idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp-04.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 2, 2017) is 2484 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to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'This I-D' is mentioned on line 1195, but not defined == Outdated reference: A later version (-11) exists of draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-10 == Outdated reference: A later version (-04) exists of draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-02 == Outdated reference: A later version (-18) exists of draft-ietf-pce-pceps-14 == Outdated reference: A later version (-23) exists of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-05 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 6 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). 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 3, 2018 Y. Tanaka 6 NTT Communications 7 V. Beeram 8 Juniper Networks 9 July 2, 2017 11 Path Computation Element (PCE) Protocol Extensions for Stateful PCE 12 usage for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths 13 draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp-04 15 Abstract 17 The Path Computation Element (PCE) has been identified as an 18 appropriate technology for the determination of the paths of point- 19 to-multipoint (P2MP) TE LSPs. This document provides extensions 20 required for Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) 21 so as to enable the usage of a stateful PCE capability in supporting 22 P2MP TE LSPs. 24 Status of This Memo 26 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 27 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 29 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 30 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 31 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 32 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 34 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 35 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 36 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 37 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 39 This Internet-Draft will expire on January 3, 2018. 41 Copyright Notice 43 Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 44 document authors. All rights reserved. 46 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 47 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 48 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 49 publication of this document. Please review these documents 50 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 51 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 52 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 53 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 54 described in the Simplified BSD License. 56 Table of Contents 58 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 3. Supporting P2MP TE LSP for Stateful PCE . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 3.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 3.2. Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 64 4. Functions to Support P2MP TE LSPs for Stateful PCEs . . . . . 5 65 5. Architectural Overview of Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . 6 66 5.1. Extension of PCEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 67 5.2. Capability Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 68 5.3. IGP Extensions for Stateful PCE P2MP Capabilities 69 Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 70 5.4. State Synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 71 5.5. LSP Delegation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 72 5.6. LSP Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 73 5.6.1. Passive Stateful PCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 74 5.6.2. Active Stateful PCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 75 5.6.3. PCE-Initiated LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 76 5.6.3.1. P2MP TE LSP Instantiation . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 77 5.6.3.2. P2MP TE LSP Deletion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 78 5.6.3.3. Adding and Pruning Leaves for the P2MP TE LSP . . 10 79 5.6.3.4. P2MP TE LSP Delegation and Cleanup . . . . . . . 10 80 6. PCEP Message Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 81 6.1. The PCRpt Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 82 6.2. The PCUpd Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 83 6.3. The PCReq Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 84 6.4. The PCRep Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 85 6.5. The PCInitiate message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 86 6.6. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 87 6.6.1. P2MP TE LSP Update Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 88 6.6.2. P2MP TE LSP Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 89 7. PCEP Object Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 90 7.1. Extension of LSP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 91 7.2. P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIER TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 92 7.3. S2LS Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 93 8. Message Fragmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 94 8.1. Report Fragmentation Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 95 8.2. Update Fragmentation Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 96 8.3. PCIntiate Fragmentation Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 98 9. Non-Support of P2MP TE LSPs for Stateful PCE . . . . . . . . 23 99 10. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 100 10.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 101 10.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 102 10.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . 25 103 10.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 104 10.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 105 10.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 106 11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 107 11.1. PCE Capabilities in IGP Advertisements . . . . . . . . . 25 108 11.2. STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 109 11.3. LSP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 110 11.4. PCEP-Error Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 111 11.5. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 112 11.6. PCEP object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 113 11.7. S2LS object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 114 12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 115 13. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 116 14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 117 14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 118 14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 119 Appendix A. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 120 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 122 1. Introduction 124 As per [RFC4655], the Path Computation Element (PCE) is an entity 125 that is capable of computing a network path or route based on a 126 network graph, and applying computational constraints. A Path 127 Computation Client (PCC) may make requests to a PCE for paths to be 128 computed. 130 [RFC4857] describes how to set up point-to-multipoint (P2MP) Traffic 131 Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) for use in Multiprotocol 132 Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks. The 133 PCE has been identified as a suitable application for the computation 134 of paths for P2MP TE LSPs ([RFC5671]). 136 The PCEP is designed as a communication protocol between PCCs and 137 PCEs for point-to-point (P2P) path computations and is defined in 138 [RFC5440]. The extensions of PCEP to request path computation for 139 P2MP TE LSPs are described in [I-D.ietf-pce-rfc6006bis]. 141 Stateful PCEs are shown to be helpful in many application scenarios, 142 in both MPLS and GMPLS networks, as illustrated in [RFC8051]. These 143 scenarios apply equally to P2P and P2MP TE LSPs. 144 [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] provides the fundamental extensions 145 needed for stateful PCE to support general functionality for P2P TE 146 LSP. [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] provides the an extensions 147 needed for stateful PCE-initiated P2P TE LSP. Complementarily, this 148 document focuses on the extensions that are necessary in order for 149 the deployment of stateful PCEs to support P2MP TE LSPs. This 150 document describes the setup, maintenance and teardown of PCE- 151 initiated P2MP LSPs under the stateful PCE model. 153 1.1. Requirements Language 155 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 156 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 157 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 159 2. Terminology 161 Terminology used in this document is same as terminology used in 162 [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce], [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp], and 163 [I-D.ietf-pce-rfc6006bis]. 165 3. Supporting P2MP TE LSP for Stateful PCE 167 3.1. Motivation 169 [RFC8051] presents several use cases, demonstrating scenarios that 170 benefit from the deployment of a stateful PCE including optimization, 171 recovery, etc which are equally applicable to P2MP TE LSPs. 172 [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] defines the extensions to PCEP for P2P TE 173 LSPs. Complementarily, this document focuses on the extensions that 174 are necessary in order for the deployment of stateful PCEs to support 175 P2MP TE LSPs. 177 In addition to that, the stateful nature of a PCE simplifies the 178 information conveyed in PCEP messages since it is possible to refer 179 to the LSPs via PLSP-ID ([I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]). For P2MP this 180 is an added advantage, where the size of message is much larger. In 181 case of stateless PCE, a modification of P2MP tree requires encoding 182 of all leaves along with the paths in PCReq message, but using a 183 stateful PCE with P2MP capability, the PCEP message can be used to 184 convey only the modifications (the other information can be retrieved 185 from the P2MP LSP identifier in the LSP database (LSPDB)). 187 In environments where the P2MP TE LSP placement needs to change in 188 response to application demands, it is useful to support dynamic 189 creation and tear down of P2MP TE LSPs. The ability for a PCE to 190 trigger the creation of P2MP TE LSPs on demand can be seamlessly 191 integrated into a controller-based network architecture, where 192 intelligence in the controller can determine when and where to set up 193 paths. Section 3 of [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] further 194 describes the motivation behind the PCE-Initiation capability, which 195 are equally applicable for P2MP TE LSPs. 197 3.2. Objectives 199 The objectives for the protocol extensions to support P2MP TE LSP for 200 stateful PCE are same as the objectives described in section 3.2 of 201 [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]. 203 4. Functions to Support P2MP TE LSPs for Stateful PCEs 205 [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] specifies new functions to support a 206 stateful PCE. It also specifies that a function can be initiated 207 either from a PCC towards a PCE (C-E) or from a PCE towards a PCC 208 (E-C). 210 This document extends these functions to support P2MP TE LSPs. 212 Capability Advertisement (E-C,C-E): both the PCC and the PCE must 213 announce during PCEP session establishment that they support PCEP 214 Stateful PCE extensions for P2MP using mechanisms defined in 215 Section 5.2. 217 LSP State Synchronization (C-E): after the session between the PCC 218 and a stateful PCE with P2MP capability is initialized, the PCE 219 must learn the state of a PCC's P2MP TE LSPs before it can perform 220 path computations or update LSP attributes in a PCC. 222 LSP Update Request (E-C): a stateful PCE with P2MP capability 223 requests modification of attributes on a PCC's P2MP TE LSP. 225 LSP State Report (C-E): a PCC sends an LSP state report to a PCE 226 whenever the state of a P2MP TE LSP changes. 228 LSP Control Delegation (C-E,E-C): a PCC grants to a PCE the right to 229 update LSP attributes on one or more P2MP TE LSPs; the PCE becomes 230 the authoritative source of the LSP's attributes as long as the 231 delegation is in effect (See Section 5.7 of 232 [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]); the PCC may withdraw the delegation 233 or the PCE may give up the delegation at any time. 235 PCE-initiated LSP instantiation (E-C): a PCE sends an LSP Initiate 236 Message to a PCC to instantiate or delete a P2MP TE LSP. 238 5. Architectural Overview of Protocol Extensions 240 5.1. Extension of PCEP Messages 242 New PCEP messages are defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] to 243 support stateful PCE for P2P TE LSPs. In this document these 244 messages are extended to support P2MP TE LSPs. 246 Path Computation State Report (PCRpt): Each P2MP TE LSP State Report 247 in a PCRpt message can contain actual P2MP TE LSP path attributes, 248 LSP status, etc. An LSP State Report carried on a PCRpt message 249 is also used in delegation or revocation of control of a P2MP TE 250 LSP to/from a PCE. The extension of PCRpt message is described in 251 Section 6.1. 253 Path Computation Update Request (PCUpd): Each P2MP TE LSP Update 254 Request in a PCUpd message MUST contain all LSP parameters that a 255 PCE wishes to set for a given P2MP TE LSP. An LSP Update Request 256 carried on a PCUpd message is also used to return LSP delegations 257 if at any point PCE no longer desires control of a P2MP TE LSP. 258 The PCUpd message is described in Section 6.2. 260 A new PCEP message is defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] to 261 support stateful PCE instantiation of P2P TE LSPs. In this document 262 this message is extended to support P2MP TE LSPs. 264 Path Computation LSP Initiate Message (PCInitiate): is a PCEP 265 message sent by a PCE to a PCC to trigger P2MP TE LSP 266 instantiation or deletion. The PCInitiate message is described in 267 Section 6.5. 269 The path computation request (PCReq) and path computation reply 270 (PCRep) messages are also extended to support stateful PCE for P2P TE 271 LSP in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]. In this document these messages 272 are extended to support P2MP TE LSPs as well. 274 5.2. Capability Advertisement 276 During PCEP Initialization Phase, as per Section 7.1.1 of 277 [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce], PCEP speakers advertises Stateful 278 capability via Stateful PCE Capability TLV in open message. Two new 279 flags are defined for the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV defined in 280 [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] and updated in 281 [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] and 282 [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations]. 284 Three new bits N (P2MP-CAPABILITY), M (P2MP-LSP-UPDATE-CAPABILITY), 285 and P (P2MP-LSP-INSTANTIATION-CAPABILITY) are added in this document: 287 N (P2MP-CAPABILITY bit - TBD4): if set to 1 by a PCC, the N Flag 288 indicates that the PCC is willing to send P2MP LSP State Reports 289 whenever P2MP LSP parameters or operational status changes.; if 290 set to 1 by a PCE, the N Flag indicates that the PCE is interested 291 in receiving LSP State Reports whenever LSP parameters or 292 operational status changes. The P2MP-CAPABILITY Flag must be 293 advertised by both a PCC and a PCE for PCRpt messages P2MP 294 extension to be allowed on a PCEP session. 296 M (P2MP-LSP-UPDATE-CAPABILITY bit - TBD5): if set to 1 by a PCC, the 297 M Flag indicates that the PCC allows modification of P2MP LSP 298 parameters; if set to 1 by a PCE, the M Flag indicates that the 299 PCE is capable of updating P2MP LSP parameters. The P2MP-LSP- 300 UPDATE-CAPABILITY Flag must be advertised by both a PCC and a PCE 301 for PCUpd messages P2MP extension to be allowed on a PCEP session. 303 P (P2MP-LSP-INSTANTIATION-CAPABILITY bit - TBD6): If set to 1 by a 304 PCC, the P Flag indicates that the PCC allows instantiation of an 305 P2MP LSP by a PCE. If set to 1 by a PCE, the P flag indicates 306 that the PCE supports P2MP LSP instantiation. The P2MP-LSP- 307 INSTANTIATION-CAPABILITY flag must be set by both PCC and PCE in 308 order to support PCE-initiated P2MP LSP instantiation. 310 A PCEP speaker should continue to advertise the basic P2MP capability 311 via mechanisms as described in [I-D.ietf-pce-rfc6006bis]. 313 5.3. IGP Extensions for Stateful PCE P2MP Capabilities Advertisement 315 When PCCs are LSRs participating in the IGP (OSPF or IS-IS), and PCEs 316 are either LSRs or servers also participating in the IGP, an 317 effective mechanism for PCE discovery within an IGP routing domain 318 consists of utilizing IGP advertisements. Extensions for the 319 advertisement of PCE Discovery Information are defined for OSPF and 320 for IS-IS in [RFC5088] and [RFC5089] respectively. 322 The PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV, defined in [RFC5089], is an optional sub- 323 TLV used to advertise PCE capabilities. It MAY be present within the 324 PCED sub-TLV carried by OSPF or IS-IS. [RFC5088] and [RFC5089] 325 provide the description and processing rules for this sub-TLV when 326 carried within OSPF and IS-IS, respectively. 328 The format of the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV is included below for easy 329 reference: 331 Type: 5 333 Length: Multiple of 4. 335 Value: This contains an array of units of 32 bit flags with the most 336 significant bit as 0. Each bit represents one PCE capability. 338 PCE capability bits are defined in [RFC5088]. This document defines 339 new capability bits for the stateful PCE with P2MP as follows: 341 Bit Capability 342 TBD1 Active Stateful PCE with P2MP 343 TBD2 Passive Stateful PCE with P2MP 344 TBD3 PCE-Initiation with P2MP 346 Note that while active, passive or initiation stateful PCE with P2MP 347 capabilities may be advertised during discovery, PCEP Speakers that 348 wish to use stateful PCEP MUST advertise stateful PCEP capabilities 349 during PCEP session setup, as specified in the current document. A 350 PCC MAY initiate stateful PCEP P2MP capability advertisement at PCEP 351 session setup even if it did not receive any IGP PCE capability 352 advertisements. 354 5.4. State Synchronization 356 State Synchronization operations described in Section 5.6 of 357 [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] are applicable for P2MP TE LSPs as well. 358 The optimizations described in 359 [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations] can also be applied for 360 P2MP. 362 5.5. LSP Delegation 364 LSP delegation operations described in Section 5.7 of 365 [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] are applicable for P2MP TE LSPs as well. 367 5.6. LSP Operations 369 5.6.1. Passive Stateful PCE 371 LSP operations for passive stateful PCE described in Section 5.8.1 of 372 [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] are applicable for P2MP TE LSPs as well. 374 The Path Computation Request and Response message format for P2MP TE 375 LSPs is described in Section 3.4 and Section 3.5 of 376 [I-D.ietf-pce-rfc6006bis] respectively. 378 The Request and Response message for P2MP TE LSPs are extended to 379 support encoding of LSP object, so that it is possible to refer to a 380 LSP with a unique identifier and simplify the PCEP message exchange. 381 For example, in case of modification of one leaf in a P2MP tree, 382 there should be no need to carry the full P2MP tree in PCReq message. 384 The extension for the Request and Response message for passive 385 stateful operations on P2MP TE LSPs are described in Section 6.3 and 386 Section 6.4. The extension for the Path Computation LSP State Report 387 (PCRpt) message is described in Section 6.1. 389 5.6.2. Active Stateful PCE 391 LSP operations for active stateful PCE described in Section 5.8.2 of 392 [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] are applicable for P2MP TE LSPs as well. 394 The extension for the Path Computation LSP Update (PCUpd) message for 395 active stateful operations on P2MP TE LSPs are described in 396 Section 6.2. 398 5.6.3. PCE-Initiated LSP 400 As per section 5.1 of [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp], the PCE sends 401 a Path Computation LSP Initiate Request (PCInitiate) message to the 402 PCC to suggest instantiation or deletion of a P2P TE LSP. This 403 document extends the PCInitiate message to support P2MP TE LSP (see 404 details in Section 6.5). 406 P2MP TE LSP suggested instantiation and deletion operations are same 407 as P2P LSP as described in section 5.3 and 5.4 of 408 [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]. 410 5.6.3.1. P2MP TE LSP Instantiation 412 The Instantiation operation of P2MP TE LSP is same as defined in 413 section 5.3 of [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] including handling of 414 PLSP-ID, SYMBOLIC-PATH-NAME TLV etc. Rules of processing and error 415 codes remains unchanged. The N bit MUST be set in LSP object in 416 PCInitiate message by PCE to specify the instantiation is for P2MP TE 417 LSP. 419 Though N bit is set in the LSP object, P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIER TLV MUST 420 NOT be included in the LSP object in PCIntiitate message as it SHOULD 421 be generated by PCC and carried in PCRpt message. 423 5.6.3.2. P2MP TE LSP Deletion 425 The deletion operation of P2MP TE LSP is same as defined in section 426 5.4 of [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] by sending an LSP Initiate 427 Message with an LSP object carrying the PLSP-ID of the LSP to be 428 removed and an SRP object with the R flag set (LSP-REMOVE as per 429 section 5.2 of [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]). Rules of 430 processing and error codes remains unchanged. 432 5.6.3.3. Adding and Pruning Leaves for the P2MP TE LSP 434 Adding of new leaves and Pruning of old Leaves for the PCE initiated 435 P2MP TE LSP MUST be carried in PCUpd message as per Section 6.2 for 436 P2MP TE LSP extensions. As defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-rfc6006bis], 437 leaf type = 1 for adding of new leaves, leaf type = 2 for pruning of 438 old leaves of P2MP END-POINTS Object are used in PCUpd message. 440 PCC MAY use the Incremental State Update mechanism as described in 441 [RFC4875] to signal adding and pruning of leaves. 443 5.6.3.4. P2MP TE LSP Delegation and Cleanup 445 P2MP TE LSP delegation and cleanup operations are same as defined in 446 section 6 of [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]. Rules of processing 447 and error codes remains unchanged. 449 6. PCEP Message Extensions 451 6.1. The PCRpt Message 453 As per Section 6.1 of [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce], PCRpt message is 454 used to report the current state of a P2P TE LSP. This document 455 extends the PCRpt message in reporting the status of P2MP TE LSP. 457 The format of PCRpt message is as follows: 459 ::= 460 461 Where: 463 ::= 464 [] 466 ::= [] 467 468 469 [ 470 ] 471 473 Where: 475 ::= 476 [] 477 [] 478 479 [] 481 ::= 482 [] 483 484 [] 486 ::= (|) 487 [] 489 ::= (|) 490 [] 492 is defined in [RFC5440] and 493 extended by PCEP extensions. 494 consists of the actual computed and 495 signaled values of the and 496 objects defined in [RFC5440]. 498 The P2MP END-POINTS object defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-rfc6006bis] is 499 mandatory for specifying address of P2MP leaves grouped based on leaf 500 types. 502 o New leaves to add (leaf type = 1) 504 o Old leaves to remove (leaf type = 2) 505 o Old leaves whose path can be modified/reoptimized (leaf type = 3) 507 o Old leaves whose path must be left unchanged (leaf type = 4) 509 When reporting the status of a P2MP TE LSP, the destinations are 510 grouped in END-POINTS object based on the operational status (O field 511 in S2LS object) and leaf type (in END-POINTS). This way the leaves 512 that share the same operational status are grouped together. For 513 reporting the status of delegated P2MP TE LSP, leaf-type = 3, where 514 as for non-delegated P2MP TE LSP, leaf-type = 4 is used. 516 For delegated P2MP TE LSP configuration changes are reported via 517 PCRpt message. For example, adding of new leaves END-POINTS (leaf- 518 type = 1) is used where as removing of old leaves (leaf-type = 2) is 519 used. 521 Note that we preserve compatibility with the 522 [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] definition of . At least 523 one instance of MUST be present in this message for P2MP 524 LSP. 526 During state synchronization, the PCRpt message must report the 527 status of the full P2MP TE LSP. 529 The S2LS object MUST be carried in PCRpt message along with END- 530 POINTS object when N bit is set in LSP object for P2MP TE LSP. If 531 the S2LS object is missing, the receiving PCE MUST send a PCErr 532 message with Error-type=6 (Mandatory Object missing) and Error- 533 value=TBD11 (S2LS object missing). If the END-POINTS object is 534 missing, the receiving PCE MUST send a PCErr message with Error- 535 type=6 (Mandatory Object missing) and Error-value=3 (END-POINTS 536 object missing) (defined in [RFC5440]. 538 6.2. The PCUpd Message 540 As per Section 6.2 of [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce], PCUpd message is 541 used to update P2P TE LSP attributes. This document extends the 542 PCUpd message in updating the attributes of P2MP TE LSP. 544 The format of a PCUpd message is as follows: 546 ::= 547 549 Where: 551 ::= 552 [] 554 ::= 555 556 557 559 Where: 561 ::= 562 [] 563 564 [] 566 ::= (|) 567 [] 569 is defined in [RFC5440] and 570 extended by PCEP extensions. 572 Note that we preserve compatibility with the 573 [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] definition of . 575 The PCC MAY use the make-before-break or sub-group-based procedures 576 described in [RFC4875] based on a local policy decision. 578 The END-POINTS object MUST be carried in PCUpd message when N bit is 579 set in LSP object for P2MP TE LSP. If the END-POINTS object is 580 missing, the receiving PCC MUST send a PCErr message with Error- 581 type=6 (Mandatory Object missing) and Error-value=3 (END-POINTS 582 object missing) (defined in [RFC5440]. 584 6.3. The PCReq Message 586 As per Section 3.4 of [I-D.ietf-pce-rfc6006bis], PCReq message is 587 used for a P2MP path computation request. This document extends the 588 PCReq message such that a PCC MAY include the LSP object in the PCReq 589 message if the stateful PCE P2MP capability has been negotiated on a 590 PCEP session between the PCC and a PCE. 592 The format of PCReq message is as follows: 594 ::= 595 [] 596 598 where: 600 ::= 601 [] 602 [] 603 [] 605 ::=[] 607 ::= 608 609 [] 610 [] 611 [] 612 [] 613 [] 614 [|] 615 [] 617 ::= 618 [[]] 619 [] 621 ::=(|)[] 622 ::=[] 624 6.4. The PCRep Message 626 As per Section 3.5 of [I-D.ietf-pce-rfc6006bis], PCRep message is 627 used for a P2MP path computation reply. This document extends the 628 PCRep message such that a PCE MAY include the LSP object in the PCRep 629 message if the stateful PCE P2MP capability has been negotiated on a 630 PCEP session between the PCC and a PCE. 632 The format of PCRep message is as follows: 634 ::= 635 637 where: 639 ::=[] 641 ::= 642 [] 643 [] 644 [] 645 [] 646 [] 648 ::= [] 649 650 [] 652 ::= (|) [] 654 ::=[] 655 [] 656 [] 657 [] 658 [] 660 6.5. The PCInitiate message 662 As defined in section 5.1 of [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp], PCE 663 sends a PCInitiate message to a PCC to recommend instantiation of a 664 P2P TE LSP, this document extends the format of PCInitiate message 665 for the creation of P2MP TE LSPs but the creation and deletion 666 operations of P2MP TE LSP are same to the P2P TE LSP. 668 The format of PCInitiate message is as follows: 670 ::= 671 672 Where: 674 ::= 675 [] 677 ::= 678 (|) 680 ::= 681 682 683 [] 685 ::= 686 688 Where: 690 ::= 691 [] 692 693 [] 695 ::= (|) 696 [] 698 is defined in [RFC5440] and extended 699 by PCEP extensions. 701 The PCInitiate message with an LSP object with N bit (P2MP) set is 702 used to convey operation on a P2MP TE LSP. The SRP object is used to 703 correlate between initiation requests sent by the PCE and the error 704 reports and state reports sent by the PCC as described in 705 [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]. 707 The END-POINTS object MUST be carried in PCInitiate message when N 708 bit is set in LSP object for P2MP TE LSP. If the END-POINTS object 709 is missing, the receiving PCC MUST send a PCErr message with Error- 710 type=6 (Mandatory Object missing) and Error-value=3 (END-POINTS 711 object missing) (defined in [RFC5440]. 713 6.6. Example 715 6.6.1. P2MP TE LSP Update Request 717 LSP Update Request message is sent by an active stateful PCE to 718 update the P2MP TE LSP parameters or attributes. An example of a 719 PCUpd message for P2MP TE LSP is described below: 721 Common Header 722 SRP 723 LSP with P2MP flag set 724 END-POINTS for leaf type 3 725 ERO list 727 In this example, a stateful PCE request updation of path taken by 728 some of the leaves in a P2MP tree. The update request uses the END- 729 POINT type 3 (modified/reoptimized). The ERO list represents the 730 S2LS path after modification. The update message does not need to 731 encode the full P2MP tree in this case. 733 6.6.2. P2MP TE LSP Report 735 LSP State Report message is sent by a PCC to report or delegate the 736 P2MP TE LSP. An example of a PCRpt message for a delegated P2MP TE 737 LSP is described below to add new leaves to an existing P2MP TE LSP: 739 Common Header 740 LSP with P2MP flag set 741 END-POINTS for leaf type 1 742 S2LS (O=DOWN) 743 ERO list (empty) 745 An example of a PCRpt message for P2MP TE LSP is described below to 746 prune leaves from an existing P2MP TE LSP: 748 Common Header 749 LSP with P2MP flag set 750 END-POINTS for leaf type 2 751 S2LS (O=UP) 752 ERO list 754 An example of a PCRpt message for a delegated P2MP TE LSP is 755 described below to report status of leaves in an existing P2MP TE 756 LSP: 758 Common Header 759 LSP with P2MP flag set 760 END-POINTS for leaf type 3 761 S2LS (O=UP) 762 ERO list 763 END-POINTS for leaf type 3 764 S2LS (O=DOWN) 765 ERO list 767 An example of a PCRpt message for a non-delegated P2MP TE LSP is 768 described below to report status of leaves: 770 Common Header 771 LSP with P2MP flag set 772 END-POINTS for leaf type 4 773 S2LS (O=ACTIVE) 774 ERO list 775 END-POINTS for leaf type 4 776 S2LS (O=DOWN) 777 ERO list 779 7. PCEP Object Extensions 781 The PCEP TLV defined in this document is compliant with the PCEP TLV 782 format defined in [RFC5440]. 784 7.1. Extension of LSP Object 786 LSP Object is defined in Section 7.3 of [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]. 787 It specifies PLSP-ID to uniquely identify an LSP that is constant for 788 the life time of a PCEP session. Similarly for P2MP tunnel, PLSP-ID 789 identify a P2MP TE LSP uniquely. This document adds the following 790 flags to the LSP Object: 792 N (P2MP bit - TBD7): If the bit is set to 1, it specifies the 793 message is for P2MP TE LSP which MUST be set in PCRpt or PCUpd 794 message for a P2MP TE LSP. 796 F (Fragmentation bit - TBD8): If the bit is set to 1, it specifies 797 the message is fragmented. 799 If P2MP bit is set, the following P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIER TLV MUST be 800 present in LSP object. 802 7.2. P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIER TLV 804 The P2MP LSP Identifier TLV MUST be included in the LSP object in 805 PCRpt message for RSVP-TE signaled P2MP TE LSPs. If the TLV is 806 missing, the PCE will generate an error with error-type 6 (mandatory 807 object missing) and error-value TBD12 (P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIER TLV 808 missing) and close the PCEP session. 810 The P2MP LSP Identifier TLV MAY be included in the LSP object in 811 PCUpd message for RSVP-TE signaled P2MP TE LSPs. The special value 812 of all zeros for this TLV is used to refer to all paths pertaining to 813 a particular PLSP-ID. 815 There are two P2MP LSP Identifier TLVs, one for IPv4 and one for 816 IPv6. 818 The format of the IPV4-P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIER TLV is shown in the 819 following figure: 821 0 1 2 3 822 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 1 823 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 824 | Type=TBD9 | Length=16 | 825 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 826 | IPv4 Tunnel Sender Address | 827 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 828 | LSP ID | Tunnel ID | 829 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 830 | Extended Tunnel ID | 831 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 832 | P2MP ID | 833 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 835 Figure 6: IPV4-P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIER TLV format 837 The type (16-bit) of the TLV is TBD9 to be assigned by IANA. The 838 length (16-bit) has a fixed value of 16 octets. The value contains 839 the following fields: 841 IPv4 Tunnel Sender Address: contains the sender node's IPv4 address, 842 as defined in [RFC3209], Section 4.6.2.1 for the LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4 843 Sender Template Object. 845 LSP ID: contains the 16-bit 'LSP ID' identifier defined in 846 [RFC3209], Section 4.6.2.1 for the LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4 Sender Template 847 Object. 849 Tunnel ID: contains the 16-bit 'Tunnel ID' identifier defined in 850 [RFC3209], Section 4.6.1.1 for the LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4 Session Object. 852 Extended Tunnel ID: contains the 32-bit 'Extended Tunnel ID' 853 identifier defined in [RFC3209], Section 4.6.1.1 for the 854 LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4 Session Object. 856 P2MP ID: contains the 32-bit 'P2MP ID' identifier defined in 857 Section 19.1.1 of [RFC4875] for the P2MP LSP Tunnel IPv4 SESSION 858 Object. 860 The format of the IPV6-P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIER TLV is shown in the 861 following figure: 863 0 1 2 3 864 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 1 865 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 866 | Type=TBD10 | Length=40 | 867 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 868 | | 869 + + 870 | IPv6 tunnel sender address | 871 + (16 octets) + 872 | | 873 + + 874 | | 875 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 876 | LSP ID | Tunnel ID | 877 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 878 | | 879 + + 880 | Extended Tunnel ID | 881 + (16 octets) + 882 | | 883 + + 884 | | 885 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 886 | P2MP ID | 887 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 889 Figure 7: IPV6-P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIER TLV format 891 The type of the TLV is TBD10 to be assigned by IANA. The length 892 (16-bit) has a fixed length of 40 octets. The value contains the 893 following fields: 895 IPv6 Tunnel Sender Address: contains the sender node's IPv6 address, 896 as defined in [RFC3209], Section 4.6.2.2 for the LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 897 Sender Template Object. 899 LSP ID: contains the 16-bit 'LSP ID' identifier defined in 900 [RFC3209], Section 4.6.2.2 for the LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 Sender Template 901 Object. 903 Tunnel ID: contains the 16-bit 'Tunnel ID' identifier defined in 904 [RFC3209], Section 4.6.1.2 for the LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 Session Object. 906 Extended Tunnel ID: contains the 128-bit 'Extended Tunnel ID' 907 identifier defined in [RFC3209], Section 4.6.1.2 for the 908 LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 Session Object. 910 P2MP ID: As defined above in IPV4-P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV. 912 Tunnel ID remains constant over the life time of a tunnel. 914 7.3. S2LS Object 916 The S2LS (Source-to-Leaves) Object is used to report RSVP-TE state of 917 one or more destinations (leaves) encoded within the END-POINTS 918 object for a P2MP TE LSP. It MUST be carried in PCRpt message along 919 with END-POINTS object when N bit is set in LSP object. 921 S2LS Object-Class is TBD19. 923 S2LS Object-Types is 1. 925 The format of the S2LS object is shown in the following figure: 927 0 1 2 3 928 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 1 929 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 930 | Flags | O| 931 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 932 | | 933 // Optional TLVs // 934 | | 935 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 937 Figure 8: S2LS object format 939 Flags(32 bits): 941 O(Operational - 3 bits) the O Field represents the operational 942 status of the group of destinations. The values are as per 943 Operational field in LSP object defined in Section 7.3 of 944 [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]. 946 When N bit is set in LSP object then the O field in LSP object 947 represents the operational status of the full P2MP TE LSP and the O 948 field in S2LS object represents the operational status of a group of 949 destinations encoded within the END-POINTS object. 951 Future documents MAY define optional TLVs that MAY be included in the 952 S2LS Object. 954 8. Message Fragmentation 956 The total PCEP message length, including the common header, is 16 957 bytes. In certain scenarios the P2MP report and update request may 958 not fit into a single PCEP message (e.g. initial report or update). 959 The F-bit is used in the LSP object to signal that the initial 960 report, update, or initiate message was too large to fit into a 961 single message and will be fragmented into multiple messages. In 962 order to identify the single report or update each message will use 963 the same PLSP-ID. In order to identify that a series of PCInitiate 964 messages represents a single Initiate, each message will use the same 965 PLSP-ID (in this case 0) and SRP-ID-number. 967 Fragmentation procedure described below for report or update message 968 is similar to [I-D.ietf-pce-rfc6006bis] which describes request and 969 response message fragmentation. 971 8.1. Report Fragmentation Procedure 973 If the initial report is too large to fit into a single report 974 message, the PCC will split the report over multiple messages. Each 975 message sent to the PCE, except the last one, will have the F-bit set 976 in the LSP object to signify that the report has been fragmented into 977 multiple messages. In order to identify that a series of report 978 messages represents a single report, each message will use the same 979 PLSP-ID. 981 To indicate P2MP message fragmentation errors associated with a P2MP 982 Report, a Error-Type (18) for "P2MP Fragmentation Error" and a new 983 error-value TBD13 is used if a PCE has not received the last piece of 984 the fragmented message, it should send an error message to the PCC to 985 signal that it has received an incomplete message (i.e., "Fragmented 986 Report failure"). 988 8.2. Update Fragmentation Procedure 990 Once the PCE computes and updates a path for some or all leaves in a 991 P2MP TE LSP, an update message is sent to the PCC. If the update is 992 too large to fit into a single update message, the PCE will split the 993 update over multiple messages. Each update message sent by the PCE, 994 except the last one, will have the F-bit set in the LSP object to 995 signify that the update has been fragmented into multiple messages. 996 In order to identify that a series of update messages represents a 997 single update, each message will use the same PLSP-ID and SRP-ID- 998 number. 1000 To indicate P2MP message fragmentation errors associated with a P2MP 1001 Update request, a Error-Type (18) for "P2MP Fragmentation Error" and 1002 a new error-value TBD14 is used if a PCC has not received the last 1003 piece of the fragmented message, it should send an error message to 1004 the PCE to signal that it has received an incomplete message (i.e., 1005 "Fragmented Update failure"). 1007 8.3. PCIntiate Fragmentation Procedure 1009 Once the PCE initiates to set up the P2MP TE LSP, a PCInitiate 1010 message is sent to the PCC. If the PCInitiate is too large to fit 1011 into a single PCInitiate message, the PCE will split the PCInitiate 1012 over multiple messages. Each PCInitiate message sent by the PCE, 1013 except the last one, will have the F-bit set in the LSP object to 1014 signify that the PCInitiate has been fragmented into multiple 1015 messages. In order to identify that a series of PCInitiate messages 1016 represents a single Initiate, each message will use the same PLSP-ID 1017 (in this case 0) and SRP-ID-number. 1019 To indicate P2MP message fragmentation errors associated with a P2MP 1020 PCInitiate, a Error-Type (18) for "P2MP Fragmentation Error" and a 1021 new error-value TBD15 is used if a PCC has not received the last 1022 piece of the fragmented message, it should send an error message to 1023 the PCE to signal that it has received an incomplete message (i.e., 1024 "Fragmented Instantiation failure"). 1026 9. Non-Support of P2MP TE LSPs for Stateful PCE 1028 The PCEP protocol extensions described in this document for stateful 1029 PCEs with P2MP capability MUST NOT be used if PCE has not advertised 1030 its stateful capability with P2MP as per Section 5.2. If the PCEP 1031 Speaker on the PCC supports the extensions of this draft (understands 1032 the P2MP flag in the LSP object) but did not advertise this 1033 capability, then upon receipt of PCUpd message from the PCE, it 1034 SHOULD generate a PCErr with error-type 19 (Invalid Operation), 1035 error-value TBD17 (Attempted LSP Update Request for P2MP if active 1036 stateful PCE capability for P2MP was not advertised). If the PCEP 1037 Speaker on the PCE supports the extensions of this draft (understands 1038 the P2MP flag in the LSP object) but did not advertise this 1039 capability, then upon receipt of a PCRpt message from the PCC, it 1040 SHOULD generate a PCErr with error-type 19 (Invalid Operation), 1041 error-value TBD16 (Attempted LSP State Report for P2MP if stateful 1042 PCE capability for P2MP was not advertised) and it will terminate the 1043 PCEP session. 1045 If a Stateful PCE receives a P2MP TE LSP report message and the PCE 1046 does not understand the P2MP flag in the LSP object, and therefore 1047 the PCEP extensions described in this document, then the Stateful PCE 1048 would act as per [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]. 1050 The PCEP protocol extensions described in this document for PCC or 1051 PCE with instantiation capability for P2MP TE LSPs MUST NOT be used 1052 if PCC or PCE has not advertised its stateful capability with 1053 Instantiation and P2MP capability as per Section 5.2. If the PCEP 1054 Speaker on the PCC supports the extensions of this draft (understands 1055 the P (P2MP-LSP-INSTANTIATION-CAPABILITY) flag in the LSP object) but 1056 did not advertise this capability, then upon receipt of PCInitiate 1057 message from the PCE, it SHOULD generate a PCErr with error-type 19 1058 (Invalid Operation), error-value TBD18 (Attempted LSP Instantiation 1059 Request for P2MP if stateful PCE instantiation capability for P2MP 1060 was not advertised). 1062 10. Manageability Considerations 1064 All manageability requirements and considerations listed in 1065 [RFC5440], [I-D.ietf-pce-rfc6006bis], [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce], 1066 and [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] apply to PCEP protocol 1067 extensions defined in this document. In addition, requirements and 1068 considerations listed in this section apply. 1070 10.1. Control of Function and Policy 1072 A PCE or PCC implementation MUST allow configuring the stateful PCEP 1073 capability, the LSP Update capability, and the LSP Initiation 1074 capability for P2MP LSPs. 1076 10.2. Information and Data Models 1078 The PCEP YANG module [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] SHOULD be extended to 1079 include advertised P2MP stateful capabilities, P2MP synchronization 1080 status, and delegation status of P2MP LSP etc. The statistics module 1081 should also count P2MP LSP related data. 1083 10.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring 1085 Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness 1086 detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already 1087 listed in [RFC5440]. 1089 10.4. Verify Correct Operations 1091 Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new operation 1092 verification requirements in addition to those already listed in 1093 [RFC5440], [I-D.ietf-pce-rfc6006bis], [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce], 1094 and [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]. 1096 10.5. Requirements On Other Protocols 1098 Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new requirements 1099 on other protocols. 1101 10.6. Impact On Network Operations 1103 Mechanisms defined in this document do not have any impact on network 1104 operations in addition to those already listed in [RFC5440], 1105 [I-D.ietf-pce-rfc6006bis], [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce], and 1106 [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]. 1108 Stateful PCE feature for P2MP LSP would help with network operations. 1110 11. IANA Considerations 1112 This document requests IANA actions to allocate code points for the 1113 protocol elements defined in this document. 1115 11.1. PCE Capabilities in IGP Advertisements 1117 IANA is requested to allocate new bits in the OSPF Parameters "PCE 1118 Capability Flags" registry, as follows: 1120 Bit Meaning Reference 1121 TBD1 Active Stateful [This I-D] 1122 PCE with P2MP 1123 TBD2 Passive Stateful [This I-D] 1124 PCE with P2MP 1125 TBD3 Stateful PCE [This I-D] 1126 Initiation with P2MP 1128 11.2. STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV 1130 The STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV is defined in 1131 [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] and a registry is requested to be 1132 created to manage the flags in the TLV. IANA is requested to make 1133 the following allocations in the aforementioned registry. 1135 Bit Description Reference 1137 TBD4 P2MP-CAPABILITY [This I-D] 1138 TBD5 P2MP-LSP-UPDATE- [This I-D] 1139 CAPABILITY 1140 TBD6 P2MP-LSP- [This I-D] 1141 INSTANTIATION- 1142 CAPABILITY 1144 11.3. LSP Object 1146 The LSP object is defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] and a 1147 registry is created to manage the Flags field of the LSP object. 1149 IANA is requested to make the following allocations in the 1150 aforementioned registry. 1152 Bit Description Reference 1154 TBD7 P2MP [This I-D] 1155 TBD8 Fragmentation [This I-D] 1157 11.4. PCEP-Error Object 1159 IANA is requested to allocate new error values within the "PCEP-ERROR 1160 Object Error Types and Values" sub-registry of the PCEP Numbers 1161 registry, as follows: 1163 Error-Type Meaning 1164 6 Mandatory Object missing [RFC5440] 1165 Error-value=TBD11: S2LS object missing 1166 Error-value=TBD12: P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIER TLV missing 1167 18 P2MP Fragmentation Error [I-D.ietf-pce-rfc6006bis] 1168 Error-value= TBD13. Fragmented Report 1169 failure 1170 Error-value= TBD14. Fragmented Update 1171 failure 1172 Error-value= TBD15. Fragmented Instantiation 1173 failure 1174 19 Invalid Operation [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] 1175 Error-value= TBD16. Attempted LSP State Report 1176 for P2MP if stateful PCE capability 1177 for P2MP was not advertised 1178 Error-value= TBD17. Attempted LSP Update Request 1179 for P2MP if active stateful PCE capability 1180 for P2MP was not advertised 1181 Error-value= TBD18. Attempted LSP Instantiation 1182 Request for P2MP if stateful PCE 1183 instantiation capability for P2MP was not 1184 advertised 1186 Reference for all new Error-Value above is [This I-D]. 1188 11.5. PCEP TLV Type Indicators 1190 IANA is requested to make the assignment of a new value for the 1191 existing "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" registry as follows: 1193 Value Meaning Reference 1194 TBD9 P2MP-IPV4-LSP-IDENTIFIERS [This I-D] 1195 TBD10 P2MP-IPV6-LSP-IDENTIFIERS [This I-D] 1197 11.6. PCEP object 1199 IANA is requested to allocate new object-class values and object 1200 types within the "PCEP Objects" sub-registry of the PCEP Numbers 1201 registry, as follows. 1203 Object-Class Value Name Reference 1205 TBD19 S2LS [This.I-D] 1206 Object-Type 1207 0: Reserved 1208 1: S2LS 1210 11.7. S2LS object 1212 This document requests that a new sub-registry, named "S2LS Object 1213 Flag Field", is created within the "Path Computation Element Protocol 1214 (PCEP) Numbers" registry to manage the Flag field of the S2LS 1215 object.New values are to be assigned by Standards Action [RFC8126]. 1216 Each bit should be tracked with the following qualities: 1218 o Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit) 1220 o Capability description 1222 o Defining RFC 1224 The following values are defined in this document: 1226 Bit Description Reference 1228 29-31 Operational (3-bit) [This.I-D] 1230 12. Security Considerations 1232 The stateful operations on P2MP TE LSP are more CPU-intensive and 1233 also utilize more bandwidth on wire. In the event of an unauthorized 1234 stateful P2MP operations, or a denial of service attack, the 1235 subsequent PCEP operations may be disruptive to the network. 1236 Consequently, it is important that implementations conform to the 1237 relevant security requirements of [RFC5440], 1238 [I-D.ietf-pce-rfc6006bis] and [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce], and 1239 [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]. Further [I-D.ietf-pce-pceps] 1240 discusses an enhanced approach to provide secure transport for PCEP 1241 via Transport Layer Security (TLS). 1243 13. Acknowledgments 1245 Thanks to Quintin Zhao, Avantika and Venugopal Reddy for his 1246 comments. 1248 14. References 1250 14.1. Normative References 1252 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 1253 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 1254 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 1255 . 1257 [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., 1258 and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP 1259 Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001, 1260 . 1262 [RFC5088] Le Roux, JL., Ed., Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R. 1263 Zhang, "OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path Computation 1264 Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5088, DOI 10.17487/RFC5088, 1265 January 2008, . 1267 [RFC5089] Le Roux, JL., Ed., Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R. 1268 Zhang, "IS-IS Protocol Extensions for Path Computation 1269 Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5089, DOI 10.17487/RFC5089, 1270 January 2008, . 1272 [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation 1273 Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, 1274 DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, 1275 . 1277 [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] 1278 Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "PCEP 1279 Extensions for Stateful PCE", draft-ietf-pce-stateful- 1280 pce-21 (work in progress), June 2017. 1282 [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations] 1283 Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., Varga, R., Zhang, X., 1284 and D. Dhody, "Optimizations of Label Switched Path State 1285 Synchronization Procedures for a Stateful PCE", draft- 1286 ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-10 (work in 1287 progress), March 2017. 1289 [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] 1290 Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "PCEP 1291 Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE 1292 Model", draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-10 (work in 1293 progress), June 2017. 1295 [I-D.ietf-pce-rfc6006bis] 1296 Zhao, Q., Dhody, D., Palleti, R., and D. King, "Extensions 1297 to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol 1298 (PCEP) for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label 1299 Switched Paths", draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-02 (work in 1300 progress), April 2017. 1302 14.2. Informative References 1304 [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation 1305 Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, 1306 DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006, 1307 . 1309 [RFC4857] Fogelstroem, E., Jonsson, A., and C. Perkins, "Mobile IPv4 1310 Regional Registration", RFC 4857, DOI 10.17487/RFC4857, 1311 June 2007, . 1313 [RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Ed., and S. 1314 Yasukawa, Ed., "Extensions to Resource Reservation 1315 Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to- 1316 Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875, 1317 DOI 10.17487/RFC4875, May 2007, 1318 . 1320 [RFC5671] Yasukawa, S. and A. Farrel, Ed., "Applicability of the 1321 Path Computation Element (PCE) to Point-to-Multipoint 1322 (P2MP) MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 5671, 1323 DOI 10.17487/RFC5671, October 2009, 1324 . 1326 [RFC8051] Zhang, X., Ed. and I. Minei, Ed., "Applicability of a 1327 Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)", RFC 8051, 1328 DOI 10.17487/RFC8051, January 2017, 1329 . 1331 [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for 1332 Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, 1333 RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, 1334 . 1336 [I-D.ietf-pce-pceps] 1337 Lopez, D., Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody, "Secure 1338 Transport for PCEP", draft-ietf-pce-pceps-14 (work in 1339 progress), May 2017. 1341 [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] 1342 Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V., and j. 1343 jefftant@gmail.com, "A YANG Data Model for Path 1344 Computation Element Communications Protocol (PCEP)", 1345 draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-05 (work in progress), June 2017. 1347 Appendix A. Contributor Addresses 1349 Yuji Kamite 1350 NTT Communications Corporation 1351 Granpark Tower 1352 3-4-1 Shibaura, Minato-ku 1353 Tokyo 108-8118 1354 Japan 1356 EMail: y.kamite@ntt.com 1358 Authors' Addresses 1360 Udayasree Palle 1361 Huawei Technologies 1362 Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield 1363 Bangalore, Karnataka 560066 1364 India 1366 EMail: udayasreereddy@gmail.com 1368 Dhruv Dhody 1369 Huawei Technologies 1370 Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield 1371 Bangalore, Karnataka 560066 1372 India 1374 EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com 1376 Yosuke Tanaka 1377 NTT Communications Corporation 1378 Granpark Tower 1379 3-4-1 Shibaura, Minato-ku 1380 Tokyo 108-8118 1381 Japan 1383 EMail: yosuke.tanaka@ntt.com 1385 Vishnu Pavan Beeram 1386 Juniper Networks 1388 EMail: vbeeram@juniper.net