Report 246 in a PCRpt message can contain actual P2MP TE LSP path attributes, 247 LSP status, etc. An LSP State Report carried on a PCRpt message 248 is also used in delegation or revocation of control of a P2MP TE 249 LSP to/from a PCE. The extension of PCRpt message is described in 250 Section 6.1. 252 Path Computation Update Request (PCUpd): Each P2MP TE LSP Update 253 Request in a PCUpd message MUST contain all LSP parameters that a 254 PCE wishes to set for a given P2MP TE LSP. An LSP Update Request 255 carried on a PCUpd message is also used to return LSP delegations 256 if at any point PCE no longer desires control of a P2MP TE LSP. 257 The PCUpd message is described in Section 6.2. 259 A new PCEP message is defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] to 260 support stateful PCE instantiation of P2P TE LSPs. In this document 261 this message is extended to support P2MP TE LSPs. 263 Path Computation LSP Initiate Message (PCInitiate): is a PCEP 264 message sent by a PCE to a PCC to trigger P2MP TE LSP 265 instantiation or deletion. The PCInitiate message is described in 266 Section 6.5. 268 5.2. Capability Advertisement 270 During PCEP Initialization Phase, as per Section 7.1.1 of 271 [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce], PCEP speakers advertises Stateful 272 capability via Stateful PCE Capability TLV in open message. Two new 273 flags are defined for the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV defined in 274 [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] and updated in 275 [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] and 276 [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations]. 278 Three new bits N (P2MP-CAPABILITY), M (P2MP-LSP-UPDATE-CAPABILITY), 279 and P (P2MP-LSP-INSTANTIATION-CAPABILITY) are added in this document: 281 N (P2MP-CAPABILITY - 1 bit): if set to 1 by a PCC, the N Flag 282 indicates that the PCC is willing to send P2MP LSP State Reports 283 whenever P2MP LSP parameters or operational status changes.; if 284 set to 1 by a PCE, the N Flag indicates that the PCE is interested 285 in receiving LSP State Reports whenever LSP parameters or 286 operational status changes. The P2MP-CAPABILITY Flag must be 287 advertised by both a PCC and a PCE for PCRpt messages P2MP 288 extension to be allowed on a PCEP session. 290 M (P2MP-LSP-UPDATE-CAPABILITY - 1 bit): if set to 1 by a PCC, the M 291 Flag indicates that the PCC allows modification of P2MP LSP 292 parameters; if set to 1 by a PCE, the M Flag indicates that the 293 PCE is capable of updating P2MP LSP parameters. The P2MP-LSP- 294 UPDATE-CAPABILITY Flag must be advertised by both a PCC and a PCE 295 for PCUpd messages P2MP extension to be allowed on a PCEP session. 297 P (P2MP-LSP-INSTANTIATION-CAPABILITY - 1 bit): If set to 1 by a PCC, 298 the P Flag indicates that the PCC allows instantiation of an P2MP 299 LSP by a PCE. If set to 1 by a PCE, the P flag indicates that the 300 PCE supports P2MP LSP instantiation. The P2MP-LSP-INSTANTIATION- 301 CAPABILITY flag must be set by both PCC and PCE in order to 302 support PCE-initiated P2MP LSP instantiation. 304 A PCEP speaker should continue to advertise the basic P2MP capability 305 via mechanisms as described in [RFC6006]. 307 5.3. IGP Extensions for Stateful PCE P2MP Capabilities Advertisement 309 When PCCs are LSRs participating in the IGP (OSPF or IS-IS), and PCEs 310 are either LSRs or servers also participating in the IGP, an 311 effective mechanism for PCE discovery within an IGP routing domain 312 consists of utilizing IGP advertisements. Extensions for the 313 advertisement of PCE Discovery Information are defined for OSPF and 314 for IS-IS in [RFC5088] and [RFC5089] respectively. 316 The PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV, defined in [RFC5089], is an optional sub- 317 TLV used to advertise PCE capabilities. It MAY be present within the 318 PCED sub-TLV carried by OSPF or IS-IS. [RFC5088] and [RFC5089] 319 provide the description and processing rules for this sub-TLV when 320 carried within OSPF and IS-IS, respectively. 322 The format of the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV is included below for easy 323 reference: 325 Type: 5 327 Length: Multiple of 4. 329 Value: This contains an array of units of 32 bit flags with the most 330 significant bit as 0. Each bit represents one PCE capability. 332 PCE capability bits are defined in [RFC5088]. This document defines 333 new capability bits for the stateful PCE with P2MP as follows: 335 Bit Capability 336 TBD Active Stateful PCE with P2MP 337 TBD Passive Stateful PCE with P2MP 338 TBD PCE-Initiation with P2MP 340 Note that while active, passive or initiation stateful PCE with P2MP 341 capabilities may be advertised during discovery, PCEP Speakers that 342 wish to use stateful PCEP MUST advertise stateful PCEP capabilities 343 during PCEP session setup, as specified in the current document. A 344 PCC MAY initiate stateful PCEP P2MP capability advertisement at PCEP 345 session setup even if it did not receive any IGP PCE capability 346 advertisements. 348 5.4. State Synchronization 350 State Synchronization operations described in Section 5.6 of 351 [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] are applicable for P2MP TE LSPs as well. 353 5.5. LSP Delegation 355 LSP delegation operations described in Section 5.7 of 356 [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] are applicable for P2MP TE LSPs as well. 358 5.6. LSP Operations 360 5.6.1. Passive Stateful PCE 362 LSP operations for passive stateful PCE described in Section 5.8.1 of 363 [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] are applicable for P2MP TE LSPs as well. 365 The Path Computation Request and Response message format for P2MP TE 366 LSPs is described in Section 3.4 and Section 3.5 of [RFC6006] 367 respectively. 369 The Request and Response message for P2MP TE LSPs are extended to 370 support encoding of LSP object, so that it is possible to refer to a 371 LSP with a unique identifier and simplify the PCEP message exchange. 372 For example, incase of modification of one leaf in a P2MP tree, there 373 should be no need to carry the full P2MP tree in PCReq message. 375 The extension for the Request and Response message for passive 376 stateful operations on P2MP TE LSPs are described in Section 6.3 and 377 Section 6.4. The extension for the Path Computation LSP State Report 378 (PCRpt) message is described in Section 6.1. 380 5.6.2. Active Stateful PCE 382 LSP operations for active stateful PCE described in Section 5.8.2 of 383 [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] are applicable for P2MP TE LSPs as well. 385 The extension for the Path Computation LSP Update (PCUpd) message for 386 active stateful operations on P2MP TE LSPs are described in 387 Section 6.2. 389 5.6.3. PCE-Initiated LSP 391 As per section 5.1 of [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp], the PCE sends 392 a Path Computation LSP Initiate Request (PCInitiate) message to the 393 PCC to suggest instantiation or deletion of a P2P TE LSP. This 394 document extends the PCInitiate message to support P2MP TE LSP (see 395 details in Section 6.5). 397 P2MP TE LSP suggested instantiation and deletion operations are same 398 as P2P LSP as described in section 5.3 and 5.4 of 399 [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]. 401 5.6.3.1. P2MP TE LSP Instantiation 403 The Instantiation operation of P2MP TE LSP is same as defined in 404 section 5.3 of [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] including handling of 405 PLSP-ID, SYMBOLIC-PATH-NAME TLV etc. Rules of processing and error 406 codes remains unchanged. The N bit MUST be set in LSP object in 407 PCInitiate message by PCE to specify the instantiation is for P2MP TE 408 LSP. 410 Though N bit is set in the LSP object, P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIER TLV MUST 411 NOT be included in the LSP object in PCIntiitate message as it SHOULD 412 be generated by PCC and carried in PCRpt message. 414 5.6.3.2. P2MP TE LSP Deletion 416 The deletion operation of P2MP TE LSP is same as defined in section 417 5.4 of [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] by sending an LSP Initiate 418 Message with an LSP object carrying the PLSP-ID of the LSP to be 419 removed and an SRP object with the R flag set (LSP-REMOVE as per 420 section 5.2 of [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]). Rules of 421 processing and error codes remains unchanged. 423 5.6.3.3. Adding and Pruning Leaves for the P2MP TE LSP 425 Adding of new leaves and Pruning of old Leaves for the PCE initiated 426 P2MP TE LSP MUST be carried in PCUpd message and SHOULD refer 427 Section 6.2 for P2MP TE LSP extensions. As defined in [RFC6006], 428 leaf type = 1 for adding of new leaves, leaf type = 2 for pruning of 429 old leaves of P2MP END-POINTS Object are used in PCUpd message. 431 PCC MAY use the Incremental State Update mechanims as described in 432 [RFC4875] to signal adding and pruning of leaves. 434 5.6.3.4. P2MP TE LSP Delegation and Cleanup 436 P2MP TE LSP delegation and cleanup operations are same as defined in 437 section 6 of [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]. Rules of processing 438 and error codes remains unchanged. 440 6. PCEP Message Extensions 442 6.1. The PCRpt Message 444 As per Section 6.1 of [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce], PCRpt message is 445 used to report the current state of a P2P TE LSP. This document 446 extends the PCRpt message in reporting the status of P2MP TE LSP. 448 The format of PCRpt message is as follows: 450 ::= 451 452 Where: 454 ::= 455 [] 457 ::= [] 458 459 460 461 Where: 463 ::= 464 [] 465 [] 466 467 [] 468 [] 470 ::= (|) 471 [] 473 ::= (|) 474 [] 476 is defined in [RFC5440] and 477 extended by PCEP extensions. 479 The P2MP END-POINTS object defined in [RFC6006] is mandatory for 480 specifying address of P2MP leaves grouped based on leaf types. 482 o New leaves to add (leaf type = 1) 484 o Old leaves to remove (leaf type = 2) 486 o Old leaves whose path can be modified/reoptimized (leaf type = 3) 488 o Old leaves whose path must be left unchanged (leaf type = 4) 490 When reporting the status of a P2MP TE LSP, the destinations are 491 grouped in END-POINTS object based on the operational status (O field 492 in S2LS object) and leaf type (in END-POINTS). This way the leaves 493 that share the same operational status are grouped together. For 494 reporting the status of delegated P2MP TE LSP, leaf-type = 3, where 495 as for non-delegated P2MP TE LSP, leaf-type = 4 is used. 497 For delegated P2MP TE LSP configuration changes are reported via 498 PCRpt message. For example, adding of new leaves END-POINTS (leaf- 499 type = 1) is used where as removing of old leaves (leaf-type = 2) is 500 used. 502 Note that we preserve compatibility with the 503 [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] definition of . At least 504 one instance of MUST be present in this message for P2MP 505 LSP. 507 During state synchronization, the PCRpt message must report the 508 status of the full P2MP TE LSP. 510 The S2LS object MUST be carried in PCRpt message along with END- 511 POINTS object when N bit is set in LSP object for P2MP TE LSP. If 512 the S2LS object is missing, the receiving PCE MUST send a PCErr 513 message with Error-type=6 (Mandatory Object missing) and Error- 514 value=TBD (S2LS object missing). If the END-POINTS object is 515 missing, the receiving PCE MUST send a PCErr message with Error- 516 type=6 (Mandatory Object missing) and Error-value=3 (END-POINTS 517 object missing) (defined in [RFC5440]. 519 6.2. The PCUpd Message 521 As per Section 6.2 of [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce], PCUpd message is 522 used to update P2P TE LSP attributes. This document extends the 523 PCUpd message in updating the attributes of P2MP TE LSP. 525 The format of a PCUpd message is as follows: 527 ::= 528 530 Where: 532 ::= 533 [] 535 ::= 536 537 539 540 Where: 542 ::= 543 [] 544 545 [] 547 ::= (|) 548 [] 550 is defined in [RFC5440] and 551 extended by PCEP extensions. 553 Note that we preserve compatibility with the 554 [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] definition of . 556 The PCC MAY use the make-before-break or sub-group-based procedures 557 described in [RFC4875] based on a local policy decision. 559 The END-POINTS object MUST be carried in PCUpd message when N bit is 560 set in LSP object for P2MP TE LSP. If the END-POINTS object is 561 missing, the receiving PCC MUST send a PCErr message with Error- 562 type=6 (Mandatory Object missing) and Error-value=3 (END-POINTS 563 object missing) (defined in [RFC5440]. 565 6.3. The PCReq Message 567 As per Section 3.4 of [RFC6006], PCReq message is used for a P2MP 568 path computation request. This document extends the PCReq message 569 such that a PCC MAY include the LSP object in the PCReq message if 570 the stateful PCE P2MP capability has been negotiated on a PCEP 571 session between the PCC and a PCE. 573 The format of PCReq message is as follows: 575 ::= 576 577 where: 578 ::= 579 580 [] 581 [] 582 [] 583 [] 584 [] 585 [] 586 [] 588 where: 589 ::=[][] 590 [] 592 ::=(|)[][] 593 ::=[] 595 6.4. The PCRep Message 597 As per Section 3.5 of [RFC6006], PCRep message is used for a P2MP 598 path computation reply. This document extends the PCRep message such 599 that a PCE MAY include the LSP object in the PCRep message if the 600 stateful PCE P2MP capability has been negotiated on a PCEP session 601 between the PCC and a PCE. 603 The format of PCRep message is as follows: 605 ::= 606 608 ::= 609 [] 610 [] 611 [] 613 where: 615 ::= 616 [][] 618 ::= (|) [] 620 ::=[] 621 [] 622 [] 623 [] 624 [] 625 [] 627 6.5. The PCInitiate message 629 As defined in section 5.1 of [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp], PCE 630 sends a PCInitiate message to a PCC to recommend instantiation of a 631 P2P TE LSP, this document extends the format of PCInitiate message 632 for the creation of P2MP TE LSPs but the creation and deletion 633 operations of P2MP TE LSP are same to the P2P TE LSP. 635 The format of PCInitiate message is as follows: 637 ::= 638 639 Where: 641 ::= 642 [] 644 ::= 645 (|) 647 ::= 648 649 650 [] 652 ::= 653 655 Where: 657 ::= 658 [] 659 660 [] 662 ::= (|) 663 [] 665 is defined in [RFC5440] and extended 666 by PCEP extensions. 668 The PCInitiate message with an LSP object with N bit (P2MP) set is 669 used to convey operation on a P2MP TE LSP. The SRP object is used to 670 correlate between initiation requests sent by the PCE and the error 671 reports and state reports sent by the PCC as described in 672 [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]. 674 The END-POINTS object MUST be carried in PCInitiate message when N 675 bit is set in LSP object for P2MP TE LSP. If the END-POINTS object 676 is missing, the receiving PCC MUST send a PCErr message with Error- 677 type=6 (Mandatory Object missing) and Error-value=3 (END-POINTS 678 object missing) (defined in [RFC5440]. 680 6.6. Example 682 6.6.1. P2MP TE LSP Update Request 684 LSP Update Request message is sent by an active stateful PCE to 685 update the P2MP TE LSP parameters or attributes. An example of a 686 PCUpd message for P2MP TE LSP is described below: 688 Common Header 689 SRP 690 LSP with P2MP flag set 691 END-POINTS for leaf type 3 692 ERO list 694 In this example, a stateful PCE request updation of path taken by 695 some of the leaves in a P2MP tree. The update request uses the END- 696 POINT type 3 (modified/reoptimized). The ERO list represents the 697 S2LS path after modification. The update message does not need to 698 encode the full P2MP tree in this case. 700 6.6.2. P2MP TE LSP Report 702 LSP State Report message is sent by a PCC to report or delegate the 703 P2MP TE LSP. An example of a PCRpt message for a delegated P2MP TE 704 LSP is described below to add new leaves to an existing P2MP TE LSP: 706 Common Header 707 LSP with P2MP flag set 708 END-POINTS for leaf type 1 709 S2LS (O=DOWN) 710 ERO list (empty) 712 An example of a PCRpt message for P2MP TE LSP is described below to 713 prune leaves from an existing P2MP TE LSP: 715 Common Header 716 LSP with P2MP flag set 717 END-POINTS for leaf type 2 718 S2LS (O=UP) 719 ERO list 721 An example of a PCRpt message for a delegated P2MP TE LSP is 722 described below to report status of leaves in an existing P2MP TE 723 LSP: 725 Common Header 726 LSP with P2MP flag set 727 END-POINTS for leaf type 3 728 S2LS (O=UP) 729 ERO list 730 END-POINTS for leaf type 3 731 S2LS (O=DOWN) 732 ERO list 734 An example of a PCRpt message for a non-delegated P2MP TE LSP is 735 described below to report status of leaves: 737 Common Header 738 LSP with P2MP flag set 739 END-POINTS for leaf type 4 740 S2LS (O=ACTIVE) 741 ERO list 742 END-POINTS for leaf type 4 743 S2LS (O=DOWN) 744 ERO list 746 7. PCEP Object Extensions 748 The PCEP TLV defined in this document is compliant with the PCEP TLV 749 format defined in [RFC5440]. 751 7.1. Extension of LSP Object 753 LSP Object is defined in Section 7.3 of [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]. 754 It specifies PLSP-ID to uniquely identify an LSP that is constant for 755 the life time of a PCEP session. Similarly for P2MP tunnel, PLSP-ID 756 identify a P2MP TE LSP uniquely. This document adds the following 757 flags to the LSP Object: 759 N (P2MP bit): If the bit is set to 1, it specifies the message is 760 for P2MP TE LSP which MUST be set in PCRpt or PCUpd message for a 761 P2MP TE LSP. 763 F (Fragmentation bit): If the bit is set to 1, it specifies the 764 message is fragmented. 766 If P2MP bit is set, the following P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIER TLV MUST be 767 present in LSP object. 769 7.2. P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIER TLV 771 The P2MP LSP Identifier TLV MUST be included in the LSP object in 772 PCRpt message for RSVP-TE signaled P2MP TE LSPs. If the TLV is 773 missing, the PCE will generate an error with error-type 6 (mandatory 774 object missing) and error-value TBD (P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV 775 missing) and close the PCEP session. 777 The P2MP LSP Identifier TLV MAY be included in the LSP object in 778 PCUpd message for RSVP-TE signaled P2MP TE LSPs. The special value 779 of all zeros for this TLV is used to refer to all paths pertaining to 780 a particular PLSP-ID. 782 There are two P2MP LSP Identifier TLVs, one for IPv4 and one for 783 IPv6. 785 The format of the IPV4-P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIER TLV is shown in the 786 following figure: 788 0 1 2 3 789 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 1 790 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 791 | Type=[TBD] | Length=16 | 792 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 793 | IPv4 Tunnel Sender Address | 794 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 795 | LSP ID | Tunnel ID | 796 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 797 | Extended Tunnel ID | 798 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 799 | P2MP ID | 800 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 802 Figure 6: IPV4-P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIER TLV format 804 The type (16-bit) of the TLV is [TBD] to be assigned by IANA. The 805 length (16-bit) has a fixed value of 16 octets. The value contains 806 the following fields: 808 IPv4 Tunnel Sender Address: contains the sender node's IPv4 address, 809 as defined in [RFC3209], Section 4.6.2.1 for the LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4 810 Sender Template Object. 812 LSP ID: contains the 16-bit 'LSP ID' identifier defined in 813 [RFC3209], Section 4.6.2.1 for the LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4 Sender Template 814 Object. 816 Tunnel ID: contains the 16-bit 'Tunnel ID' identifier defined in 817 [RFC3209], Section 4.6.1.1 for the LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4 Session Object. 819 Extended Tunnel ID: contains the 32-bit 'Extended Tunnel ID' 820 identifier defined in [RFC3209], Section 4.6.1.1 for the 821 LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4 Session Object. 823 P2MP ID: contains the 32-bit 'P2MP ID' identifier defined in 824 Section 19.1.1 of [RFC4875] for the P2MP LSP Tunnel IPv4 SESSION 825 Object. 827 The format of the IPV6-P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIER TLV is shown in the 828 following figure: 830 0 1 2 3 831 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 1 832 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 833 | Type=[TBD] | Length=40 | 834 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 835 | | 836 + + 837 | IPv6 tunnel sender address | 838 + (16 octets) + 839 | | 840 + + 841 | | 842 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 843 | LSP ID | Tunnel ID | 844 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 845 | | 846 + + 847 | Extended Tunnel ID | 848 + (16 octets) + 849 | | 850 + + 851 | | 852 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 853 | P2MP ID | 854 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 856 Figure 7: IPV6-P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIER TLV format 858 The type of the TLV is [TBD] to be assigned by IANA. The length 859 (16-bit) has a fixed length of 40 octets. The value contains the 860 following fields: 862 IPv6 Tunnel Sender Address: contains the sender node's IPv6 address, 863 as defined in [RFC3209], Section 4.6.2.2 for the LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 864 Sender Template Object. 866 LSP ID: contains the 16-bit 'LSP ID' identifier defined in 867 [RFC3209], Section 4.6.2.2 for the LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 Sender Template 868 Object. 870 Tunnel ID: contains the 16-bit 'Tunnel ID' identifier defined in 871 [RFC3209], Section 4.6.1.2 for the LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 Session Object. 873 Extended Tunnel ID: contains the 128-bit 'Extended Tunnel ID' 874 identifier defined in [RFC3209], Section 4.6.1.2 for the 875 LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 Session Object. 877 P2MP ID: As defined above in IPV4-P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV. 879 Tunnel ID remains constant over the life time of a tunnel. 881 7.3. S2LS Object 883 The S2LS (Source-to-Leaves) Object is used to report RSVP-TE state of 884 one or more destinations (leaves) encoded within the END-POINTS 885 object for a P2MP TE LSP. It MUST be carried in PCRpt message along 886 with END-POINTS object when N bit is set in LSP object. 888 S2LS Object-Class is [TBD]. 890 S2LS Object-Types is 1. 892 The format of the S2LS object is shown in the following figure: 894 0 1 2 3 895 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 1 896 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 897 | Flags | O| 898 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 899 | | 900 // Optional TLVs // 901 | | 902 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 904 Figure 8: S2LS object format 906 Flags(32 bits): 908 O(Operational - 3 bits) the O Field represents the operational 909 status of the group of destinations. The values are as per 910 Operational field in LSP object defined in Section 7.3 of 911 [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]. 913 When N bit is set in LSP object then the O field in LSP object 914 represents the operational status of the full P2MP TE LSP and the O 915 field in S2LS object represents the operational status of a group of 916 destinations encoded within the END-POINTS object. 918 Future documents MAY define optional TLVs that MAY be included in the 919 S2LS Object. 921 8. Message Fragmentation 923 The total PCEP message length, including the common header, is 16 924 bytes. In certain scenarios the P2MP report and update request may 925 not fit into a single PCEP message (e.g. initial report or update). 926 The F-bit is used in the LSP object to signal that the initial 927 report, update, or initiate message was too large to fit into a 928 single message and will be fragmented into multiple messages. In 929 order to identify the single report or update each message will use 930 the same PLSP-ID. In order to identify that a series of PCInitiate 931 messages represents a single Initiate, each message will use the same 932 PLSP-ID (in this case 0) and SRP-ID-number. 934 Fragmentation procedure described below for report or update message 935 is similar to [RFC6006] which describes request and response message 936 fragmentation. 938 8.1. Report Fragmentation Procedure 940 If the initial report is too large to fit into a single report 941 message, the PCC will split the report over multiple messages. Each 942 message sent to the PCE, except the last one, will have the F-bit set 943 in the LSP object to signify that the report has been fragmented into 944 multiple messages. In order to identify that a series of report 945 messages represents a single report, each message will use the same 946 PLSP-ID. 948 To indicate P2MP message fragmentation errors associated with a P2MP 949 Report, a Error-Type (18) and a new error-value TBD is used if a PCE 950 has not received the last piece of the fragmented message, it should 951 send an error message to the PCC to signal that it has received an 952 incomplete message (i.e., "Fragmented Report failure"). 954 8.2. Update Fragmentation Procedure 956 Once the PCE computes and updates a path for some or all leaves in a 957 P2MP TE LSP, an update message is sent to the PCC. If the update is 958 too large to fit into a single update message, the PCE will split the 959 update over multiple messages. Each update message sent by the PCE, 960 except the last one, will have the F-bit set in the LSP object to 961 signify that the update has been fragmented into multiple messages. 962 In order to identify that a series of update messages represents a 963 single update, each message will use the same PLSP-ID and SRP-ID- 964 number. 966 To indicate P2MP message fragmentation errors associated with a P2MP 967 Update request, a Error-Type (18) and a new error-value TBD is used 968 if a PCC has not received the last piece of the fragmented message, 969 it should send an error message to the PCE to signal that it has 970 received an incomplete message (i.e., "Fragmented Update failure"). 972 8.3. PCIntiate Fragmentation Procedure 974 Once the PCE initiates to set up the P2MP TE LSP, a PCInitiate 975 message is sent to the PCC. If the PCInitiate is too large to fit 976 into a single PCInitiate message, the PCE will split the PCInitiate 977 over multiple messages. Each PCInitiate message sent by the PCE, 978 except the last one, will have the F-bit set in the LSP object to 979 signify that the PCInitiate has been fragmented into multiple 980 messages. In order to identify that a series of PCInitiate messages 981 represents a single Initiate, each message will use the same PLSP-ID 982 (in this case 0) and SRP-ID-number. 984 To indicate P2MP message fragmentation errors associated with a P2MP 985 PCInitiate, a Error-Type (18) and a new error-value TBD is used if a 986 PCC has not received the last piece of the fragmented message, it 987 should send an error message to the PCE to signal that it has 988 received an incomplete message (i.e., "Fragmented Instantiation 989 failure"). 991 9. Non-Support of P2MP TE LSPs for Stateful PCE 993 The PCEP protocol extensions described in this document for stateful 994 PCEs with P2MP capability MUST NOT be used if PCE has not advertised 995 its stateful capability with P2MP as per Section 5.2. If the PCEP 996 Speaker on the PCC supports the extensions of this draft (understands 997 the P2MP flag in the LSP object) but did not advertise this 998 capability, then upon receipt of PCUpd message from the PCE, it 999 SHOULD generate a PCErr with error-type 19 (Invalid Operation), 1000 error-value TBD (Attempted LSP Update Request for P2MP if active 1001 stateful PCE capability for P2MP was not advertised). If the PCEP 1002 Speaker on the PCE supports the extensions of this draft (understands 1003 the P2MP flag in the LSP object) but did not advertise this 1004 capability, then upon receipt of a PCRpt message from the PCC, it 1005 SHOULD generate a PCErr with error-type 19 (Invalid Operation), 1006 error-value TBD (Attempted LSP State Report for P2MP if stateful PCE 1007 capability for P2MP was not advertised) and it will terminate the 1008 PCEP session. 1010 If a Stateful PCE receives a P2MP TE LSP report message and the PCE 1011 does not understand the P2MP flag in the LSP object, and therefore 1012 the PCEP extensions described in this document, then the Stateful PCE 1013 would act as per [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]. 1015 The PCEP protocol extensions described in this document for PCC or 1016 PCE with instantiation capability for P2MP TE LSPs MUST NOT be used 1017 if PCC or PCE has not advertised its stateful capability with 1018 Instantiation and P2MP capability as per Section 5.2. If the PCEP 1019 Speaker on the PCC supports the extensions of this draft (understands 1020 the P (P2MP-LSP-INSTANTIATION-CAPABILITY) flag in the LSP object) but 1021 did not advertise this capability, then upon receipt of PCInitiate 1022 message from the PCE, it SHOULD generate a PCErr with error-type 19 1023 (Invalid Operation), error-value TBD (Attempted LSP Instantiation 1024 Request for P2MP if stateful PCE instantiation capability for P2MP 1025 was not advertised). 1027 10. Manageability Considerations 1029 All manageability requirements and considerations listed in 1030 [RFC5440], [RFC6006], [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce], and 1031 [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] apply to PCEP protocol extensions 1032 defined in this document. In addition, requirements and 1033 considerations listed in this section apply. 1035 10.1. Control of Function and Policy 1037 A PCE or PCC implementation MUST allow configuring the stateful PCEP 1038 capability, the LSP Update capability, and the LSP Initiation 1039 capability for P2MP LSPs. 1041 10.2. Information and Data Models 1043 The PCEP MIB module SHOULD be extended to include advertised P2MP 1044 stateful capabilities, P2MP synchronization status, and P2MP 1045 delegation status etc. 1047 10.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring 1049 Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness 1050 detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already 1051 listed in [RFC5440]. 1053 10.4. Verify Correct Operations 1055 Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new operation 1056 verification requirements in addition to those already listed in 1057 [RFC5440], [RFC6006], [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce], and 1058 [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]. 1060 10.5. Requirements On Other Protocols 1062 Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new requirements 1063 on other protocols. 1065 10.6. Impact On Network Operations 1067 Mechanisms defined in this document do not have any impact on network 1068 operations in addition to those already listed in [RFC5440], 1069 [RFC6006], [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce], and 1070 [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]. 1072 11. IANA Considerations 1074 This document requests IANA actions to allocate code points for the 1075 protocol elements defined in this document. 1077 11.1. PCE Capabilities in IGP Advertisements 1079 IANA is requested to allocate new bits in "PCE Capability Flags" 1080 registry for stateful PCE with P2MP capability as follows: 1082 Bit Meaning Reference 1083 TBD Active Stateful [This I-D] 1084 PCE with P2MP 1085 TBD Passive Stateful [This I-D] 1086 PCE with P2MP 1087 TBD Stateful PCE [This I-D] 1088 Initiation with P2MP 1090 11.2. STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV 1092 The following values are defined in this document for the Flags field 1093 in the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY-TLV (defined in 1094 [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]) in the OPEN object: 1096 Bit Description Reference 1098 TBD P2MP-CAPABILITY This.I-D 1099 TBD P2MP-LSP-UPDATE- This.I-D 1100 CAPABILITY 1101 TBD P2MP-LSP- This.I-D 1102 INSTANTIATION- 1103 CAPABILITY 1105 11.3. Extension of LSP Object 1107 This document requests that a registry is created to manage the Flags 1108 field of the LSP object (defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]). 1109 New values are to be assigned by Standards Action [RFC5226]. Each 1110 bit should be tracked with the following qualities: 1112 o Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit) 1114 o Capability description 1116 o Defining RFC 1118 The following values are defined in this document: 1120 Bit Description Reference 1122 TBD P2MP This.I-D 1123 TBD Fragmentation This.I-D 1125 11.4. Extension of PCEP-Error Object 1127 A new 19 (recommended values) defined in section 8.5 of 1128 [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]. The error-type 6 is defined in 1129 [RFC5440] and error-type 18 in [RFC6006]. This document extend the 1130 new Error-Values for those error types for the following error 1131 conditions: 1133 Error-Type Meaning 1134 6 Mandatory Object missing 1135 Error-value=TBD: S2LS object missing 1136 Error-value=TBD: P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIER TLV missing 1137 18 P2MP Fragmentation Error 1138 Error-value= TBD. Fragmented Report 1139 failure 1140 Error-value= TBD. Fragmented Update 1141 failure 1142 Error-value= TBD. Fragmented Instantiation 1143 failure 1144 19 Invalid Operation 1145 Error-value= TBD. Attempted LSP State Report 1146 for P2MP if stateful PCE capability 1147 for P2MP was not advertised 1148 Error-value= TBD. Attempted LSP Update Request 1149 for P2MP if active stateful PCE capability 1150 for P2MP was not advertised 1151 Error-value= TBD. Attempted LSP Instantiation 1152 Request for P2MP if stateful PCE 1153 instantiation capability for P2MP was not 1154 advertised 1156 Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to make the 1157 assignment of a new error value for the existing "PCEP-ERROR Object 1158 Error Types and Values" registry located at 1159 http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-error-object. 1161 11.5. PCEP TLV Type Indicators 1163 Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to make the 1164 assignment of a new value for the existing "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" 1165 registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/ 1166 pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type-indicators. This document defines the 1167 following new PCEP TLVs: 1169 Value Meaning Reference 1170 TBD P2MP-IPV4-LSP-IDENTIFIERS This.I-D 1171 TBD P2MP-IPV6-LSP-IDENTIFIERS This.I-D 1173 12. Security Considerations 1175 The stateful operations on P2MP TE LSP are more CPU-intensive and 1176 also utilize more link bandwidth. In the event of an unauthorized 1177 stateful P2MP operations, or a denial of service attack, the 1178 subsequent PCEP operations may be disruptive to the network. 1179 Consequently, it is important that implementations conform to the 1180 relevant security requirements of [RFC5440], [RFC6006] and 1181 [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce], and [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]. 1182 Further [I-D.ietf-pce-pceps] discusses an experimental approach to 1183 provide secure transport for PCEP. 1185 13. Acknowledgments 1187 Thanks to Quintin Zhao, Avantika and Venugopal Reddy for his 1188 comments. 1190 14. References 1192 14.1. Normative References 1194 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 1195 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 1196 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 1197 . 1199 [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., 1200 and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP 1201 Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001, 1202 . 1204 [RFC5088] Le Roux, JL., Ed., Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R. 1205 Zhang, "OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path Computation 1206 Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5088, DOI 10.17487/RFC5088, 1207 January 2008, . 1209 [RFC5089] Le Roux, JL., Ed., Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R. 1210 Zhang, "IS-IS Protocol Extensions for Path Computation 1211 Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5089, DOI 10.17487/RFC5089, 1212 January 2008, . 1214 [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation 1215 Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, 1216 DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, 1217 . 1219 [RFC6006] Zhao, Q., Ed., King, D., Ed., Verhaeghe, F., Takeda, T., 1220 Ali, Z., and J. Meuric, "Extensions to the Path 1221 Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for 1222 Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched 1223 Paths", RFC 6006, DOI 10.17487/RFC6006, September 2010, 1224 . 1226 [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] 1227 Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "PCEP 1228 Extensions for Stateful PCE", draft-ietf-pce-stateful- 1229 pce-14 (work in progress), March 2016. 1231 [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations] 1232 Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., Varga, R., Zhang, X., 1233 and D. Dhody, "Optimizations of Label Switched Path State 1234 Synchronization Procedures for a Stateful PCE", draft- 1235 ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-05 (work in 1236 progress), April 2016. 1238 [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] 1239 Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "PCEP 1240 Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE 1241 Model", draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-06 (work in 1242 progress), July 2016. 1244 14.2. Informative References 1246 [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation 1247 Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, 1248 DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006, 1249 . 1251 [RFC4857] Fogelstroem, E., Jonsson, A., and C. Perkins, "Mobile IPv4 1252 Regional Registration", RFC 4857, DOI 10.17487/RFC4857, 1253 June 2007, . 1255 [RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Ed., and S. 1256 Yasukawa, Ed., "Extensions to Resource Reservation 1257 Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to- 1258 Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875, 1259 DOI 10.17487/RFC4875, May 2007, 1260 . 1262 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 1263 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, 1264 DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, 1265 . 1267 [RFC5671] Yasukawa, S. and A. Farrel, Ed., "Applicability of the 1268 Path Computation Element (PCE) to Point-to-Multipoint 1269 (P2MP) MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 5671, 1270 DOI 10.17487/RFC5671, October 2009, 1271 . 1273 [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app] 1274 Zhang, X. and I. Minei, "Applicability of a Stateful Path 1275 Computation Element (PCE)", draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce- 1276 app-06 (work in progress), July 2016. 1278 [I-D.ietf-pce-pceps] 1279 Lopez, D., Dios, O., Wu, W., and D. Dhody, "Secure 1280 Transport for PCEP", draft-ietf-pce-pceps-10 (work in 1281 progress), July 2016. 1283 Appendix A. Contributor Addresses 1285 Yuji Kamite 1286 NTT Communications Corporation 1287 Granpark Tower 1288 3-4-1 Shibaura, Minato-ku 1289 Tokyo 108-8118 1290 Japan 1292 EMail: y.kamite@ntt.com 1294 Authors' Addresses 1296 Udayasree Palle 1297 Huawei Technologies 1298 Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield 1299 Bangalore, Karnataka 560066 1300 India 1302 EMail: udayasree.palle@huawei.com 1304 Dhruv Dhody 1305 Huawei Technologies 1306 Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield 1307 Bangalore, Karnataka 560066 1308 India 1310 EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com 1312 Yosuke Tanaka 1313 NTT Communications Corporation 1314 Granpark Tower 1315 3-4-1 Shibaura, Minato-ku 1316 Tokyo 108-8118 1317 Japan 1319 EMail: yosuke.tanaka@ntt.com 1321 Zafar Ali 1322 Cisco Systems 1324 EMail: zali@cisco.com 1325 Vishnu Pavan Beeram 1326 Juniper Networks 1328 EMail: vbeeram@juniper.net