idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp-06.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 (March 4, 2018) is 2245 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 1178, but not defined -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 7525 (Obsoleted by RFC 9325) == Outdated reference: A later version (-23) exists of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-06 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 2 comments (--).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: September 5, 2018 Y. Tanaka 6 NTT Communications 7 V. Beeram 8 Juniper Networks 9 March 4, 2018 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-06 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 Label Switched Paths (LSPs). This document 20 provides extensions required for Path Computation Element 21 Communication Protocol (PCEP) so as to enable the usage of a stateful 22 PCE capability in supporting 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 https://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 September 5, 2018. 41 Copyright Notice 43 Copyright (c) 2018 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 (https://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 . . . . . . . . 5 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 . . 9 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 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 [RFC8306]. 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. [RFC8231] provides 144 the fundamental extensions needed for stateful PCE to support general 145 functionality for P2P TE LSP. [RFC8281] provides the an extensions 146 needed for stateful PCE-initiated P2P TE LSP. Complementarily, this 147 document focuses on the extensions that are necessary in order for 148 the deployment of stateful PCEs to support P2MP TE LSPs. This 149 document describes the setup, maintenance and teardown of PCE- 150 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", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 156 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 157 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 158 capitals, as shown here. 160 2. Terminology 162 Terminology used in this document is same as terminology used in 163 [RFC8231], [RFC8281], and [RFC8306]. 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 [RFC8231] defines the extensions to PCEP for P2P TE LSPs. 173 Complementarily, this document focuses on the extensions that are 174 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 ([RFC8231]). For P2MP this is an added 180 advantage, where the size of message is much larger. In case of 181 stateless PCE, a modification of P2MP tree requires encoding of all 182 leaves along with the paths in PCEP message, but using a stateful PCE 183 with P2MP capability, the PCEP message can be used to convey only the 184 modifications (the other information can be retrieved from the P2MP 185 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 [RFC8281] further describes the motivation 194 behind the PCE-Initiation capability, which is equally applicable to 195 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 [RFC8231]. 203 4. Functions to Support P2MP TE LSPs for Stateful PCEs 205 [RFC8231] specifies new functions to support a stateful PCE. It also 206 specifies that a function can be initiated either from a PCC towards 207 a PCE (C-E) or from a PCE towards a PCC (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 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 [RFC8231]); the PCC 231 may withdraw the delegation or the PCE may give up the delegation 232 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 [RFC8281]. 237 5. Architectural Overview of Protocol Extensions 238 5.1. Extension of PCEP Messages 240 New PCEP messages are defined in [RFC8231] to support stateful PCE 241 for P2P TE LSPs. In this document these messages are extended to 242 support P2MP TE LSPs. 244 Path Computation State Report (PCRpt): Each P2MP TE LSP State Report 245 in a PCRpt message can contain actual P2MP TE LSP path attributes, 246 LSP status, etc. An LSP State Report carried in a PCRpt message 247 is also used in delegation or revocation of control of a P2MP TE 248 LSP to/from a PCE. The extension of PCRpt message is described in 249 Section 6.1. 251 Path Computation Update Request (PCUpd): Each P2MP TE LSP Update 252 Request in a PCUpd message MUST contain all LSP parameters that a 253 PCE wishes to set for a given P2MP TE LSP. An LSP Update Request 254 carried in a PCUpd message is also used to return LSP delegations 255 if at any point PCE no longer desires control of a P2MP TE LSP. 256 The PCUpd message is described in Section 6.2. 258 A PCEP message is defined in [RFC8281] to support stateful PCE 259 instantiation of P2P TE LSPs. In this document this message is 260 extended to support P2MP TE LSPs. 262 Path Computation LSP Initiate Message (PCInitiate): is a PCEP 263 message sent by a PCE to a PCC to trigger P2MP TE LSP 264 instantiation or deletion. The PCInitiate message is described in 265 Section 6.5. 267 The path computation request (PCReq) and path computation reply 268 (PCRep) messages are also extended to support passive stateful PCE 269 for P2P TE LSP in [RFC8231]. In this document these messages are 270 extended to support P2MP TE LSPs as well. 272 5.2. Capability Advertisement 274 During PCEP Initialization Phase, as per Section 7.1.1 of [RFC8231], 275 PCEP speakers advertises Stateful capability via Stateful PCE 276 Capability TLV in open message. Various flags are defined for the 277 STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV defined in [RFC8231] and updated in 278 [RFC8281] and [RFC8232]. 280 Three new bits N (P2MP-CAPABILITY), M (P2MP-LSP-UPDATE-CAPABILITY), 281 and P (P2MP-LSP-INSTANTIATION-CAPABILITY) are added in this document: 283 N (P2MP-CAPABILITY bit - TBD4): if set to 1 by a PCC, the N Flag 284 indicates that the PCC is willing to send P2MP LSP State Reports 285 whenever P2MP LSP parameters or operational status changes.; if 286 set to 1 by a PCE, the N Flag indicates that the PCE is interested 287 in receiving LSP State Reports whenever LSP parameters or 288 operational status changes. The P2MP-CAPABILITY Flag must be 289 advertised by both a PCC and a PCE for PCRpt messages P2MP 290 extension to be allowed on a PCEP session. 292 M (P2MP-LSP-UPDATE-CAPABILITY bit - TBD5): if set to 1 by a PCC, the 293 M Flag indicates that the PCC allows modification of P2MP LSP 294 parameters; if set to 1 by a PCE, the M Flag indicates that the 295 PCE is capable of updating P2MP LSP parameters. The P2MP-LSP- 296 UPDATE-CAPABILITY Flag must be advertised by both a PCC and a PCE 297 for PCUpd messages P2MP extension to be allowed on a PCEP session. 299 P (P2MP-LSP-INSTANTIATION-CAPABILITY bit - TBD6): If set to 1 by a 300 PCC, the P Flag indicates that the PCC allows instantiation of an 301 P2MP LSP by a PCE. If set to 1 by a PCE, the P flag indicates 302 that the PCE supports P2MP LSP instantiation. The P2MP-LSP- 303 INSTANTIATION-CAPABILITY flag must be set by both PCC and PCE in 304 order to support PCE-initiated P2MP LSP instantiation. 306 A PCEP speaker should continue to advertise the basic P2MP capability 307 via mechanisms as described in [RFC8306]. 309 5.3. IGP Extensions for Stateful PCE P2MP Capabilities Advertisement 311 When PCCs are LSRs participating in the IGP (OSPF or IS-IS), and PCEs 312 are either LSRs or servers also participating in the IGP, an 313 effective mechanism for PCE discovery within an IGP routing domain 314 consists of utilizing IGP advertisements. Extensions for the 315 advertisement of PCE Discovery Information are defined for OSPF and 316 for IS-IS in [RFC5088] and [RFC5089] respectively. 318 The PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV, defined in [RFC5089], is an optional sub- 319 TLV used to advertise PCE capabilities. It MAY be present within the 320 PCED sub-TLV carried by OSPF or IS-IS. [RFC5088] and [RFC5089] 321 provide the description and processing rules for this sub-TLV when 322 carried within OSPF and IS-IS, respectively. 324 The format of the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV is included below for easy 325 reference: 327 Type: 5 329 Length: Multiple of 4. 331 Value: This contains an array of units of 32 bit flags with the most 332 significant bit as 0. Each bit represents one PCE capability. 334 PCE capability bits are defined in [RFC5088]. This document defines 335 new capability bits for the stateful PCE with P2MP as follows: 337 Bit Capability 338 TBD1 Active Stateful PCE with P2MP 339 TBD2 Passive Stateful PCE with P2MP 340 TBD3 PCE-Initiation with P2MP 342 Note that while active, passive or initiation stateful PCE with P2MP 343 capabilities may be advertised during discovery, PCEP Speakers that 344 wish to use stateful PCEP MUST advertise stateful PCEP capabilities 345 during PCEP session setup, as specified in the current document. A 346 PCC MAY initiate stateful PCEP P2MP capability advertisement at PCEP 347 session setup even if it did not receive any IGP PCE capability 348 advertisements. 350 5.4. State Synchronization 352 State Synchronization operations (described in Section 5.6 of 353 [RFC8231]) are applicable for the P2MP TE LSPs as well. The 354 optimizations described in [RFC8232] can also be applied for P2MP TE 355 LSPs. 357 5.5. LSP Delegation 359 LSP delegation operations (described in Section 5.7 of [RFC8231]) are 360 applicable for P2MP TE LSPs as well. 362 5.6. LSP Operations 364 5.6.1. Passive Stateful PCE 366 LSP operations for passive stateful PCE (described in Section 5.8.1 367 of [RFC8231]) are applicable for P2MP TE LSPs as well. 369 The PCReq and PCRep message format for P2MP TE LSPs is described in 370 Section 3.4 and Section 3.5 of [RFC8306] respectively. 372 The PCReq and PCRep message for P2MP TE LSPs are extended to support 373 encoding of LSP object, so that it is possible to refer to a LSP with 374 a unique identifier and simplify the PCEP message exchange. For 375 example, in case of modification of one leaf in a P2MP tree, there 376 should be no need to carry the full P2MP tree in PCReq message. 378 The extension for the Request and Response message for passive 379 stateful operations on P2MP TE LSPs are described in Section 6.3 and 380 Section 6.4. The extension for the Path Computation LSP State Report 381 (PCRpt) message is described in Section 6.1. 383 5.6.2. Active Stateful PCE 385 LSP operations for active stateful PCE (described in Section 5.8.2 of 386 [RFC8231]) are applicable for P2MP TE LSPs as well. 388 The extension for the Path Computation LSP Update (PCUpd) message for 389 active stateful operations on P2MP TE LSPs are described in 390 Section 6.2. 392 5.6.3. PCE-Initiated LSP 394 As per section 5.1 of [RFC8281], the PCE sends a Path Computation LSP 395 Initiate Request (PCInitiate) message to the PCC to suggest 396 instantiation or deletion of a P2P TE LSP. This document extends the 397 PCInitiate message to support P2MP TE LSP (see details in 398 Section 6.5). 400 The P2MP TE LSP suggested instantiation and deletion operations are 401 same as P2P LSP as described in section 5.3 and 5.4 of [RFC8281]. 403 5.6.3.1. P2MP TE LSP Instantiation 405 The Instantiation operation of P2MP TE LSP is same as defined in 406 section 5.3 of [RFC8281] including handling of PLSP-ID, SYMBOLIC- 407 PATH-NAME TLV etc. Rules of processing and error codes remains 408 unchanged. The N (P2MP) bit (Section 7.1) MUST be set in LSP object 409 in PCInitiate message by PCE to specify the instantiation is for P2MP 410 TE LSP. Like the PLSP-ID as per [RFC8281], the P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIER 411 TLV SHOULD NOT be included in the LSP object in PCIntiitate message 412 (as it is generated by PCC and carried in PCRpt message instead) and 413 MUST be ignored on receipt. 415 5.6.3.2. P2MP TE LSP Deletion 417 The deletion operation of P2MP TE LSP is same as defined in section 418 5.4 of [RFC8281] by sending an LSP Initiate Message with an LSP 419 object carrying the PLSP-ID of the LSP to be removed and an SRP 420 object with the R flag set (LSP-REMOVE as per section 5.2 of 421 [RFC8281]). Rules of 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 as per Section 6.2 for 427 P2MP TE LSP extensions. As defined in [RFC8306], leaf type = 1 for 428 adding of new leaves, leaf type = 2 for pruning of old leaves of P2MP 429 END-POINTS Object are used in PCUpd message. 431 PCC MAY use the Incremental State Update mechanism 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 [RFC8281]. Rules of processing and error codes remains 438 unchanged. 440 6. PCEP Message Extensions 442 6.1. The PCRpt Message 444 As per Section 6.1 of [RFC8231], PCRpt message is used to report the 445 current state of a P2P TE LSP. This document extends the PCRpt 446 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 ] 462 464 Where: 466 ::= 467 [] 468 [] 469 470 [] 472 ::= 473 [] 474 475 [] 477 ::= (|) 478 [] 480 ::= (|) 481 [] 483 is defined in [RFC5440] and 484 extended by PCEP extensions. 485 consists of the actual computed and 486 signaled values of the and 487 objects defined in [RFC5440]. 489 The P2MP END-POINTS object defined in [RFC8306] is mandatory for 490 specifying address of P2MP leaves grouped based on leaf types. 492 o New leaves to add (leaf type = 1) 494 o Old leaves to remove (leaf type = 2) 496 o Old leaves whose path can be modified/reoptimized (leaf type = 3) 497 o Old leaves whose path must be left unchanged (leaf type = 4) 499 When reporting the status of a P2MP TE LSP, the destinations are 500 grouped in END-POINTS object based on the operational status (O field 501 in S2LS object) and leaf type (in END-POINTS). This way the leaves 502 that share the same operational status are grouped together. For 503 reporting the status of delegated P2MP TE LSP leaf-type = 3 is used, 504 where as for non-delegated P2MP TE LSP, leaf-type = 4 is used. 506 For delegated P2MP TE LSP configuration changes are reported via 507 PCRpt message. For example, adding of new leaves END-POINTS (leaf- 508 type = 1) is used where as removing of old leaves (leaf-type = 2) is 509 used. 511 Note that the compatibility with the [RFC8231] definition of is preserved. At least one instance of MUST be 513 present in this message for P2MP LSP. 515 During state synchronization, the PCRpt message reports the status of 516 the full P2MP TE LSP. 518 The S2LS object MUST be carried in PCRpt message along with END- 519 POINTS object when N (P2MP) bit is set in LSP object for P2MP TE LSP. 520 If the S2LS object is missing, the receiving PCE MUST send a PCErr 521 message with Error-type=6 (Mandatory Object missing) and Error- 522 value=TBD11 (S2LS object missing). If the END-POINTS object is 523 missing, the receiving PCE MUST send a PCErr message with Error- 524 type=6 (Mandatory Object missing) and Error-value=3 (END-POINTS 525 object missing) (defined in [RFC5440]. 527 6.2. The PCUpd Message 529 As per Section 6.2 of [RFC8231], PCUpd message is used to update P2P 530 TE LSP attributes. This document extends the PCUpd message in 531 updating the attributes of P2MP TE LSP. 533 The format of a PCUpd message is as follows: 535 ::= 536 538 Where: 540 ::= 541 [] 543 ::= 544 545 546 548 Where: 550 ::= 551 [] 552 553 [] 555 ::= (|) 556 [] 558 is defined in [RFC5440] and 559 extended by PCEP extensions. 561 Note that the compatibility with the [RFC8231] definition of is preserved. 564 The PCC SHOULD use the make-before-break or sub-group-based 565 procedures described in [RFC4875] based on a local policy decision. 567 The END-POINTS object MUST be carried in PCUpd message when N bit is 568 set in LSP object for P2MP TE LSP. If the END-POINTS object is 569 missing, the receiving PCC MUST send a PCErr message with Error- 570 type=6 (Mandatory Object missing) and Error-value=3 (END-POINTS 571 object missing) (defined in [RFC5440]. 573 6.3. The PCReq Message 575 As per Section 3.4 of [RFC8306], PCReq message is used for a P2MP 576 path computation request. This document extends the PCReq message 577 such that a PCC MAY include the LSP object in the PCReq message if 578 the stateful PCE P2MP capability has been negotiated on a PCEP 579 session between the PCC and a PCE. 581 The format of PCReq message is as follows: 583 ::= 584 [] 585 587 where: 589 ::= 590 [] 591 [] 592 [] 594 ::=[] 596 ::= 597 598 [] 599 [] 600 [] 601 [] 602 [] 603 [|] 604 [] 606 ::= 607 [[]] 608 [] 610 ::=(|)[] 611 ::=[] 613 6.4. The PCRep Message 615 As per Section 3.5 of [RFC8306], PCRep message is used for a P2MP 616 path computation reply. This document extends the PCRep message such 617 that a PCE MAY include the LSP object in the PCRep message if the 618 stateful PCE P2MP capability has been negotiated on a PCEP session 619 between the PCC and a PCE. 621 The format of PCRep message is as follows: 623 ::= 624 626 where: 628 ::=[] 630 ::= 631 [] 632 [] 633 [] 634 [] 635 [] 637 ::= [] 638 639 [] 641 ::= (|) [] 643 ::=[] 644 [] 645 [] 646 [] 647 [] 649 6.5. The PCInitiate message 651 As defined in section 5.1 of [RFC8281], PCE sends a PCInitiate 652 message to a PCC to recommend instantiation of a P2P TE LSP, this 653 document extends the format of PCInitiate message for the creation of 654 P2MP TE LSPs but the creation and deletion operations of P2MP TE LSP 655 are same to the P2P TE LSP. 657 The format of PCInitiate message is as follows: 659 ::= 660 661 Where: 663 ::= 664 [] 666 ::= 667 (|) 669 ::= 670 671 672 [] 674 ::= 675 677 Where: 679 ::= 680 [] 681 682 [] 684 ::= (|) 685 [] 687 is defined in [RFC5440] and extended 688 by PCEP extensions. 690 The PCInitiate message with an LSP object with N bit (P2MP) set is 691 used to convey operation on a P2MP TE LSP. The SRP object is used to 692 correlate between initiation requests sent by the PCE and the error 693 reports and state reports sent by the PCC as described in [RFC8231]. 695 The END-POINTS object MUST be carried in PCInitiate message when N 696 bit is set in LSP object for P2MP TE LSP. If the END-POINTS object 697 is missing, the receiving PCC MUST send a PCErr message with Error- 698 type=6 (Mandatory Object missing) and Error-value=3 (END-POINTS 699 object missing) (defined in [RFC5440]. 701 6.6. Example 702 6.6.1. P2MP TE LSP Update Request 704 LSP Update Request message is sent by an active stateful PCE to 705 update the P2MP TE LSP parameters or attributes. An example of a 706 PCUpd message for P2MP TE LSP is described below: 708 Common Header 709 SRP 710 LSP with P2MP flag set 711 END-POINTS for leaf type 3 712 ERO list 714 In this example, a stateful PCE request updation of path taken by 715 some of the leaves in a P2MP tree. The update request uses the END- 716 POINT type 3 (modified/reoptimized). The ERO list represents the 717 S2LS path after modification. The update message does not need to 718 encode the full P2MP tree in this case. 720 6.6.2. P2MP TE LSP Report 722 LSP State Report message is sent by a PCC to report or delegate the 723 P2MP TE LSP. An example of a PCRpt message for a delegated P2MP TE 724 LSP is described below to add new leaves to an existing P2MP TE LSP: 726 Common Header 727 LSP with P2MP flag set 728 END-POINTS for leaf type 1 729 S2LS (O=DOWN) 730 ERO list (empty) 732 An example of a PCRpt message for P2MP TE LSP is described below to 733 prune leaves from an existing P2MP TE LSP: 735 Common Header 736 LSP with P2MP flag set 737 END-POINTS for leaf type 2 738 S2LS (O=UP) 739 ERO list 741 An example of a PCRpt message for a delegated P2MP TE LSP is 742 described below to report status of leaves in an existing P2MP TE 743 LSP: 745 Common Header 746 LSP with P2MP flag set 747 END-POINTS for leaf type 3 748 S2LS (O=UP) 749 ERO list 750 END-POINTS for leaf type 3 751 S2LS (O=DOWN) 752 ERO list 754 An example of a PCRpt message for a non-delegated P2MP TE LSP is 755 described below to report status of leaves: 757 Common Header 758 LSP with P2MP flag set 759 END-POINTS for leaf type 4 760 S2LS (O=ACTIVE) 761 ERO list 762 END-POINTS for leaf type 4 763 S2LS (O=DOWN) 764 ERO list 766 7. PCEP Object Extensions 768 The PCEP TLV defined in this document is compliant with the PCEP TLV 769 format defined in [RFC5440]. 771 7.1. Extension of LSP Object 773 LSP Object is defined in Section 7.3 of [RFC8231]. It specifies 774 PLSP-ID to uniquely identify an LSP that is constant for the life 775 time of a PCEP session. Similarly for P2MP tunnel, PLSP-ID identify 776 a P2MP TE LSP uniquely. This document adds the following flags to 777 the LSP Object: 779 N (P2MP bit - TBD7): If the bit is set to 1, it specifies the 780 message is for P2MP TE LSP which MUST be set in PCRpt, PCUpd, or 781 PCInitiate message for a P2MP TE LSP. 783 F (Fragmentation bit - TBD8): If the bit is set to 1, it specifies 784 the message is fragmented. 786 If P2MP bit is set, the following P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIER TLV MUST be 787 present in LSP object. 789 7.2. P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIER TLV 791 The P2MP LSP Identifier TLV MUST be included in the LSP object in 792 PCRpt message for RSVP-TE signaled P2MP TE LSPs. If the TLV is 793 missing, the PCE will generate an error with error-type 6 (mandatory 794 object missing) and error-value TBD12 (P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIER TLV 795 missing) and close the PCEP session. 797 The P2MP LSP Identifier TLV MAY be included in the LSP object in 798 PCUpd message for RSVP-TE signaled P2MP TE LSPs. The special value 799 of all zeros for this TLV is used to refer to all paths pertaining to 800 a particular PLSP-ID. 802 There are two P2MP LSP Identifier TLVs, one for IPv4 and one for 803 IPv6. 805 The format of the IPV4-P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIER TLV is shown in the 806 following figure: 808 0 1 2 3 809 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 1 810 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 811 | Type=TBD9 | Length=16 | 812 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 813 | IPv4 Tunnel Sender Address | 814 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 815 | LSP ID | Tunnel ID | 816 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 817 | Extended Tunnel ID | 818 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 819 | P2MP ID | 820 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 822 Figure 6: IPV4-P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIER TLV format 824 The type (16-bit) of the TLV is TBD9 to be assigned by IANA. The 825 length (16-bit) has a fixed value of 16 octets. The value contains 826 the following fields: 828 IPv4 Tunnel Sender Address: contains the sender node's IPv4 address, 829 as defined in [RFC3209], Section 4.6.2.1 for the LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4 830 Sender Template Object. 832 LSP ID: contains the 16-bit 'LSP ID' identifier defined in 833 [RFC3209], Section 4.6.2.1 for the LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4 Sender Template 834 Object. 836 Tunnel ID: contains the 16-bit 'Tunnel ID' identifier defined in 837 [RFC3209], Section 4.6.1.1 for the LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4 Session Object. 839 Extended Tunnel ID: contains the 32-bit 'Extended Tunnel ID' 840 identifier defined in [RFC3209], Section 4.6.1.1 for the 841 LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4 Session Object. 843 P2MP ID: contains the 32-bit 'P2MP ID' identifier defined in 844 Section 19.1.1 of [RFC4875] for the P2MP LSP Tunnel IPv4 SESSION 845 Object. 847 The format of the IPV6-P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIER TLV is shown in the 848 following figure: 850 0 1 2 3 851 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 1 852 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 853 | Type=TBD10 | Length=40 | 854 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 855 | | 856 + + 857 | IPv6 tunnel sender address | 858 + (16 octets) + 859 | | 860 + + 861 | | 862 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 863 | LSP ID | Tunnel ID | 864 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 865 | | 866 + + 867 | Extended Tunnel ID | 868 + (16 octets) + 869 | | 870 + + 871 | | 872 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 873 | P2MP ID | 874 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 876 Figure 7: IPV6-P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIER TLV format 878 The type of the TLV is TBD10 to be assigned by IANA. The length 879 (16-bit) has a fixed length of 40 octets. The value contains the 880 following fields: 882 IPv6 Tunnel Sender Address: contains the sender node's IPv6 address, 883 as defined in [RFC3209], Section 4.6.2.2 for the LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 884 Sender Template Object. 886 LSP ID: contains the 16-bit 'LSP ID' identifier defined in 887 [RFC3209], Section 4.6.2.2 for the LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 Sender Template 888 Object. 890 Tunnel ID: contains the 16-bit 'Tunnel ID' identifier defined in 891 [RFC3209], Section 4.6.1.2 for the LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 Session Object. 893 Extended Tunnel ID: contains the 128-bit 'Extended Tunnel ID' 894 identifier defined in [RFC3209], Section 4.6.1.2 for the 895 LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 Session Object. 897 P2MP ID: As defined above in IPV4-P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV. 899 Tunnel ID remains constant over the life time of a tunnel. 901 7.3. S2LS Object 903 The S2LS (Source-to-Leaves) Object is used to report state of one or 904 more destinations (leaves) encoded within the END-POINTS object for a 905 P2MP TE LSP. It MUST be carried in PCRpt message along with END- 906 POINTS object when N bit is set in LSP object. 908 S2LS Object-Class is TBD19. 910 S2LS Object-Types is 1. 912 The format of the S2LS object is shown in the following figure: 914 0 1 2 3 915 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 1 916 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 917 | Flags | O| 918 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 919 | | 920 // Optional TLVs // 921 | | 922 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 924 Figure 8: S2LS object format 926 Flags(32 bits): 928 O(Operational - 3 bits) the O Field represents the operational 929 status of the group of destinations. The values are as per 930 Operational field in LSP object defined in Section 7.3 of 931 [RFC8231]. 933 When N bit is set in LSP object then the O field in LSP object 934 represents the operational status of the full P2MP TE LSP and the O 935 field in S2LS object represents the operational status of a group of 936 destinations encoded within the END-POINTS object. 938 Future documents MAY define optional TLVs that MAY be included in the 939 S2LS Object. 941 8. Message Fragmentation 943 The total PCEP message length, including the common header, is 16 944 bytes. In certain scenarios the P2MP report and update request may 945 not fit into a single PCEP message (e.g. initial report or update). 946 The F-bit is used in the LSP object to signal that the initial 947 report, update, or initiate message was too large to fit into a 948 single message and will be fragmented into multiple messages. In 949 order to identify the single report or update each message will use 950 the same PLSP-ID. In order to identify that a series of PCInitiate 951 messages represents a single Initiate, each message will use the same 952 PLSP-ID (in this case 0) and SRP-ID-number. 954 Fragmentation procedure described below for report or update message 955 is similar to [RFC8306] which describes request and response message 956 fragmentation. 958 8.1. Report Fragmentation Procedure 960 If the initial report is too large to fit into a single report 961 message, the PCC will split the report over multiple messages. Each 962 message sent to the PCE, except the last one, will have the F-bit set 963 in the LSP object to signify that the report has been fragmented into 964 multiple messages. In order to identify that a series of report 965 messages represents a single report, each message will use the same 966 PLSP-ID. 968 To indicate P2MP message fragmentation errors associated with a P2MP 969 Report, a Error-Type (18) for "P2MP Fragmentation Error" and a new 970 error-value TBD13 is used if a PCE has not received the last piece of 971 the fragmented message, it should send an error message to the PCC to 972 signal that it has received an incomplete message (i.e., "Fragmented 973 Report failure"). 975 8.2. Update Fragmentation Procedure 977 Once the PCE computes and updates a path for some or all leaves in a 978 P2MP TE LSP, an update message is sent to the PCC. If the update is 979 too large to fit into a single update message, the PCE will split the 980 update over multiple messages. Each update message sent by the PCE, 981 except the last one, will have the F-bit set in the LSP object to 982 signify that the update has been fragmented into multiple messages. 983 In order to identify that a series of update messages represents a 984 single update, each message will use the same PLSP-ID and SRP-ID- 985 number. 987 To indicate P2MP message fragmentation errors associated with a P2MP 988 Update request, a Error-Type (18) for "P2MP Fragmentation Error" and 989 a new error-value TBD14 is used if a PCC has not received the last 990 piece of the fragmented message, it should send an error message to 991 the PCE to signal that it has received an incomplete message (i.e., 992 "Fragmented Update failure"). 994 8.3. PCIntiate Fragmentation Procedure 996 Once the PCE initiates to set up the P2MP TE LSP, a PCInitiate 997 message is sent to the PCC. If the PCInitiate is too large to fit 998 into a single PCInitiate message, the PCE will split the PCInitiate 999 over multiple messages. Each PCInitiate message sent by the PCE, 1000 except the last one, will have the F-bit set in the LSP object to 1001 signify that the PCInitiate has been fragmented into multiple 1002 messages. In order to identify that a series of PCInitiate messages 1003 represents a single Initiate, each message will use the same PLSP-ID 1004 (in this case 0) and SRP-ID-number. 1006 To indicate P2MP message fragmentation errors associated with a P2MP 1007 PCInitiate, a Error-Type (18) for "P2MP Fragmentation Error" and a 1008 new error-value TBD15 is used if a PCC has not received the last 1009 piece of the fragmented message, it should send an error message to 1010 the PCE to signal that it has received an incomplete message (i.e., 1011 "Fragmented Instantiation failure"). 1013 9. Non-Support of P2MP TE LSPs for Stateful PCE 1015 The PCEP protocol extensions described in this document for stateful 1016 PCEs with P2MP capability MUST NOT be used if PCE has not advertised 1017 its stateful capability with P2MP as per Section 5.2. If the PCEP 1018 Speaker on the PCC supports the extensions of this draft (understands 1019 the P2MP flag in the LSP object) but did not advertise this 1020 capability, then upon receipt of PCUpd message from the PCE, it 1021 SHOULD generate a PCErr with error-type 19 (Invalid Operation), 1022 error-value TBD17 (Attempted LSP Update Request for P2MP if active 1023 stateful PCE capability for P2MP was not advertised). If the PCEP 1024 Speaker on the PCE supports the extensions of this draft (understands 1025 the P2MP flag in the LSP object) but did not advertise this 1026 capability, then upon receipt of a PCRpt message from the PCC, it 1027 SHOULD generate a PCErr with error-type 19 (Invalid Operation), 1028 error-value TBD16 (Attempted LSP State Report for P2MP if stateful 1029 PCE capability for P2MP was not advertised) and it will terminate the 1030 PCEP session. 1032 If a Stateful PCE receives a P2MP TE LSP report message and the PCE 1033 does not understand the P2MP flag in the LSP object, and therefore 1034 the PCEP extensions described in this document, then the Stateful PCE 1035 would act as per [RFC8231]. 1037 The PCEP extensions described in this document for PCC or PCE with 1038 instantiation capability for P2MP TE LSPs MUST NOT be used if PCC or 1039 PCE has not advertised its stateful capability with Instantiation and 1040 P2MP capability as per Section 5.2. If the PCEP Speaker on the PCC 1041 supports the extensions of this draft (understands the P (P2MP-LSP- 1042 INSTANTIATION-CAPABILITY) flag) but did not advertise this 1043 capability, then upon receipt of PCInitiate message from the PCE, it 1044 SHOULD generate a PCErr with error-type 19 (Invalid Operation), 1045 error-value TBD18 (Attempted LSP Instantiation Request for P2MP if 1046 stateful PCE instantiation capability for P2MP was not advertised). 1048 10. Manageability Considerations 1050 All manageability requirements and considerations listed in 1051 [RFC5440], [RFC8306], [RFC8231], and [RFC8281] apply to PCEP protocol 1052 extensions defined in this document. In addition, requirements and 1053 considerations listed in this section apply. 1055 10.1. Control of Function and Policy 1057 A PCE or PCC implementation MUST allow configuring the stateful PCEP 1058 capability, the LSP Update capability, and the LSP Initiation 1059 capability for P2MP LSPs. 1061 10.2. Information and Data Models 1063 The PCEP YANG module [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] SHOULD be extended to 1064 include advertised P2MP stateful capabilities, P2MP synchronization 1065 status, and delegation status of P2MP LSP etc. The statistics module 1066 should also count P2MP LSP related data. 1068 10.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring 1070 Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness 1071 detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already 1072 listed in [RFC5440]. 1074 10.4. Verify Correct Operations 1076 Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new operation 1077 verification requirements in addition to those already listed in 1078 [RFC5440], [RFC8306], [RFC8231], and [RFC8281]. 1080 10.5. Requirements On Other Protocols 1082 Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new requirements 1083 on other protocols. 1085 10.6. Impact On Network Operations 1087 Mechanisms defined in this document do not have any impact on network 1088 operations in addition to those already listed in [RFC5440], 1089 [RFC8306], [RFC8231], and [RFC8281]. 1091 Stateful PCE feature for P2MP LSP would help with network operations. 1093 11. IANA Considerations 1095 This document requests IANA actions to allocate code points for the 1096 protocol elements defined in this document. 1098 11.1. PCE Capabilities in IGP Advertisements 1100 IANA is requested to allocate new bits in the OSPF Parameters "PCE 1101 Capability Flags" registry, as follows: 1103 Bit Meaning Reference 1104 TBD1 Active Stateful [This I-D] 1105 PCE with P2MP 1106 TBD2 Passive Stateful [This I-D] 1107 PCE with P2MP 1108 TBD3 Stateful PCE [This I-D] 1109 Initiation with P2MP 1111 11.2. STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV 1113 The STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV is defined in [RFC8231] and a 1114 registry is requested to be created to manage the flags in the TLV. 1115 IANA is requested to make the following allocations in the 1116 aforementioned registry. 1118 Bit Description Reference 1120 TBD4 P2MP-CAPABILITY [This I-D] 1121 TBD5 P2MP-LSP-UPDATE- [This I-D] 1122 CAPABILITY 1123 TBD6 P2MP-LSP- [This I-D] 1124 INSTANTIATION- 1125 CAPABILITY 1127 11.3. LSP Object 1129 The LSP object is defined in [RFC8231] and a registry is created to 1130 manage the Flags field of the LSP object. 1132 IANA is requested to make the following allocations in the 1133 aforementioned registry. 1135 Bit Description Reference 1137 TBD7 P2MP [This I-D] 1138 TBD8 Fragmentation [This I-D] 1140 11.4. PCEP-Error Object 1142 IANA is requested to allocate new error values within the "PCEP-ERROR 1143 Object Error Types and Values" sub-registry of the PCEP Numbers 1144 registry, as follows: 1146 Error-Type Meaning 1147 6 Mandatory Object missing [RFC5440] 1148 Error-value=TBD11: S2LS object missing 1149 Error-value=TBD12: P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIER TLV missing 1150 18 P2MP Fragmentation Error [RFC8306] 1151 Error-value= TBD13. Fragmented Report 1152 failure 1153 Error-value= TBD14. Fragmented Update 1154 failure 1155 Error-value= TBD15. Fragmented Instantiation 1156 failure 1157 19 Invalid Operation [RFC8231] 1158 Error-value= TBD16. Attempted LSP State Report 1159 for P2MP if stateful PCE capability 1160 for P2MP was not advertised 1161 Error-value= TBD17. Attempted LSP Update Request 1162 for P2MP if active stateful PCE capability 1163 for P2MP was not advertised 1164 Error-value= TBD18. Attempted LSP Instantiation 1165 Request for P2MP if stateful PCE 1166 instantiation capability for P2MP was not 1167 advertised 1169 Reference for all new Error-Value above is [This I-D]. 1171 11.5. PCEP TLV Type Indicators 1173 IANA is requested to make the assignment of a new value for the 1174 existing "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" registry as follows: 1176 Value Meaning Reference 1177 TBD9 P2MP-IPV4-LSP-IDENTIFIERS [This I-D] 1178 TBD10 P2MP-IPV6-LSP-IDENTIFIERS [This I-D] 1180 11.6. PCEP object 1182 IANA is requested to allocate new object-class values and object 1183 types within the "PCEP Objects" sub-registry of the PCEP Numbers 1184 registry, as follows. 1186 Object-Class Value Name Reference 1188 TBD19 S2LS [This.I-D] 1189 Object-Type 1190 0: Reserved 1191 1: S2LS 1193 11.7. S2LS object 1195 This document requests that a new sub-registry, named "S2LS Object 1196 Flag Field", is created within the "Path Computation Element Protocol 1197 (PCEP) Numbers" registry to manage the Flag field of the S2LS 1198 object.New values are to be assigned by Standards Action [RFC8126]. 1199 Each bit should be tracked with the following qualities: 1201 o Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit) 1203 o Capability description 1205 o Defining RFC 1207 The following values are defined in this document: 1209 Bit Description Reference 1211 29-31 Operational (3-bit) [This.I-D] 1213 12. Security Considerations 1215 The stateful operations on P2MP TE LSP are more CPU-intensive and 1216 also utilize more bandwidth on wire. In the event of an unauthorized 1217 stateful P2MP operations, or a denial of service attack, the 1218 subsequent PCEP operations may be disruptive to the network. 1219 Consequently, it is important that implementations conform to the 1220 relevant security requirements of [RFC5440], [RFC8306] and [RFC8231], 1221 and [RFC8281]. 1223 As stated in [RFC6952], PCEP implementations SHOULD support the TCP- 1224 AO [RFC5925] and not use TCP MD5 because of TCP MD5's known 1225 vulnerabilities and weakness. PCEP also support Transport Layer 1226 Security (TLS) [RFC8253] as per the recommendations and best current 1227 practices in [RFC7525]. 1229 13. Acknowledgments 1231 Thanks to Quintin Zhao, Avantika and Venugopal Reddy for his 1232 comments. 1234 14. References 1236 14.1. Normative References 1238 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 1239 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 1240 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 1241 . 1243 [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., 1244 and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP 1245 Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001, 1246 . 1248 [RFC5088] Le Roux, JL., Ed., Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R. 1249 Zhang, "OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path Computation 1250 Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5088, DOI 10.17487/RFC5088, 1251 January 2008, . 1253 [RFC5089] Le Roux, JL., Ed., Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R. 1254 Zhang, "IS-IS Protocol Extensions for Path Computation 1255 Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5089, DOI 10.17487/RFC5089, 1256 January 2008, . 1258 [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation 1259 Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, 1260 DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, 1261 . 1263 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 1264 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 1265 May 2017, . 1267 [RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path 1268 Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) 1269 Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231, 1270 DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017, 1271 . 1273 [RFC8232] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., Varga, R., Zhang, X., 1274 and D. Dhody, "Optimizations of Label Switched Path State 1275 Synchronization Procedures for a Stateful PCE", RFC 8232, 1276 DOI 10.17487/RFC8232, September 2017, 1277 . 1279 [RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path 1280 Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) 1281 Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE 1282 Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017, 1283 . 1285 [RFC8306] Zhao, Q., Dhody, D., Ed., Palleti, R., and D. King, 1286 "Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication 1287 Protocol (PCEP) for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic 1288 Engineering Label Switched Paths", RFC 8306, 1289 DOI 10.17487/RFC8306, November 2017, 1290 . 1292 14.2. Informative References 1294 [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation 1295 Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, 1296 DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006, 1297 . 1299 [RFC4857] Fogelstroem, E., Jonsson, A., and C. Perkins, "Mobile IPv4 1300 Regional Registration", RFC 4857, DOI 10.17487/RFC4857, 1301 June 2007, . 1303 [RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Ed., and S. 1304 Yasukawa, Ed., "Extensions to Resource Reservation 1305 Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to- 1306 Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875, 1307 DOI 10.17487/RFC4875, May 2007, 1308 . 1310 [RFC5671] Yasukawa, S. and A. Farrel, Ed., "Applicability of the 1311 Path Computation Element (PCE) to Point-to-Multipoint 1312 (P2MP) MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 5671, 1313 DOI 10.17487/RFC5671, October 2009, 1314 . 1316 [RFC5925] Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP 1317 Authentication Option", RFC 5925, DOI 10.17487/RFC5925, 1318 June 2010, . 1320 [RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of 1321 BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying 1322 and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design 1323 Guide", RFC 6952, DOI 10.17487/RFC6952, May 2013, 1324 . 1326 [RFC7525] Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre, 1327 "Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer 1328 Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security 1329 (DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 7525, DOI 10.17487/RFC7525, May 1330 2015, . 1332 [RFC8051] Zhang, X., Ed. and I. Minei, Ed., "Applicability of a 1333 Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)", RFC 8051, 1334 DOI 10.17487/RFC8051, January 2017, 1335 . 1337 [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for 1338 Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, 1339 RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, 1340 . 1342 [RFC8253] Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody, 1343 "PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the 1344 Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)", 1345 RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017, 1346 . 1348 [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] 1349 Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V., and J. Tantsura, "A 1350 YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element 1351 Communications Protocol (PCEP)", draft-ietf-pce-pcep- 1352 yang-06 (work in progress), January 2018. 1354 Appendix A. Contributor Addresses 1356 Yuji Kamite 1357 NTT Communications Corporation 1358 Granpark Tower 1359 3-4-1 Shibaura, Minato-ku 1360 Tokyo 108-8118 1361 Japan 1363 EMail: y.kamite@ntt.com 1365 Authors' Addresses 1367 Udayasree Palle 1368 Huawei Technologies 1369 Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield 1370 Bangalore, Karnataka 560066 1371 India 1373 EMail: udayasreereddy@gmail.com 1375 Dhruv Dhody 1376 Huawei Technologies 1377 Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield 1378 Bangalore, Karnataka 560066 1379 India 1381 EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com 1383 Yosuke Tanaka 1384 NTT Communications Corporation 1385 Granpark Tower 1386 3-4-1 Shibaura, Minato-ku 1387 Tokyo 108-8118 1388 Japan 1390 EMail: yosuke.tanaka@ntt.com 1392 Vishnu Pavan Beeram 1393 Juniper Networks 1395 EMail: vbeeram@juniper.net