<?xml version="1.0"encoding="US-ASCII"?> <?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?> <?rfc strict="yes" ?> <?rfc toc="yes"?> <?rfc tocompact="yes"?> <?rfc tocdepth="3"?> <?rfc tocindent="yes"?> <?rfc symrefs="yes"?> <?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?> <?rfc comments="yes"?> <?rfc inline="yes"?> <?rfc compact="no"?> <?rfc subcompact="no"?>encoding="UTF-8"?> <!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM"rfc2629.dtd" [ <!-- One method to get references from the online citation libraries. There has to be one entity for each item to be referenced. An alternate method (rfc include) is described in the references. --> ]>"rfc2629-xhtml.ent"> <rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" submissionType="IETF" category="std" consensus="true" docName="draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-16" number="8779" ipr="trust200902">obsoletes="" updates="" xml:lang="en" tocInclude="true" tocDepth="3" symRefs="true" sortRefs="true" version="3"> <front> <title abbrev="PCEPExtExtensions forGMPLS">PCEP extensionsGMPLS">Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for GMPLS</title> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8779"/> <author fullname="Cyril Margaria"initials="C.M."initials="C." role="editor" surname="Margaria"> <organization>Juniper</organization> <address> <email>cmargaria@juniper.net</email><!-- uri and facsimile elements may also be added --></address> </author> <author fullname="Oscar Gonzalez de Dios"initials="O.G."initials="O." role="editor" surname="Gonzalez deDios" >Dios"> <organization>Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo</organization> <address> <postal> <street>C/ Ronda de la Comunicacion</street> <city>Madrid</city><region></region><region/> <code>28050</code> <country>Spain</country> </postal> <phone>+34 91 4833441</phone> <email>oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com</email> </address> </author> <author fullname="Fatai Zhang" role="editor"initials="F.Z."initials="F." surname="Zhang"> <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization> <address> <postal> <street>F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base</street><street>Bantian,<cityarea>Bantian, Longgang District</street></cityarea> <city>Shenzhen</city><region></region><region/> <code>518129</code><country>P.R.China</country><country>China</country> </postal> <email>zhangfatai@huawei.com</email> </address> </author><!-- Meta-data Declarations --><dateday="12" month="December" year="2019" />month="July" year="2020"/> <area>Routing</area> <workgroup>Network Working Group</workgroup> <keyword>RSVP-TE</keyword> <keyword>GMPLS</keyword> <keyword>PCE</keyword> <abstract> <t>A Path Computation Element (PCE) provides path computation functions for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks. Additional requirements for GMPLS are identified inRFC7025.RFC 7025. </t> <t> This memo provides extensions to the Path Computation ElementcommunicationCommunication Protocol (PCEP) for the support of the GMPLS control plane to address those requirements. </t> </abstract> </front> <middle> <sectiontitle="Introduction">numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Introduction</name> <t>Although<xref target="RFC4655" /> definesthe PCE architecture and framework for both MPLS and GMPLSnetworks,networks are defined in <xref target="RFC4655" format="default"/>, mostpreexistingpre-existing PCEPRFCsRFCs, such as <xref target="RFC5440"/>,format="default"/>, <xref target="RFC5521"/>,format="default"/>, <xref target="RFC5541"/>,format="default"/>, and <xref target="RFC5520"/>format="default"/>, are focused on MPLSnetworks,networks and do not cover the wide range of GMPLS networks. This document complements these RFCs by addressing the extensions required for GMPLS applications and routing requests, forexampleexample, for Optical TransportNetwork (OTN)Networks (OTNs) and Wavelength Switched OpticalNetwork (WSON) networks.</t>Networks (WSONs).</t> <t>The functional requirements to be addressed by the PCEP extensions to support these applications are fully described in <xref target="RFC7025"/>format="default"/> and <xreftarget='RFC7449' />.target="RFC7449" format="default"/>. </t> <sectiontitle ="Terminology">numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Terminology</name> <t> This document uses terminologies from the PCE architecture document <xreftarget="RFC4655"/>,target="RFC4655" format="default"/>; the PCEP documents including <xreftarget="RFC5440"/>,target="RFC5440" format="default"/>, <xreftarget="RFC5521"/>,target="RFC5521" format="default"/>, <xreftarget="RFC5541"/>,target="RFC5541" format="default"/>, <xreftarget="RFC5520"/>,target="RFC5520" format="default"/>, <xreftarget="RFC7025"/>target="RFC7025" format="default"/>, and <xreftarget="RFC7449"/>,target="RFC7449" format="default"/>; and the GMPLS documents such as <xreftarget="RFC3471"/>,target="RFC3471" format="default"/>, <xreftarget="RFC3473"/>target="RFC3473" format="default"/>, and so on. Note thatit is expectedthe reader is expected to be familiar with these documents. The following abbreviations are used in thisdocument <list style="hanging" hangIndent="6"> <t hangText="ODU"> ODU Optical Channel Data Unit <xref target="G.709-v3" /></t> <t hangText="OTN"> Optical Transport Network <xref target="G.709-v3" /></t> <t hangText="L2SC"> Layer-2document: </t> <dl newline="false" spacing="normal" indent="10"> <dt>ERO:</dt> <dd>Explicit Route Object</dd> <dt>IRO:</dt> <dd>Include Route Object</dd> <dt>L2SC:</dt> <dd>Layer 2 Switch Capable <xref target="RFC3471"/></t> <t hangText="TDM"> Time-Division Multiplex Capable <xref target="RFC3471" /></t> <t hangText="LSC"> Lambdaformat="default"/></dd> <dt>LSC:</dt> <dd>Lambda Switch Capable <xref target="RFC3471"/></t> <t hangText="SONET"> Synchronous Optical Networking </t> <t hangText="SDH"> Synchronous Digital Hierarchy </t> <t hangText="PCC"> Path Computation Client</t> <t hangText="RSVP-TE"> Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering</t> <t hangText="LSP"> Labelformat="default"/></dd> <dt>LSP:</dt> <dd>Label SwitchedPath</t> <t hangText="TE-LSP">Traffic Engineering LSP</t> <t hangText="IRO">Include Route Object</t> <t hangText="ERO">Explicit Route Object</t> <t hangText="XRO"> eXclude Route Object</t> <t hangText="RRO"> Record Route Object</t> <t hangText="LSPA"> LSP Attribute</t> <t hangText="SRLG">Shared Risk Link Group</t> <t hangText="NVC">Number of Virtual ComponentsPath</dd> <dt>LSPA:</dt> <dd>LSP Attribute</dd> <dt>MEF:</dt> <dd>Metro Ethernet Forum</dd> <dt>MT:</dt> <dd>Multiplier <xref target="RFC4328"/><xrefformat="default"/> <xref target="RFC4606"/></t> <t hangText="NCC">Numberformat="default"/></dd> <dt>NCC:</dt> <dd>Number of Contiguous Components <xreftarget="RFC4328" /><xreftarget="RFC4606"/></t> <t hangText="MT">Multiplierformat="default"/></dd> <dt>NVC:</dt> <dd>Number of Virtual Components <xref target="RFC4328"/><xref target="RFC4606" /></t> <t hangText="RCC">Requested Contiguous Concatenationformat="default"/> <xref target="RFC4606"/></t> <t hangText="PCReq">Pathformat="default"/></dd> <dt>ODU:</dt> <dd>Optical Data Unit <xref target="G.709-v3" format="default"/></dd> <dt>OTN:</dt> <dd>Optical Transport Network <xref target="G.709-v3" format="default"/></dd> <dt>P2MP:</dt> <dd>Point-to-Multipoint</dd> <dt>PCC:</dt> <dd>Path ComputationRequestClient</dd> <dt>PCRep:</dt> <dd>Path Computation Reply <xref target="RFC5440"/></t> <t hangText="PCRep">Pathformat="default"/></dd> <dt>PCReq:</dt> <dd>Path ComputationReplyRequest <xref target="RFC5440"/></t> <t hangText="MEF">Metro Ethernet Forum</t> <t hangText="SSON">Spectrum-Switchedformat="default"/></dd> <dt>RCC:</dt> <dd>Requested Contiguous Concatenation <xref target="RFC4606" format="default"/></dd> <dt>RRO:</dt> <dd>Record Route Object</dd> <dt>RSVP-TE:</dt> <dd>Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering</dd> <dt>SDH:</dt> <dd>Synchronous Digital Hierarchy </dd> <dt>SONET:</dt> <dd>Synchronous OpticalNetwork</t> <t hangText="P2MP">Point to Multi-Point</t> </list> </t>Network</dd> <dt>SRLG:</dt> <dd>Shared Risk Link Group</dd> <dt>SSON:</dt> <dd>Spectrum-Switched Optical Network</dd> <dt>TDM:</dt> <dd>Time-Division Multiplex Capable <xref target="RFC3471" format="default"/></dd> <dt>TE-LSP:</dt> <dd>Traffic Engineered LSP</dd> <dt>XRO:</dt> <dd>Exclude Route Object</dd> </dl> <t> The key words"MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY","<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>", and"OPTIONAL""<bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14>" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 <xreftarget="RFC2119"/>target="RFC2119" format="default"/> <xreftarget="RFC8174"/>target="RFC8174" format="default"/> when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. </t> </section> <sectiontitle="PCEPnumbered="true" toc="default"> <name>PCEP Requirements forGMPLS"> <t>The document <xrefGMPLS</name> <t><xref target="RFC7025"/>format="default"/> describes the set of PCEP requirementstothat support GMPLS TE-LSPs. This document assumes a significant familiarity with <xref target="RFC7025"/>format="default"/> and existing PCEP extensions. As a short overview, those requirements can be broken down into the following categories. </t><t> <list style="symbols"> <t>Which<ul spacing="normal"> <li>Which data flow is switched by the LSP: a combination ofSwitchinga switching type (forinstanceinstance, L2SC orTDM ),TDM), an LSPEncodingencoding type (e.g., Ethernet,SONET/SDH)SONET/SDH), and sometimes theSignal Typesignal type (e.g., in case ofTDM/LSCa TDM or an LSC switchingcapability).</t> <t>Data flow specificcapability).</li> <li>Data-flow-specific traffic parameters, which are technology specific. For instance, in SDH/SONET and<xref target="G.709-v3" />OTN networks <xref target="G.709-v3" format="default"/>, theConcatenation Typeconcatenation type and theConcatenation Numberconcatenation number have an influence on the switched data and on which link it can besupported</t> <t>Supportsupported.</li> <li>Support for asymmetric bandwidthrequests.</t> <t>Supportrequests.</li> <li>Support for unnumbered interface identifiers, as defined in <xreftarget="RFC3477"></xref></t> <t>Labeltarget="RFC3477" format="default"/>.</li> <li>Label information andtechnology specifictechnology-specific label(s) such as wavelength labels as defined in <xref target="RFC6205"/>.format="default"/>. A PCC should also be able to specify a label restriction similar to the one supported by RSVP-TE in <xref target="RFC3473"/>.</t> <t>Abilityformat="default"/>.</li> <li>Ability to indicate the requested granularity for the path ERO: node,linklink, or label. This is to allow the use of the explicit label control feature ofRSVP-TE.</t> </list>RSVP-TE.</li> </ul> <t> The requirements of <xref target="RFC7025"/>format="default"/> apply to several objects conveyed byPCEP,PCEP; this is described in <xref target="requirement-map"/>.format="default"/>. Some of the requirements of <xref target="RFC7025"/>format="default"/> are already supported in existing documents, as described in <xref target="existing-support"/>.format="default"/>. </t> <t> This document describes a set of PCEP extensions, including new object types, TLVs, encodings, errorcodescodes, and procedures, in order to fulfill the aforementioned requirements not covered in existing RFCs.</t> </section> <sectiontitle="Requirements Applicability" anchor="requirement-map">anchor="requirement-map" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Requirements Applicability</name> <t> This section follows the organization of <xref target="RFC7025"/> Section 3sectionFormat="comma" section="3"/> and indicates, for each requirement, the affected piece of information carried by PCEP and its scope.</t> <sectiontitle="Requirementsnumbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Requirements on the Path ComputationRequest"> <t> <list style="hanging" hangIndent="6"><t hangText="(1)"> SwitchingRequest</name> <ol spacing="normal" type="(%d)"> <li>Switching capability/type:asAs described in <xref target="RFC3471"/>format="default"/>, this piece of information is used with theEncoding Typeencoding type andSignal Typesignal type to fully describe the switching technology and data carried by the TE-LSP. This is applicable to the TE-LSP itself and also to the TE-LSP endpoint(Carried(carried in the END-POINTS object for MPLS networks in <xref target="RFC5440"/>)format="default"/>) when considering multiple network layers. Inter-layer path computation requirements are addressed inin<xref target="RFC8282"/>format="default"/>, whichaddressingfocuses on the TE-LSPitself,itself but does not address the TE-LSPendpoints are not addressed. </t> <t hangText="(2)"> Encodingendpoints. </li> <li>Encoding type:seeSee (1).</t> <t hangText="(3)"> Signal</li> <li>Signal type:seeSee (1).</t> <t hangText="(4)"> Concatenation</li> <li>Concatenation type:thisThis parameter and theConcatenation Number (5)concatenation number (see (5)) are specific to some TDM (SDH and ODU) switchingtechnology.technologies. TheyMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be described together and are used to derive the requested resource allocation for the TE-LSP. It is scoped to the TE-LSP and is related to the<xref target="RFC5440" />BANDWIDTH object <xref target="RFC5440" format="default"/> in MPLS networks. See concatenation information in <xref target="RFC4606"/>format="default"/> and <xref target="RFC4328"/> about concatenation information. </t> <t hangText="(5)"> Concatenationformat="default"/>. </li> <li>Concatenation number:seeSee (4).</t> <t hangText="(6)"> Technology-specific</li> <li>Technology-specific label(s):asAs described in <xref target="RFC3471"/>format="default"/>, the GMPLSLabelslabels are specific to each switching technology. They can be specified on each link and also on the TE-LSPendpoints ,endpoints, in WSONnetworksnetworks, for instance, as described in <xref target="RFC6163"/>.format="default"/>. The label restriction can apply toendpointsendpoints, and on each hop, the related PCEP objects are END-POINTS, IRO,XROXRO, and RRO.</t> <t hangText="(7)"> End-to-End</li> <li>End-to-End (E2E) path protection type:asAs defined in <xreftarget="RFC4872"/>,target="RFC4872" format="default"/>, this is applicable to the TE-LSP. In MPLSnetworksnetworks, the related PCEP object is LSPA (carrying local protection information).</t> <t hangText="(8)"> Administrative</li> <li>Administrative group:asAs defined in <xreftarget="RFC3630"/>,target="RFC3630" format="default"/>, this information is already carried in the LSPA object.</t> <t hangText="(9)"> Link</li> <li>Link protection type:asAs defined in <xreftarget="RFC4872"/>,target="RFC4872" format="default"/>, this is applicable to the TE-LSP and is carried in association with the E2E path protection type.</t> <t hangText="(10)"> Support</li> <li>Support for unnumbered interfaces:asAs defined in <xreftarget="RFC3477"/>.target="RFC3477" format="default"/>. Its scope and related objects are the same aslabels </t> <t hangText="(11)"> Supportlabels. </li> <li>Support for asymmetric bandwidth requests:asAs defined in <xreftarget="RFC6387"/>,target="RFC6387" format="default"/>, the scope is similar to(4) </t> <t hangText="(12)"> Support(4). </li> <li>Support for explicit label control during the pathcomputation.computation: This affects the TE-LSP and the amount of information returned in the ERO.</t> <t hangText="(13)"></li> <li> Support of label restrictions in the requests/responses: This is described in (6).</t> </list> </t></li> </ol> </section> <sectiontitle="Requirementsnumbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Requirements on the Path ComputationResponse"> <t><list style="hanging" hangIndent="5"><t hangText="(1)"> PathResponse</name> <ol spacing="normal" type="(%d)"> <li>Path computation with concatenation: This is related to the Path Computation request requirement (4). Inadditionaddition, there is a specific type ofconcatenationconcatenation, called virtualconcatenationconcatenation, that allows different routes to be used between the endpoints. It is similar to the semantic and scope of the LOAD-BALANCING in MPLS networks.</t> <t hangText="(2)"> Label</li> <li>Label constraint: The PCE should be able to includeLabelslabels in the path returned to thePCC,PCC; the related object is the ERO object.</t> <t hangText="(3)"> Roles</li> <li>Roles of the routes:asAs defined in <xreftarget="RFC4872"/>,target="RFC4872" format="default"/>, this is applicable to the TE-LSP and is carried in association with the E2E path protection type.</t> </list> </t></li> </ol> </section> </section><!-- End Requirements on Protocol Objects --><sectiontitle="Existinganchor="existing-support" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Existing Support and Limitations for GMPLS in Base PCEPObjects and its Limitations" anchor="existing-support">Objects</name> <t> The support provided by specifications in <xref target="RFC8282"/>format="default"/> and <xref target="RFC5440"/>format="default"/> for the requirements listed in <xref target="RFC7025"/>format="default"/> is summarized in Tables <xref target="rfc7025_pcreq_reqss"/>format="counter"/> and <xreftarget="rfc7025_pcrep_reqss"/>.target="rfc7025_pcrep_reqss" format="counter"/>. In somecasescases, the support may not be complete, as noted, and additional supportneedneeds to be provided as indicated in this specification. </t><texttable anchor='rfc7025_pcreq_reqss' suppress-title='false' style='none' title='RFC7025 Section 3.1 requirements support'> <ttcol align='left'></ttcol> <ttcol align='left'></ttcol> <ttcol align='left'></ttcol> <c>Req. </c><c> Name </c><c><table anchor="rfc7025_pcreq_reqss" align="center"> <name>Requirements Support</c> <c> 1 </c><c>per RFC 7025, Section 3.1</name> <thead> <tr> <th align="left">Req.</th> <th align="left">Name</th> <th align="left">Support</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td align="left"> 1 </td> <td align="left"> Switching capability/type</c><c></td> <td align="left"> SWITCH-LAYER(RFC8282) </c> <c> 2 </c><c>(RFC 8282) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left"> 2 </td> <td align="left"> Encoding type</c><c></td> <td align="left"> SWITCH-LAYER(RFC8282) </c> <c> 3 </c><c>(RFC 8282) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left"> 3 </td> <td align="left"> Signal type</c><c></td> <td align="left"> SWITCH-LAYER(RFC8282) </c> <c>(RFC 8282) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left"> 4</c><c></td> <td align="left"> Concatenation type</c><c></td> <td align="left"> No</c> <c></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left"> 5</c><c></td> <td align="left"> Concatenation number</c><c></td> <td align="left"> No</c> <c></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left"> 6</c><c></td> <td align="left"> Technology-specific label</c><c></td> <td align="left"> (Partial) ERO(RFC5440)</c> <c>(RFC 5440)</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left"> 7</c><c></td> <td align="left"> End-to-End (E2E) path protection type</c><c></td> <td align="left"> No</c> <c></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left"> 8</c><c></td> <td align="left"> Administrative group</c><c></td> <td align="left"> LSPA(RFC5440) </c> <c>(RFC 5440) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left"> 9</c><c></td> <td align="left"> Link protection type</c><c></td> <td align="left"> No</c> <c></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left"> 10</c><c></td> <td align="left"> Support for unnumbered interfaces</c><c></td> <td align="left"> (Partial) ERO(RFC5440)</c> <c>(RFC 5440)</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left"> 11</c><c></td> <td align="left"> Support for asymmetric bandwidth requests</c><c></td> <td align="left"> No</c> <c></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left"> 12</c><c></td> <td align="left"> Support for explicit label control during the path computation</c><c> No </c> <c></td> <td align="left"> No</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left"> 13</c><c></td> <td align="left"> Support of label restrictions in the requests/responses</c><c></td> <td align="left"> No</c> </texttable> <t><vspace blankLines="2"/></t> <texttable anchor='rfc7025_pcrep_reqss' suppress-title='false' style='none' title='RFC7025 Section 3.2 requirements support'> <ttcol align='left'></ttcol> <ttcol align='left'></ttcol> <ttcol align='left'></ttcol> <c>Req. </c><c> Name </c><c></td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <table anchor="rfc7025_pcrep_reqss" align="center"> <name>Requirements Support</c> <c>1</c><c>Pathper RFC 7025, Section 3.2</name> <thead> <tr> <th align="left">Req.</th> <th align="left">Name</th> <th align="left">Support</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td align="left">1</td> <td align="left">Path computation with concatenation</c><c></td> <td align="left"> No</c> <c>2</c><c>Label</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left">2</td> <td align="left">Label constraint</c><c></td> <td align="left"> No</c> <c>3</c><c>Roles</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left">3</td> <td align="left">Roles of the routes</c><c></td> <td align="left"> No</c> </texttable> <t> As described in</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <t>Per <xref target="requirement-map"/>format="default"/>, PCEPas of(as described in <xreftarget="RFC5440"></xref>,target="RFC5440" format="default"/>, <xreftarget="RFC5521"></xref>target="RFC5521" format="default"/>, and <xref target="RFC8282"/>,format="default"/>) supports the following objects, included in requests and responses, that are related to the described requirements.</t> <t>From <xreftarget="RFC5440"></xref>: <list style='symbols'> <t>END-POINTS: relatedtarget="RFC5440" format="default"/>: </t> <ul spacing="normal" empty="true"><li> <dl newline="false" spacing="normal"> <dt>END-POINTS:</dt><dd>related to requirements(1,1, 2, 3, 6,1010, and13).13. The object only supports numbered endpoints. The context specifies whether they are node identifiers or numberedinterfaces.</t> <t>BANDWIDTH: relatedinterfaces.</dd> <dt>BANDWIDTH:</dt><dd>related to requirements(4, 54, 5, and11).11. The data rate is encoded in thebandwidthBANDWIDTH object (as an IEEE32 bit32-bit float). <xref target="RFC5440"/>format="default"/> does not include the ability to convey an encoding proper to all GMPLS-controllednetworks.</t> <t>ERO: relatednetworks.</dd> <dt>ERO:</dt><dd>related to requirements(6,6, 10,1212, and13).13. The ERO content is defined in RSVP in <xref target="RFC3209"/><xrefformat="default"/>, <xref target="RFC3473"/><xrefformat="default"/>, <xref target="RFC3477"/><xrefformat="default"/>, and <xref target="RFC7570"/>format="default"/> and already supports all of therequirements already. </t> <t>LSPA: relatedrequirements. </dd> <dt>LSPA:</dt><dd>related to requirements(7, 87, 8, and9). The requirement9. Requirement 8(setup and holding priorities)(Administrative group) is alreadysupported.</t> </list></t>supported.</dd> </dl></li></ul> <t>From <xreftarget="RFC5521"></xref>: <list style='symbols'>target="RFC5521" format="default"/>:</t> <ul spacing="normal" empty="true"> <li> <t>XRO:<list style='symbols'> <t>This</t> <ul spacing="normal"> <li>This object allows excluding (strict or not) resources and is related to requirements(6, 106, 10, and13).13. It also includes the requested diversity (node,linklink, orSRLG).</t> <t>WhenSRLG).</li> <li>When the F bit is set, the request indicates that the existing path hasfailedfailed, and the resources present in the RRO can be reused.</t></list> </t> </list> </t></li> </ul> </li> </ul> <t>From <xreftarget="RFC8282"></xref>:<list style='symbols'> <t>SWITCH-LAYER: addressestarget="RFC8282" format="default"/>:</t> <ul spacing="normal" empty="true"><li> <dl newline="false" spacing="normal"> <dt>SWITCH-LAYER:</dt><dd>addresses requirements(1, 21, 2, and3)3 for the TE-LSP and indicates which layer(s) should be considered. The object can be used to represent the RSVP-TEgeneralized label request.Generalized Label Request. It does not address the endpoints case of requirements(1, 21, 2, and3).</t> <t>REQ-ADAP-CAP: indicates3.</dd> <dt>REQ-ADAP-CAP:</dt><dd>indicates the adaptation capabilitiesrequested,requested; it can also be used for the endpoints in case of mono-layercomputation</t> </list></t>computation.</dd> </dl></li></ul> <t> The gaps in functional coverage of the base PCEP objects are:<list> <t>The</t> <ul empty="false" spacing="normal"> <li>The BANDWIDTH and LOAD-BALANCING objects do not describe the details of the traffic request (requirements 4 and 5, forexample NVC,example, NVC and multiplier) in the context of GMPLS networks, forinstanceinstance, in TDM or OTNnetworks.</t> <t>Thenetworks.</li> <li>The END-POINTS object does not allow specifying an unnumbered interface, nor potential label restrictions on the interface (requirements 6,1010, and 13). Those parameters are of interest in case of switchingconstraints.</t> <t>The Include/eXclude Route Objects (IRO/XRO)constraints.</li> <li>The IROs/XROs do not allow the inclusion/exclusion of labels (requirements 6,1010, and13).</t> <t>Base13).</li> <li>Base attributes do not allow expressing the requested link protection level and/or the end-to-end protectionattributes.</t> </list> </t> <t>The PCEP extensionsattributes.</li> </ul> <t>As defined later in thisdocument todocument, the PCEP extensions that cover the gaps are:<list> <t>Two</t> <ul empty="false" spacing="normal"> <li>Two new object types are defined for the BANDWIDTH object (Generalizedbandwidth,bandwidth and Generalized bandwidth of an existing TE-LSP for which a reoptimization isrequested).</t> <t>Arequested).</li> <li>A new object type is defined for the LOAD-BALANCING object (Generalized LoadBalancing).</t> <t>ABalancing).</li> <li>A new object type is defined for the END-POINTS object (GeneralizedEndpoint).</t> <t>AEndpoint).</li> <li>A new TLV is added to the Open message for capabilitynegotiation.</t> <t>Anegotiation.</li> <li>A new TLV is added to the LSPA object.</t> <t>The Label</li> <!-- [mc] TLV -> subobject --> <li>The Label subobject is now allowed in the IRO and XROobjects.</t> <t>Inobjects.</li> <li>In order to indicate theusedrouting granularity used in the response, a new flag is added in the RPobject is added.</t> </list> </t>object.</li> </ul> </section> </section> <sectiontitle="PCEPnumbered="true" toc="default"> <name>PCEP Objects andExtensions">Extensions</name> <t> This section describes the necessary PCEP objects and extensions. The PCReq and PCRep messages are defined in <xreftarget="RFC5440"></xref>.target="RFC5440" format="default"/>. This document does not change the existinggrammars.</t>grammar.</t> <sectiontitle="GMPLSanchor="capability" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>GMPLS CapabilityAdvertisement" anchor="capability"> <t> </t>Advertisement</name> <sectiontitle="GMPLSanchor="IGP-discovery" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>GMPLS Computation TLV in the Existing PCE DiscoveryProtocol" anchor="IGP-discovery">Protocol</name> <t> IGP-based PCE Discovery (PCED) is defined in <xref target="RFC5088"/>format="default"/> and <xref target="RFC5089"/>format="default"/> for the OSPF and IS-IS protocols. Those documents have defined bit 0 in the PCE-CAP-FLAGS Sub-TLV of the PCED TLV as "Path computation with GMPLS link constraints". This capability is optional and can be used to detect GMPLS-capable PCEs. PCEs that set the bit to indicate support of GMPLS path computationMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> follow the procedures inSection 2.1.2<xref target="open-extensions"/> to further qualify the level of support during PCEP session establishment.</t> </section> <sectiontitle="OPENanchor="open-extensions" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>OPEN Object Extension GMPLS-CAPABILITYTLV" anchor="open-extensions">TLV</name> <t> In addition to the IGP advertisement, a PCEP speakerMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be able to discover the other peer GMPLS capabilities during the Open message exchange. This capability is also useful to avoid misconfigurations. This document defines a GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV for use in the OPEN object to negotiate the GMPLS capability. The inclusion of this TLV in the Open message indicates that the PCEP speakersupportsupports the PCEP extensions defined in the document. A PCEP speaker that is able to support the GMPLS extensions defined in this documentMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> include the GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLVonin the Open message. If one of the PCEP peers does not include the GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV in the Open message, the peersMUST NOT<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> make use of the objects and TLVs defined in this document. </t> <t> If the PCEP speaker supports the extensions of this specification but did not advertise the GMPLS-CAPABILITY capability, upon receipt of a message from the PCE including an extension defined in this document, itMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> generate a PCEP Error (PCErr) with Error-Type=10 (Reception of an invalid object) andError-value=TBA-42Error-value=31 (Missing GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV), and itSHOULD<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> terminate the PCEP session. </t> <t> As documented in <xref target="iana-tlvs" format="default"/> ("New PCEP TLVs"), IANA has allocated valueTBA-145 (GMPLS-CAPABILITY) from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators"sub-registry, as documented in <xref target="iana-tlvs" /> ("New PCEP TLVs").sub-registry. Thedescription is "GMPLS-CAPABILITY". Itsformat for the GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV is shown in the following figure. </t><figure > <artwork><![CDATA[<artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[ 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Type=TBA-1Type=45 | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Flags | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ]]></artwork></figure><t> NoFlagsflags are defined in thisdocument,document; they are reserved for future use. Unassigned flags <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be set to zero on transmission and <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be ignored on receipt. </t> </section> </section> <sectiontitle="RPanchor="rp-extensions" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>RP ObjectExtension" anchor="rp-extensions">Extension</name> <t> Explicitlabel controlLabel Control (ELC) is a procedure supported by RSVP-TE, where the outgoing labels are encoded in the ERO. As a consequence, the PCE can provide such labels directly in the path ERO. Depending on the policies or switching layer, itcanmight be necessary for the PCC to use explicit label control or explicit linkids, thusids; thus, it needs to indicate in the PCReq which granularity it is expecting in the ERO. This corresponds to requirement 12ofin <xref target="RFC7025"/>.sectionFormat="of" section="3.1"/>. The possible granularities can be node,linklink, or label. The granularities areinter-dependent,interdependent, in the sense that link granularity implies the presence of node information in the ERO; similarly, a label granularity implies that the ERO contains node,linklink, and label information. </t> <t>A new 2-bitrouting granularityRouting Granularity (RG) flag(Bits TBA-13)(bits 15-16) is defined in the RP object. The values are defined asfollows</t> <texttable anchor='rp_bits' suppress-title='false' style='none' title='RG flag'> <ttcol align='center'></ttcol> <ttcol align='left'></ttcol> <c>0:</c><c>reserved </c> <c>1:</c><c>node </c> <c>2:</c><c>link </c> <c>3:</c><c>label </c> </texttable>follows:</t> <ul empty="true" spacing="normal"><li> <dl spacing="normal" > <dt>0:</dt><dd>reserved</dd> <dt>1:</dt><dd>node</dd> <dt>2:</dt><dd>link</dd> <dt>3:</dt><dd>label</dd> </dl></li></ul> <t>The RG flag in the RP object indicates the requested route granularity. The PCESHOULD<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> follow this granularity andMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> return a NO-PATH if the requested granularity cannot be provided. The PCEMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> return any granularity on the route based on its policy. The PCC can decide if the ERO is acceptable based on its content. </t> <t> If a PCE honored the requested routing granularity for a request, itMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> indicate the selected routing granularity in the RP object included in the response. Otherwise, the PCEMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> use the reserved RG to leave the check of the ERO to the PCC. The RG flag isbackward-compatiblebackward compatible with <xref target="RFC5440"/>:format="default"/>: the value sent by an implementation (PCC or PCE) not supporting it will indicate a reserved value. </t> </section> <sectiontitle="BANDWIDTHanchor="generalized-bandwidth" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>BANDWIDTH ObjectExtensions" anchor="generalized-bandwidth">Extensions</name> <t>FromPer <xreftarget="RFC5440"/>target="RFC5440" format="default"/>, the object carrying the requested size for the TE-LSP is the BANDWIDTH object.The objectObject types 1 and 2 defined in <xreftarget="RFC5440"/>target="RFC5440" format="default"/> do notdescribeprovide enough information to describe the TE-LSP bandwidth in GMPLS networks. The BANDWIDTH object encoding has to be extended to allow the object to express the bandwidth as described in <xref target="RFC7025"/>.format="default"/>. RSVP-TE extensions for GMPLS provide a set of encodingsallowingthat allow such representation in an unambiguousway,way; this is encoded in the RSVP-TETSpecTraffic Specification (TSpec) andFlowSpecFlow Specification (FlowSpec) objects. This document extends the BANDWIDTH object with new object types reusing the RSVP-TE encoding. </t> <t>The following possibilities are supported by the extended encoding:<list style='symbols'> <t>Asymmetric</t> <ul spacing="normal"> <li>Asymmetric bandwidth (different bandwidth in forward and reverse direction), as described in <xreftarget="RFC6387"></xref></t> <t>GMPLStarget="RFC6387" format="default"/>.</li> <li>GMPLS (SDH/SONET, G.709, ATM, MEF, etc.)parameters.</t> </list>parameters.</li> </ul> <t> This corresponds to requirements 3, 4,55, and 11ofin <xref target="RFC7025"/> Section 3.1.sectionFormat="of" section="3.1"/>. </t> <t> This document defines twoObject Typesobject types for the BANDWIDTH object:<list style='hanging'> <t hangText="TBA-2">Generalized bandwidth</t> <t hangText="TBA-3">Generalized</t> <ul spacing="normal" empty="true"><li> <dl newline="false" spacing="normal"> <dt>3:</dt> <dd>Generalized bandwidth</dd> <dt>4:</dt> <dd>Generalized bandwidth of an existing TE-LSP for which a reoptimization isrequested</t> </list>requested</dd> </dl></li></ul> <t> The definitions below apply forObject Type TBA-2object types 3 andTBA-3.4. The body is as follows: </t><figure> <artwork><![CDATA[<artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[ 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Bandwidth Spec Length | Rev. Bandwidth Spec Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Bw Spec Type | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Generalized Bandwidth ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~Optional:Reverse Generalized Bandwidth (optional) ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Optional TLVs ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ]]></artwork></figure> <t>The BANDWIDTH<t>BANDWIDTH objecttype TBA-2types 3 andTBA-34 have a variable length. The 16-bit Bandwidth Spec Length field indicates the length of the Generalized Bandwidth field. The Bandwidth Spec LengthMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be strictly greater than 0. The 16-bit Reverse Bandwidth Spec Length field indicates the length of the Reverse Generalized Bandwidth field. The Reverse Bandwidth Spec LengthMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> be equal to 0.</t> <t>The Bw Spec Type field determines which type of bandwidth is represented by the object.</t> <t>The Bw Spec Type corresponds to the RSVP-TE SENDER_TSPEC (Object Class 12)C-Types</t>C-Types.</t> <t> The encoding of thefieldsGeneralized Bandwidth and Reverse Generalized Bandwidth fields is the same as theTraffic Parameterstraffic parameters carried inRSVP-TE, itRSVP-TE; they can be found in the following references.It is to be notedNote that the RSVP-TE traffic specificationMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> also include TLVs(e.g., <xref target="RFC6003" />that are different from the PCEPTLVs).</t> <texttable anchor='TSpec_encoding' suppress-title='false' style='none' title='GeneralizedTLVs (e.g., the TLVs defined in <xref target="RFC6003" format="default"/>).</t> <table anchor="TSpec_encoding" align="center"> <!-- [mc] Should it say Fields? --> <name>Generalized Bandwidth and Reverse Generalized Bandwidthfield encoding'> <ttcol align='left'>BwField Encoding</name> <thead> <tr> <th align="left">Bw SpecType</ttcol> <ttcol align='left'>Name </ttcol> <ttcol align='left'>Reference</ttcol> <c>2</c><c>Intserv</c><c><xref target="RFC2210"></xref></c> <c>4</c><c>SONET/SDH</c><c><xref target="RFC4606"></xref></c> <c>5</c><c>G.709</c><c><xref target="RFC4328"></xref></c> <c>6</c><c>Ethernet</c><c><xref target="RFC6003"></xref></c> <c>7</c><c>OTN-TDM</c><c><xref target="RFC7139"></xref></c> <c>8</c><c>SSON</c><c><xref target="RFC7792"></xref></c> </texttable>Type</th> <th align="left">Name </th> <th align="left">Reference</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td align="left">2</td> <td align="left">Intserv</td> <td align="left"> <xref target="RFC2210" format="default"/></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left">4</td> <td align="left">SONET/SDH</td> <td align="left"> <xref target="RFC4606" format="default"/></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left">5</td> <td align="left">G.709</td> <td align="left"> <xref target="RFC4328" format="default"/></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left">6</td> <td align="left">Ethernet</td> <td align="left"> <xref target="RFC6003" format="default"/></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left">7</td> <td align="left">OTN-TDM</td> <td align="left"> <xref target="RFC7139" format="default"/></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left">8</td> <td align="left">SSON</td> <td align="left"> <xref target="RFC7792" format="default"/></td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <t> When a PCC requests abi-directionalbidirectional path with symmetric bandwidth, itSHOULD<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> only specify the Generalized Bandwidthfield,field and set the Reverse Bandwidth Spec Length to 0. When a PCC needs to request abi-directionalbidirectional path with asymmetric bandwidth, itSHOULD<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> specify the different bandwidth in the forward and reverse directions withaGeneralized Bandwidth and Reverse Generalized Bandwidth fields. </t> <t>The procedure described in <xref target="RFC5440"/>format="default"/> for the PCRep is unchanged: a PCEMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> include the BANDWIDTH objects in the response to indicate the BANDWIDTH of the path.</t> <t>As specified in <xref target="RFC5440"/>format="default"/>, in the case of the reoptimization of a TE-LSP, the bandwidth of the existing TE-LSPMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> also be included in addition to the requested bandwidth if and only if the two values differ. TheObject Type TBA-3 MAYobject type 4 <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> be used instead of the previously specified object type 2 to indicate the existing TE-LSPbandwidthbandwidth, which was originally specified with object typeTBA-2.3. A PCC that requested a path with a BANDWIDTH object of object type 1MUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> use object type 2 to represent the existing TE-LSPBANDWIDTH.bandwidth. </t><t>OPTIONAL<t>Optional TLVsMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> be included within the object body to specify more specific bandwidth requirements. No TLVs forthe Object Type TBA-2object types 3 andTBA-34 are defined by this document. </t> </section><!-- Generalized BW--><sectiontitle="LOAD-BALANCINGanchor="generalized-load-balancing" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>LOAD-BALANCING ObjectExtensions" anchor="generalized-load-balancing">Extensions</name> <t> The LOAD-BALANCING object <xref target="RFC5440"/>format="default"/> is used to request a set of at most Max-LSPTE-LSPTE-LSPs having in total the bandwidth specified in BANDWIDTH, with each TE-LSP having at least a specified minimum bandwidth. The LOAD-BALANCING object follows the bandwidth encoding of the BANDWIDTHobject, and thusobject; thus, the existing definition from <xref target="RFC5440"/>format="default"/> does not describe enough details for the bandwidth specification expected by GMPLS. </t> <t>SimilarlySimilar to the BANDWIDTH object, a new object type is defined to allow a PCC to represent the bandwidth types supported by GMPLS networks. </t> <t> This document definesthe Generalized Load Balancingobject typeTBA-42 (Generalized Load Balancing) for the LOAD-BALANCING object. The Generalized Load Balancing object type has a variable length. </t> <t>The format of the Generalized Load Balancing object type is as follows:</t><figure> <artwork><![CDATA[<artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[ 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Bandwidth Spec Length | Reverse Bandwidth Spec Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Bw Spec Type | Max-LSP | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Min Bandwidth Spec | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Min Reverse Bandwidth Spec (optional) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Optional TLVs ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ]]></artwork></figure> <t>Bandwidth<dl spacing="normal"> <dt>Bandwidth Spec Length (16bits): thebits):</dt><dd>the total length of the Min Bandwidth Spec field. The lengthMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be strictly greater than0.</t> <t>Reverse0.</dd> <dt>Reverse Bandwidth Spec Length (16bits): thebits):</dt><dd>the total length of the Min Reverse Bandwidth Spec field. ItMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> be equal to0.</t> <t>Bw0.</dd> <dt>Bw Spec Type (8bits): thebits):</dt><dd>the bandwidth specificationtype,type; it corresponds totheRSVP-TE SENDER_TSPEC (Object Class 12)C-Types.</t> <t>Max-LSPC-Types.</dd> <dt>Max-LSP (8bits):bits):</dt><dd>the maximum number of TE-LSPs in theset.</t> <t>Minset.</dd> <dt>Min Bandwidth Spec(variable): specifies(variable):</dt><dd>specifies the minimum bandwidth specification of each element of the TE-LSPset.</t> <t>Minset.</dd> <dt>Min Reverse Bandwidth Spec(variable): specifies(variable):</dt><dd>specifies the minimum reverse bandwidth specification of each element of the TE-LSPset.</t>set.</dd></dl> <t>The encoding of thefieldsMin Bandwidth Spec and Min Reverse Bandwidth Spec fields is the same as in the RSVP-TE SENDER_TSPECobject,object; it can be found in <xreftarget="TSpec_encoding"/> fromtarget="TSpec_encoding" format="default"/> in <xref target="generalized-bandwidth"/> fromformat="default"/> of this document.</t> <t> When a PCC requests abi-directionalbidirectional path with symmetric bandwidth while specifyingload balancing constraintsload-balancing constraints, itSHOULD<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> specify the Min Bandwidth Specfield,field and set the Reverse Bandwidth Spec Length to 0. When a PCC needs to request abi-directionalbidirectional path with asymmetric bandwidth while specifyingload balancingload-balancing constraints, itMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> specify the different bandwidth in forward and reverse directions throughaMin Bandwidth Spec and Min Reverse Bandwidth Spec fields. </t><t>OPTIONAL<t>Optional TLVsMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> be included within the object body to specify more specific bandwidth requirements. No TLVs for the Generalized Load Balancing object type are defined by this document. </t> <t>The semantic of the LOAD-BALANCING object is not changed. If a PCC requests the computation of a set of TE-LSPs with at most N TE-LSPs so that it can carrygeneralizedGeneralized bandwidthX ,X, each TE-LSP must at least transport bandwidthB,B; it inserts a BANDWIDTH object specifying X as the required bandwidth and a LOAD-BALANCING object with the Max-LSP and Min Bandwidth Spec fields set to N and B, respectively. When the BANDWIDTH and Min Bandwidth Spec can be summarized as scalars, the sum of the bandwidth for all TE-LSPsbandwithin the set is greater than X. The mapping of the X over N path with (at least) bandwidth B is technology and possibly node specific. Each standard definition of the transport technology is defining those mappings and are not repeated in this document. A simplified example for SDH is described in <xref target="appendix"/> </t>format="default"/>.</t> <t> In all other cases, includingfortechnologies based on statistical multiplexing (e.g.,InterServ,InterServ and Ethernet), the exact bandwidth management (e.g., the Ethernet's Excessive Rate) is left to the PCE's policies, according to the operator's configuration. If required, further documents may introduce a new mechanism to finely express complexload balancingload-balancing policies within PCEP. </t> <t>TheBANDWITHBANDWIDTH and LOAD-BALANCING Bw Spec Type can be different depending on the architecture of the endpointnodes architecture.node. When the PCE is not able to handle those two Bw SpecType,Types, itMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> return a NO-PATH with the bit "LOAD-BALANCING could not be performed with the bandwidthconstraits "constraints" set in the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV.</t> </section><!-- Generalized BW--><sectiontitle="END-POINTSanchor="endpoints_extensions" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>END-POINTS ObjectExtensions" anchor='endpoints_extensions'>Extensions</name> <t> The END-POINTS object is used in a PCEP request message to specify the source and the destination of the path for which a path computation is requested.FromPer <xreftarget="RFC5440"/>,target="RFC5440" format="default"/>, the source IP address and the destination IP address are used to identify those. A newObject Typeobject type is defined to address the following possibilities:<list style='symbols'> <t>Different</t> <ul spacing="normal"> <li>Different source and destination endpointtypes.</t> <t>Labeltypes.</li> <li>Label restrictions on theendpoint.</t> <t>Specificationendpoint.</li> <li>Specification of unnumbered endpoints type as seen in GMPLSnetworks.</t> </list>networks.</li> </ul> <t> TheObjectobject encoding is described in the following sections. </t> <t>In path computation within a GMPLScontextcontext, the endpoints can:<list style='symbols'> <t>Be</t> <ul spacing="normal"> <li>Be unnumbered as described in <xref target="RFC3477"/>.</t> <t>Haveformat="default"/>.</li> <li>Have labels associated to them, specifying a set of constraints on the allocation oflabels.</t> <t>Havelabels.</li> <li>Have different switchingcapabilities</t> </list>capabilities.</li> </ul> <t> The IPv4 and IPv6 endpoints are used to represent the source and destination IP addresses. The scope of the IP address(Node(node or numberedLink)link) is not explicitly stated. It is also possible to request aPathpath between a numbered link and an unnumbered link, or a P2MP path between differenttypetypes of endpoints. </t> <t> This document definesthe Generalized Endpointobject typeTBA-55 (Generalized Endpoint) for the END-POINTS object. This new type also supports the specification of constraints on the endpoint label to be used. The PCE might know the interfacerestrictionsrestrictions, but this is not a requirement. This corresponds to requirements 6 and 10ofin <xref target="RFC7025"/>.sectionFormat="of" section="3.1"/>. </t> <section anchor="endpoints_generalized"title="Generalizednumbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Generalized Endpoint ObjectType ">Type</name> <t> The Generalized Endpoint object type format consists of a body and a list of TLVs scoped to this object. The TLVs give the details of the endpoints and are described in <xref target="endpoints_tlvs"/>.format="default"/>. For eachEndpoint Type,endpoint type, a different grammar is defined. The TLVs defined to describe an endpoint are:<list style='numbers'> <t>IPv4 address endpoint.</t> <t>IPv6 address endpoint.</t> <t>Unnumbered endpoint.</t> <t>Label request.</t> <t>Label set.</t> </list></t> <ol spacing="normal" type="1"> <li>IPV4-ADDRESS</li> <li>IPV6-ADDRESS</li> <li>UNNUMBERED-ENDPOINT</li> <li>LABEL-REQUEST</li> <li>LABEL-SET</li> </ol> <t> TheLabel setLABEL-SET TLV is used to restrict or suggest the label allocation in the PCE. This TLV expresses the set of restrictionswhichthat may apply to signaling. Label restriction support can be an explicit or a suggested value(Label set(LABEL-SET describing one label, with the L bitrespectivelycleared orset),set, respectively), mandatory range restrictions(Label set(LABEL-SET with the L bitcleared)cleared), and optional range restriction(Label set(LABEL-SET with the L bit set). Endpoints label restriction may not be part of the RRO or IRO. They can be included when following <xref target="RFC4003"/>format="default"/> in signaling for the egress endpoint, but ingress endpoint properties can be local to the PCC and not signaled. To support thiscasecase, thelabel setLABEL-SET allows indication of whichlabellabels are used in case of reoptimization. The label range restrictions are valid in GMPLS-controlled networks, depending on eitherbythe PCC policy ordepending onthe switching technology used, forinstanceinstance, on a given Ethernet or ODU equipment having limited hardware capabilities restricting the label range. Label set restriction also applies to WSON networks where the optical senders and receivers are limited in their frequency tunability ranges, consequently restricting the possible label ranges on the interface in GMPLS. The END-POINTSObjectobject with the Generalized Endpoint object type is encoded asfollow:follows: </t><figure> <artwork><![CDATA[<artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[ 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Reserved | Endpoint Type | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ TLVs ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+]]> </artwork> </figure>]]></artwork> <t>Reserved bitsSHOULD<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> be set to 0 when a message is sent and ignored when the message is received.</t> <t>The values for the Endpoint Typeisfield are defined asfollow:</t> <texttable anchor='endpoints_generalized_endpoint-type' suppress-title='false' style='none' title='Generalizedfollows:</t> <table anchor="endpoints_generalized_endpoint-type" align="center"> <name>Generalized Endpointendpoint types'> <ttcol align='left'>Value</ttcol> <ttcol align='left'>Type</ttcol> <ttcol align='left'>Meaning</ttcol> <c>0</c><c>Point-to-Point</c><c></c> <c>1</c><c>Point-to-Multipoint</c><c>New leaves to add</c> <c>2</c><c></c><c>Old leaves to remove</c> <c>3</c><c></c><c>Old leaves whose path can be modified/reoptimized</c> <c>4</c><c></c><c>Old leaves whose path has to be</c> <c></c><c></c><c>left unchanged</c> <c>5-244</c><c>Reserved </c><c></c> <c>245-255</c><c>Experimental range</c><c></c> </texttable>Types</name> <thead> <tr> <th align="left">Value</th> <th align="left">Type</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td align="left">0</td> <td align="left">Point-to-Point</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left">1</td> <td align="left">Point-to-Multipoint with leaf type 1</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left">2</td> <td align="left">Point-to-Multipoint with leaf type 2</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left">3</td> <td align="left">Point-to-Multipoint with leaf type 3</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left">4</td> <td align="left">Point-to-Multipoint with leaf type 4</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left">5-244</td> <td align="left">Unassigned</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left">245-255</td> <td align="left">Experimental Use</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <t> The Endpoint Type field is used to cover both point-to-point and different point-to-multipoint endpoints. A PCE mayacceptonlyEndpoint Type 0: Endpoint Typesaccept endpoint type 0; endpoint types 1-4 apply if the PCE implementation supports P2MP path calculation. The leaf types for P2MP are as per <xref target="RFC8306" format="default"/>. A PCE not supporting a givenEndpoint Type SHOULDendpoint type <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> respond with a PCErr with Error-Type=4 (Not supportedobject), Error-value=TBA-15object) and Error-value=7 (Unsupported endpoint type in END-POINTS Generalized Endpoint object type). As per <xref target="RFC5440"/>,format="default"/>, a PCE unable to process Generalized Endpoints may respond with Error-Type=3 (UnknownObject),Object) and Error-value=2 (Unrecognized objectType)type) or with Error-Type=4 (Not supportedobject),object) and Error-value=2 (Not supported object Type). The TLVs present in the request object bodyMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> follow thefollowinggrammar per <xreftarget='RFC5511' /> grammar:target="RFC5511" format="default"/>: </t><figure> <artwork><![CDATA[<sourcecode type="rbnf"><![CDATA[ <generalized-endpoint-tlvs>::= <p2p-endpoints> | <p2mp-endpoints> <p2p-endpoints> ::= <endpoint> [<endpoint-restriction-list>] <endpoint> [<endpoint-restriction-list>] <p2mp-endpoints> ::= <endpoint> [<endpoint-restriction-list>] <endpoint> [<endpoint-restriction-list>] [<endpoint> [<endpoint-restriction-list>]]...]]> </artwork> </figure>]]></sourcecode> <t>For endpoint type Point-to-Point,2two endpoint TLVsMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be present in the message. The first endpoint is thesourcesource, and the second is the destination. </t> <t>For endpoint type Point-to-Multipoint, severalEND-POINTEND-POINTS objectsMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> be present in themessagemessage, and the exact meaningdependingdepends on the endpoint type defined for the object. The first endpoint TLV is therootroot, and otherendpointsendpoint TLVs are the leaves. The root endpointMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be the same for all END-POINTS objects for that P2MP tree request. If the root endpoint is not the same for all END-POINTS, a PCErr with Error-Type=17 (P2MP END-POINTSError),Error) and Error-value=4 (The PCE cannot satisfy the request due to inconsistent END-POINTS)MUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be returned. The procedure defined in <xref target="RFC8306"/> Section 3.10sectionFormat="comma" section="3.10"/> alsoapplyapplies to the Generalized Endpoint with Point-to-Multipoint endpoint types. </t> <t>An endpoint is defined as follows:</t><figure> <artwork><![CDATA[<sourcecode type=""><![CDATA[ <endpoint>::=<IPV4-ADDRESS>|<IPV6-ADDRESS>|<UNNUMBERED-ENDPOINT> <endpoint-restriction-list> ::= <endpoint-restriction> [<endpoint-restriction-list>] <endpoint-restriction> ::= [<LABEL-REQUEST>][<label-restriction-list>] <label-restriction-list> ::= <label-restriction> [<label-restriction-list>] <label-restriction> ::= <LABEL-SET>]]></artwork> </figure>]]></sourcecode> <t>The different TLVs are described in the following sections. A PCEMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> support any or all of the IPV4-ADDRESS, IPV6-ADDRESS, and UNNUMBERED-ENDPOINT TLVs. When receiving a PCReq, a PCE unable to resolve the identifier in one of those TLVsMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> respond by using a PCRep with NO-PATH andsetsetting the bit "Unknown destination" or "Unknown source" in the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV. The responseSHOULD<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> include the END-POINTS object with only the unsupported TLV(s). </t> <t> A PCEMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> support either or both of the LABEL-REQUEST and LABEL-SET TLVs. If a PCE finds a non-supported TLV in theEND-POINTSEND-POINTS, the PCEMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> respond with a PCErr message with Error-Type=4 (Not supported object) andError-value=TBA-15Error-value=8 (Unsupported TLV present in END-POINTS Generalized Endpoint objecttype)type), and the messageSHOULD<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> include the END-POINTS object in the response with only the endpoint and endpoint restriction TLV it did not understand. A PCE supporting those TLVs but not being able tofulfilfulfill the label restrictionMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> send a response with a NO-PATH objectwhichthat has the bit "No endpoint label resource" or "No endpoint label resource in range" set in the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV. The responseSHOULD<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> include an END-POINTS object containing only the TLV(s) related to the constraints the PCE could not meet. </t> </section><!--New ENDPOINTS ObjType : generalized --><sectiontitle="END-POINTSanchor="endpoints_tlvs" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>END-POINTS TLVExtensions" anchor="endpoints_tlvs">Extensions</name> <t>All endpoint TLVs have the standard PCEP TLV header as defined in <xreftarget="RFC5440"/> Section 7.1.target="RFC5440" sectionFormat="comma" section="7.1"/>. For the Generalized EndpointObject Typeobject type, the TLVsMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> follow the ordering defined in <xref target="endpoints_generalized"/>.format="default"/>. </t> <sectiontitle="IPV4-ADDRESS TLV" anchor="endpoints_tlvs_ipv4"> <t>Thisanchor="endpoints_tlvs_ipv4" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>IPV4-ADDRESS TLV</name> <t>The IPV4-ADDRESS TLV (Type 39) represents a numbered endpoint using IPv4numbering, thenumbering. The format of theIPv4-ADDRESSTLV value(TLV-Type=TBA-6)is as follows: </t><figure> <artwork><![CDATA[<artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[ 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IPv4 address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ]]></artwork></figure><t> This TLVMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> be ignored, in which case a PCRep with NO-PATHSHOULD<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> be returned, as described in <xref target="endpoints_generalized"/>.format="default"/>. </t> </section> <sectiontitle="IPV6-ADDRESS TLV" anchor="endpoints_tlvs_ipv6"> <t>Thisanchor="endpoints_tlvs_ipv6" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>IPV6-ADDRESS TLV</name> <t>The IPv6-ADDRESS TLV (Type 40) represents a numbered endpoint using IPV6numbering, thenumbering. The format of theIPv6-ADDRESSTLV value(TLV-Type=TBA-7)is as follows: </t><figure> <artwork><![CDATA[<artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[ 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IPv6 address (16 bytes) | | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ]]></artwork></figure><t> This TLVMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> be ignored, in which case a PCRep with NO-PATHSHOULD<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> be returned, as described in <xref target="endpoints_generalized"/>.format="default"/>. </t> </section> <sectiontitle="UNNUMBERED-ENDPOINT TLV" anchor="endpoints_tlvs_unnumbered-if"> <t>Thisanchor="endpoints_tlvs_unnumbered-if" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>UNNUMBERED-ENDPOINT TLV</name> <t>The UNNUMBERED-ENDPOINT TLV (Type 41) represents an unnumbered interface. This TLV has the same semantic as in <xreftarget="RFC3477"/>.target="RFC3477" format="default"/>. The TLV value is encoded asfollows (TLV-Type=TBA-8)follows: </t><figure> <artwork><![CDATA[<artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[ 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | LSR's Router ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Interface ID (32 bits) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ]]></artwork></figure><t> This TLVMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> be ignored, in which case a PCRep with NO-PATHSHOULD<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> be returned, as described in <xref target="endpoints_generalized"/>.format="default"/>. </t> </section> <sectiontitle="LABEL-REQUEST TLV" anchor="endpoints_tlvs_label-request">anchor="endpoints_tlvs_label-request" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>LABEL-REQUEST TLV</name> <t>The LABEL-REQUEST TLV (Type 42) indicates the switching capability and encoding type of the following label restriction list for the endpoint. The value format and encoding is the same as described in <xreftarget="RFC3471"></xref> Section 3.1target="RFC3471" sectionFormat="of" section="3.1"/> for the Generalizedlabel request. The LABEL-REQUEST TLV uses TLV-Type=TBA-9.Label Request. The LSP Encoding Type field indicates the encoding type, e.g.,SONET/SDH/GigESONET, SDH, GigE, etc., of the LSP with which the data is associated. The SwitchingtypeType field indicates the type of switching that is being requested on the endpoint.G-PIDThe Generalized Protocol Identifier (G-PID) field identifies the payload. This TLV and the following one are defined to satisfy requirement 13ofin <xreftarget="RFC7025"/>target="RFC7025" sectionFormat="of" section="3.1"/> for the endpoint. It is not directly related to the TE-LSP label request, which is expressed by the SWITCH-LAYER object.</t> <t> On the path calculationrequestrequest, only the GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH and SWITCH-LAYER need to becoherent,coherent; the endpoint labels could be different (supporting a different LABEL-REQUEST).HenceHence, the label restrictions include a Generalizedlabel requestLabel Request in order to interpret the labels. This TLVMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> be ignored, in which case a PCRep with NO-PATHSHOULD<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> be returned, as described in <xref target="endpoints_generalized"/>.format="default"/>. </t> </section> <sectiontitle="LABEL-SET TLV" anchor="endpoints_tlvs_labels">anchor="endpoints_tlvs_labels" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>LABEL-SET TLV</name> <t>Label or label range restrictions can be specified for the TE-LSP endpoints. Those are encoded using the LABEL-SET TLV. The label valueneedneeds to be interpreted with a description on theEncodingencoding and switching type. The REQ-ADAP-CAP objectfrom<xreftarget="RFC8282"></xref>target="RFC8282" format="default"/> can be used in case of a mono-layerrequest, howeverrequest; however, in case ofmultilayera multi-layer request, it is possible to have more than one object, so it is better to have a dedicated TLV for the label and label request. These TLVsMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> be ignored, in which case a response with NO-PATHSHOULD<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> be returned, as described in <xref target="endpoints_generalized"/>. TLVs areformat="default"/>. Per <xref target="RFC5440" format="default"/>, the LABEL-SET TLV is encoded asfollows (following <xref target="RFC5440"></xref>): </t> <t><list style='symbols'> <t>LABEL-SET TLV, Type=TBA-10.follows. The type of the LABEL-SET TLV is 43. The TLV Length is variable,Encodingand the value encoding follows <xreftarget="RFC3471"></xref> Section 3.5 "Label set"target="RFC3471" sectionFormat="of" section="3.5"/>, with the addition of a U bit, Obitbit, and L bit. The L bit is used to represent a suggested set of labels, following the semantic ofSUGGESTED_LABELSuggested Label as defined by <xreftarget="RFC3471"></xref>. <figure> <artwork><![CDATA[target="RFC3471" format="default"/>. </t> <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[ 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Action | Reserved |L|O|U| Label Type | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Subchannel 1 | | ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ : : : : : : +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Subchannel N | | ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ]]></artwork></figure></t> </list> </t><t> A LABEL-SET TLV represents a set of possible labels that can be used on an interface. If the L bit is cleared, the label allocated on the first endpointMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be within the label set range. TheactionAction parameter in theLabel setLABEL-SET indicates the type of list provided. These parameters are described by <xreftarget="RFC3471"></xref> Section 3.5.1.target="RFC3471" sectionFormat="comma" section="3.5.1"/>. </t> <t> The U,OO, and L bitshave the following meaning:are defined as follows: </t><texttable anchor='endpoints_tlvs_labels_bits' suppress-title='true' style='none' title='Labels TLV bits'> <ttcol align='center'></ttcol> <ttcol align='left'></ttcol> <c>U:</c><c>Upstream direction: The U bit is set<ul spacing="normal" empty="true"><li> <dl spacing="normal"> <dt>U:</dt> <dd>Upstream direction. Set for the upstream(revers)(reverse) direction in case of bidirectionalLSP.</c> <c>O:</c><c>Old Label: setLSP.</dd> <dt>O:</dt><dd>Old label. Set when the TLVrepresentrepresents the old (previously allocated) label in case ofre-optimization.reoptimization. The R bit of the RP objectMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be set to 1. If the L bit is set, this bitSHOULD<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> be set to 0 and ignored on receipt. When this bit is set, the Action fieldMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be set to 0 (InclusiveList)List), and theLabel Set MUSTLABEL-SET <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> contain onesubchannel.</c> <c>L:</c><c>Loose Label: setsubchannel.</dd> <dt>L:</dt><dd>Loose label. Set when the TLV indicates to the PCE that a set of preferred (ordered) labels are to be used. The PCEMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> use those labels for label allocation.</c> </texttable></dd></dl></li></ul> <t> Several LABEL_SET TLVsMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> be present with the O bitcleared,cleared; LABEL_SET TLVs with the L bit set can be combined with a LABEL_SET TLV with the L bit cleared. ThereMUST NOT<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> be more than two LABEL_SET TLVs present with the O bit set. If there are two LABEL_SET TLVs present, thereMUST NOT<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> be more than one with the U bit set, and thereMUST NOT<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> be more than one with the U bit cleared. For a given U bit value, if more than one LABEL_SET TLV with the O bit set is present, the first TLVMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> beprocessedprocessed, and the following TLVswiththat have the same U and Obit MUSTbits <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be ignored. </t> <t> A LABEL-SET TLV with the O and Lbitbits setMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> trigger a PCErr message with Error-Type=10 (Reception of an invalid object)Error-value=TBA-25and Error-value=29 (Wrong LABEL-SET TLV present with O and Lbitbits set). </t> <t> A LABEL-SET TLVwiththat has the O bit set and an ActionFieldfield not set to 0 (Inclusivelist)List) orcontainingthat contains more than one subchannelMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> trigger a PCErr message with Error-Type=10 (Reception of an invalid object)Error-value=TBA-26and Error-value=30 (Wrong LABEL-SET TLV present with O bit set and wrong format). </t> <t>If a LABEL-SET TLV is present with the O bit set, the R bit of the RP objectMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> beset, otherwiseset; otherwise, a PCErr messageMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be sent with Error-Type=10 (Reception of an invalid object)Error-value=TBA-24and Error-value=28 (LABEL-SET TLV present with O bit set but without R bit set in RP).</t> </section><!-- end Label TLV --></section><!-- ENDPOINTS TLVs extensions --></section><!-- ENDPOINTS extensions --> <!-- IRO extension --><sectiontitle="IRO Extension" anchor="iro-label">anchor="iro-label" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>IRO Extension</name> <t>The IRO as defined in <xref target="RFC5440"/>format="default"/> is used to include specific objects in the path. RSVP-TE allows the inclusion of a label definition. In order to fulfill requirement 13ofin <xreftarget="RFC7025"/>target="RFC7025" sectionFormat="of" section="3.1"/>, the IRO needs to support the new subobject type as defined in <xref target="RFC3473"/>:format="default"/>: </t><texttable suppress-title='true' style='none' > <ttcol align='left'></ttcol> <ttcol align='left'></ttcol> <c>Type</c><c>Sub-object </c> <c>TBA-38</c><c> LABEL</c> </texttable><table align="center"> <thead> <tr> <th align="left">Type</th> <th align="left">Subobject</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td align="left">10</td> <td align="left">Label</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <t>The Label subobjectMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> follow a subobject identifying a link, currently an IP address subobject (Type 1 or 2) or an interface ID(type(Type 4) subobject. If an IP address subobject is used, then the given IP addressMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be associated with a link. More than onelabelLabel subobjectMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> follow eachlink subobject.subobject identifying a link. The procedure associated with this subobject is as follows. </t> <t> If the PCE is able to allocate labels (e.g., via explicit labelcontrol)control), the PCEMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> allocate one label from within the set of label values for the given link. If the PCE does not assign labels, then it sends a response with a NO-PATH object, containing a NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV with the bit'No"No label resource inrange'range" set. </t> </section><!-- End IRO --> <!-- XRO extension --><sectiontitle="XRO Extension" anchor="xro-label">anchor="xro-label" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>XRO Extension</name> <t>The XRO as defined in <xref target="RFC5521"/>format="default"/> is used to exclude specific objects in the path. RSVP-TE allows the exclusion of certain labels(<xref target="RFC6001"/>).<xref target="RFC6001" format="default"/>. In order to fulfill requirement 13ofin <xref target="RFC7025"/> Section 3.1,sectionFormat="of" section="3.1"/>, the PCEP's XRO needs to support a new subobject to enable label exclusion.</t> <t> The encoding of the XRO Label subobject follows the encoding of theLabelERO Label subobject defined in <xref target="RFC3473"/>format="default"/> and the XRO subobject defined in <xref target="RFC5521"/>.format="default"/>. The XRO Label subobjectrepresent(Type 10) represents oneLabellabel and is defined as follows: </t><figure> <preamble>XRO Subobject Type TBA-39: Label Subobject.</preamble> <artwork><![CDATA[<artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[ 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |X|Type=TBA-39Type=10 | Length |U| Reserved | C-Type | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Label | | ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ]]></artwork></figure> <t> <list style='empty'> <t>X<dl newline="false" spacing="normal"> <dt>X (1bit): as perbit):</dt><dd>See <xref target="RFC5521"/>.format="default"/>. TheX-bitX bit indicates whether the exclusion is mandatory or desired. 0 indicates that the resource specifiedMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be excluded from the path computed by the PCE. 1 indicates that the resource specifiedSHOULD<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> be excluded from the path computed by the PCE, butMAYit <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> be included subject to the PCE policy and the absence of a viable path that meets the other constraints and excludes theresource. </t> <t>Typeresource.</dd> <dt>Type (7bits): The Typebits):</dt><dd>The type of the XRO Label subobject isTBA-39<!--, suggested value 3-->.</t> <t>Length10.</dd> <dt>Length (8bits): seebits):</dt><dd>See <xref target="RFC5521"/>, theformat="default"/>. The total length of the subobject in bytes (including the Type and Length fields). TheLengthlength is always divisible by4.</t> <t>U4.</dd> <dt>U (1bit): seebit):</dt><dd>See <xref target="RFC3471"/> Section 6.1.</t> <t>C-TypesectionFormat="comma" section="6.1"/>.</dd> <dt>C-Type (8bits): thebits):</dt><dd>The C-Type of the included LabelObjectobject as defined in <xref target="RFC3473"/>.</t> <t>Label: seeformat="default"/>.</dd> <dt>Label:</dt><dd>See <xref target="RFC3471"/>.</t> </list>format="default"/>.</dd> </dl> <t> The Label subobjectMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> follow a subobject identifying a link, currently an IP address subobject (Type 1 or 2) or an interface ID(type(Type 4) subobject. If an IP address subobject is used,thenthe given IP addressMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be associated with a link. More than one label subobjectMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> followeach link subobject.a subobject identifying a link. </t><texttable suppress-title='true' style='none' > <ttcol align='left'></ttcol> <ttcol align='left'></ttcol> <c>Type</c><c>Sub-object </c> <c>3</c><c>LABEL</c> </texttable> </section> <!-- End XRO--> <section title="LSPA Extensions" anchor="lspa"><table align="center"> <thead> <tr> <th align="left">Type</th> <th align="left">Subobject</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td align="left">10</td> <td align="left">Label</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </section> <section anchor="lspa" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>LSPA Extensions</name> <t> The LSPA carries the LSP attributes. In the end-to-end recovery context, this also includes the protection state information. A new TLV is defined tofulfilfulfill requirement 7ofin <xref target="RFC7025"/> Section 3.1sectionFormat="of" section="3.1"/> and requirement 3ofin <xref target="RFC7025"/> Section 3.2.sectionFormat="of" section="3.2"/>. This TLV contains the information of the PROTECTION object defined by <xreftarget="RFC4872"/>target="RFC4872" format="default"/> and can be used as a policy input. The LSPA objectMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> carry a PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV (Type 44), which is definedas: Type TBA-12: PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE</t> <figure> <artwork><![CDATA[as follows:</t> <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[ 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |S|P|N|O| Reserved | LSP Flags | Reserved | Link Flags| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |I|R| Reserved | Seg.Flags | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ]]></artwork><postamble>The<t>The content is as defined in <xreftarget="RFC4872"></xref> Section 14,target="RFC4872" sectionFormat="comma" section="14"/> and <xreftarget="RFC4873"></xref> Section 6.1.</postamble> </figure> <t>LSPtarget="RFC4873" sectionFormat="comma" section="6.1"/>.</t> <t>The LSP (protection) Flags field or the LinkflagsFlags field can be used by a PCE implementation for routing policy input. The other attributes are only meaningful for a stateful PCE.</t> <t>This TLV isOPTIONAL<bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14> andMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> be ignored by the PCE. If ignored by the PCE, itMUST NOT<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> include the TLV in the LSPA of the response. When the TLV is used by the PCE,aan LSPA object and the PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLVMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be included in the response. Fields that were not consideredMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be set to 0. </t> </section> <sectiontitle="NO-PATHnumbered="true" toc="default"> <name>NO-PATH ObjectExtension">Extension</name> <t> The NO-PATH object is used in PCRep messages in response to an unsuccessfulpath computation requestPath Computation Request (the PCE could not find a path satisfying the set of constraints). In this scenario, the PCEMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> include a NO-PATH object in the PCRep message. The NO-PATH objectMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> carry the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV that specifies more information on the reasons that led to a negative reply. In case of GMPLSnetworksnetworks, there could be some additional constraints that led to the failure such as protection mismatch, lack of resources, and so on. Several new flags have been defined in the 32-bitflagFlag field of the NO-PATH-VECTORTLVTLV, but no modifications have been made in the NO-PATH object. </t> <sectiontitle="Extensionsanchor="no-path_bits" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Extensions to NO-PATH-VECTORTLV" anchor="no-path_bits">TLV</name> <t> The modified NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV carrying the additional information is as follows:<list> <t>Bit</t> <ul empty="true" spacing="normal"><li> <dl spacing="normal"> <dt>Bit numberTBA-32 - Protection18:</dt><dd>Protection Mismatch(1-bit).(1 bit). Specifies the mismatch of the protection type in the PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV in the request.</t> <t>Bit</dd> <dt>Bit numberTBA-33 - No17:</dt><dd>No Resource(1-bit).(1 bit). Specifies that the resources are not currently sufficient to provide the path.</t> <t>Bit</dd> <dt>Bit numberTBA-34 - Granularity16:</dt><dd>Granularity not supported(1-bit).(1 bit). Specifies that the PCE is not able to provide a path with the requested granularity.</t> <t>Bit</dd> <dt>Bit numberTBA-35 - No15:</dt><dd>No endpoint label resource(1-bit).(1 bit). Specifies that the PCE is not able to provide a path because of the endpoint labelrestriction. </t> <t>Bitrestriction.</dd> <dt>Bit numberTBA-36 - No14:</dt><dd>No endpoint label resource in range(1-bit).(1 bit). Specifies that the PCE is not able to provide a path because of the endpoint label set restriction.</t> <t>Bit</dd> <dt>Bit numberTBA-37 - No13:</dt><dd>No label resource in range(1-bit).(1 bit). Specifies that the PCE is not able to provide a path because of the label setrestriction. </t> </list> </t>restriction.</dd> <dt>Bit number 12:</dt><dd>LOAD-BALANCING could not be performed with the bandwidth constraints (1 bit). Specifies that the PCE is not able to provide a path because it could not map the BANDWIDTH into the parameters specified by the LOAD-BALANCING.</dd> </dl></li></ul> </section><!-- NO-Path vector TLV --></section><!-- end NO-PATH --></section><!-- End PCEP Object and Extensions--><sectiontitle="Additionalanchor="error-codes" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Additional Error-Types and Error-ValuesDefined" anchor="error-codes">Defined</name> <t> A PCEP-ERROR object is used to report a PCEP error and is characterized by an Error-Type that specifies the type of errorwhileand an Error-value that provides additional information about the error. An additionalerror typeError-Type and severalerror valuesError-values are defined to represent some of the errors related to the newly identifiedobjectsobjects, which are related to GMPLS networks. For each PCEP error, an Error-Type and an Error-value are defined.Error-TypeError-Types 1 to 10 are already defined in <xreftarget="RFC5440"></xref>.target="RFC5440" format="default"/>. Additional Error-values are defined for Error-Types 4 and 10. A new Error-Type 29 (Path computation failure) is defined(value TBA-27).in this document. </t> <t>TheError-TypeTBA-27 (path29 (Path computation failure) is used to reflect constraints not understood by the PCE, forinstanceinstance, when the PCE is not able to understand thegeneralizedGeneralized bandwidth. If the constraints are understood, but the PCE is unable to findwiththose constraints,theNO-PATH is to be used. </t><texttable suppress-title='true' style='none'> <ttcol align='center' width="4%">Error-Type</ttcol> <ttcol align='left' width="14%">Error-value</ttcol> <ttcol align='left' width="53%"></ttcol> <c>4</c><c>Not<table align="center"> <thead> <tr> <th align="left">Error-Type</th> <th align="left">Meaning</th> <th align="left">Error-value</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td align="left">4</td> <td align="left">Not supported object</td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td></td> <td align="left">6: BANDWIDTH object</c><c></c> <c></c><c>value=TBA-14:</c><c>Bandwidth ObjecttypeTBA-23 orTBA-34 notsupported</c> <c></c><c>value=TBA-15:</c><c>Unsupportedsupported</td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td></td> <td align="left">7: Unsupported endpoint type in</c> <c></c><c></c><c>END-POINTSEND-POINTS GeneralizedEndpoint</c> <c></c><c></c><c>object type</c> <c></c><c>value=TBA-16:</c><c>UnsupportedEndpoint object type</td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td></td> <td align="left">8: Unsupported TLV present in END-POINTS Generalized Endpoint objecttype</c> <c></c><c>value=TBA-17:</c><c>Unsupportedtype</td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td></td> <td align="left">9: Unsupported granularity in the RP objectflags</c> <c>10</c><c>Receptionflags</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left">10</td> <td align="left">Reception of an invalidobject</c><c></c> <c></c><c>value=TBA-18:</c><c>Bad Bandwidth Objectobject </td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td></td> <td align="left">24: Bad BANDWIDTH object typeTBA-2(Generalized bandwidth)3 orTBA-3( Generalized bandwidth of existing TE-LSP for which a reoptimization is requested)</c> <c></c><c>value=TBA-20:</c><c>Unsupported4</td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td></td> <td align="left">25: Unsupported LSP Protection Flags in PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTETLV</c> <c></c><c>value=TBA-21:</c><c>UnsupportedTLV</td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td></td> <td align="left">26: Unsupported Secondary LSP Protection Flags in PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTETLV</c> <c></c><c>value=TBA-22:</c><c>UnsupportedTLV</td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td></td> <td align="left">27: Unsupported Link Protection Type in PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTETLV</c> <c></c><c>value=TBA-24:</c><c>LABEL-SETTLV</td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td></td> <td align="left">28: LABEL-SET TLV present with0O bit set but without R bit set inRP</c> <c></c><c>value=TBA-25:</c><c>Wrong LABEL-SET</c> <c></c><c></c><c>TLVRP</td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td></td> <td align="left">29: Wrong LABEL-SET TLV presentwith</c> <c></c><c></c><c>0with O and Lbit set</c> <c></c><c>value=TBA-26:</c><c>Wrongbits set</td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td></td> <td align="left">30: Wrong LABEL-SET TLV present with O bit set and wrongformat</c> <c></c><c>value=TBA-42:</c><c>Missingformat</td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td></td> <td align="left">31: Missing GMPLS-CAPABILITYTLV</c> <c>TBA-27</c><c>PathTLV</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left">29</td> <td align="left">Path computationfailure</c><c></c> <c></c><c>value=0:</c><c>Unassigned</c> <c></c><c>value=TBA-28:</c><c>Unacceptablefailure</td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td></td> <td align="left">0: Unassigned</td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td></td> <td align="left">1: Unacceptable requestmessage</c> <c></c><c>value=TBA-29:</c><c>Generalizedmessage</td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td></td> <td align="left">2: Generalized bandwidth value notsupported</c> <c></c><c>value=TBA-30:</c><c>Label Setsupported</td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td></td> <td align="left">3: Label set constraint could notbe</c> <c></c><c></c><c>met</c> <c></c><c>value=TBA-31:</c><c>Labelbe met</td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td></td> <td align="left">4: Label constraint could notbe</c> <c></c><c></c><c>met</c> </texttable>be met</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </section> <sectiontitle="Manageability Considerations">numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Manageability Considerations</name> <t>This section follows the guidance of <xref target="RFC6123"/>.</t>format="default"/>.</t> <sectiontitle="Controlnumbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Control of Function through Configuration andPolicy">Policy</name> <t> This document makes no change to the basic operation ofPCEP andPCEP, so the requirements described in <xref target="RFC5440"/> Section 8.1.sectionFormat="comma" section="8.1"/> also apply to this document. In addition to thoserequirementsrequirements, a PCEP implementation may allow the configuration of the following parameters:<list> <t>Accepted</t> <ul empty="false" spacing="normal"> <li>Accepted RG in the RPobject.</t> <t>Defaultobject.</li> <li>Default RG to use (overriding the one present in thePCReq)</t> <t>AcceptedPCReq).</li> <li>Accepted BANDWIDTH object typeTBA-23 andTBA-34 parameters inrequest,the request and default mapping to use when not specified in therequest</t> <t>Acceptedrequest.</li> <li>Accepted LOAD-BALANCING object typeTBA-42 parameters inrequest.</t> <t>Acceptedrequest.</li> <li>Accepted endpoint type and allowed TLVs in object END-POINTS with the object type GeneralizedEndpoint.</t> <t>AcceptedEndpoint.</li> <li>Accepted range for label restrictions inlabel restriction in END-POINTS, or IROEND-POINTS orXRO objects</t> <t>PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV acceptanceIRO/XRO objects.</li> <li>Acceptance andsuppression.</t> </list>suppression of the PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.</li> </ul> <t> The configuration of the above parameters is applicable to the different sessions as described in <xref target="RFC5440"/> Section 8.1sectionFormat="comma" section="8.1"/> (by default, per PCEP peer, etc.). </t> </section> <sectiontitle="Informationnumbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Information and DataModels">Models</name> <t> This document makes no change to the basic operation ofPCEP andPCEP, so the requirements described in <xref target="RFC5440"/> Section 8.2.sectionFormat="comma" section="8.2"/> also apply to this document. This document does not introduce any new EROsub objects, so that the,subobjects; the ERO information model is already covered in <xreftarget="RFC4802"/>.target="RFC4802" format="default"/>. </t> </section> <sectiontitle="Livenessnumbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Liveness Detection andMonitoring">Monitoring</name> <t> This document makes no change to the basic operation ofPCEP andPCEP, so there are no changes to the requirements for liveness detection and monitoringset outin <xref target="RFC4657"/>format="default"/> and <xref target="RFC5440"/> Section 8.3.sectionFormat="comma" section="8.3"/>. </t> </section> <sectiontitle="Verifyingnumbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Verifying CorrectOperation">Operation</name> <t> This document makes no change to the basic operations of PCEP and the considerations described in <xref target="RFC5440"/> Section 8.4.sectionFormat="comma" section="8.4"/>. New errors defined by this document should satisfy the requirement to log error events. </t> </section> <sectiontitle="Requirementsnumbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Requirements on Other Protocols and FunctionalComponents">Components</name> <t>No newRequirementsrequirements onOther Protocolsother protocols andFunctional Componentsfunctional components are made by this document. This document does not require ERO object extensions. Any new ERO subobject defined in the TEAS or CCAMPworking groupWorking Groups can be adopted without modifying the operations defined in this document. </t> </section> <sectiontitle="Impactnumbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Impact on NetworkOperation">Operation</name> <t>This document makes no change to the basic operations of PCEP and the considerations described in <xref target="RFC5440"/> Section 8.6.sectionFormat="comma" section="8.6"/>. In addition to the limit on the rate of messages sent by a PCEP speaker, a limitMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> be placed on the size of the PCEP messages. </t> </section> </section> <sectiontitle="IANA Considerations">numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>IANA Considerations</name> <t> IANA assigns values tothePCEP objects and TLVs. IANAis requested to make somehas made allocations for the newly defined objects and TLVs defined in this document.Also,In addition, IANAis requested to managemanages the space of flags thatarehave been newly added in the TLVs. </t> <sectiontitle="PCEP Objects"> <t>As describednumbered="true" toc="default"> <name>PCEP Objects</name> <t>New object types are defined in Sections <xreftarget="generalized-bandwidth"/>,target="generalized-bandwidth" format="counter"/>, <xreftarget="generalized-load-balancing"/>target="generalized-load-balancing" format="counter"/>, and <xref target="endpoints_generalized"/> new Objects types are defined.format="counter"/>. IANAis requested to makehas made the following Object-Type allocationsfromin the "PCEP Objects"sub-registry.subregistry. </t><texttable suppress-title='true' style='none' anchor='iana_gen_bw'> <ttcol align='left'></ttcol> <ttcol align='left'></ttcol> <c>Object Class</c><c>5</c> <c>Name</c><c> BANDWIDTH</c> <c>Object-Type</c><c>TBA-2: Generalized bandwidth </c> <c> </c><c>TBA-3:<table anchor="iana_gen_bw" align="center"> <thead> <tr> <th align="left">Object-Class Value</th> <th align="left">Name</th> <th align="left">Object-Type</th> <th align="left">Reference</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td align="left">5</td> <td align="left">BANDWIDTH</td> <td align="left">3: Generalized bandwidth</td> <td align="left">RFC 8779, <xref target="generalized-bandwidth" format="default"/></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left"></td> <td align="left"></td> <td align="left">4: Generalized bandwidth of an existing TE-LSP for which a reoptimization isrequested </c> <c>Reference</c><c>This document (<xref target="generalized-bandwidth"></xref>)</c> <c /><c /> <c>Object Class</c><c>14</c> <c>Name</c><c> LOAD-BALANCING</c> <c>Object-Type</c><c>TBA-4:requested</td> <td align="left">RFC 8779, <xref target="generalized-bandwidth" format="default"/></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left">14</td> <td align="left">LOAD-BALANCING</td> <td align="left">2: Generalized LoadBalancing </c> <c /><c /> <c>Reference</c><c>This document (<xref target="generalized-load-balancing"></xref>)</c> <c>Object Class</c><c>4</c> <c>Name</c><c> END-POINTS</c> <c>Object-Type</c><c>TBA-5: Generalized Endpoint </c> <c>Reference</c><c>This document (<xref target="endpoints_extensions"></xref>)</c> </texttable> </section> <!-- End New PCEP Objects--> <section title="Endpoint type fieldBalancing</td> <td align="left">RFC 8779, <xref target="generalized-load-balancing" format="default"/></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left">4</td> <td align="left">END-POINTS</td> <td align="left">5: Generalized Endpoint</td> <td align="left">RFC 8779, <xref target="endpoints_extensions" format="default"/></td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </section> <section numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Endpoint Type Field in the Generalized END-POINTSObject">Object</name> <t>IANAis requested to createhas created a new "Generalized Endpoint Types" registry to manage the Endpoint Type field of the END-POINTS object,Object Typethe object type GeneralizedEndpointEndpoint, andmanagethe code space.</t> <t>New endpointtypetypes in theReservedUnassigned range are assigned by Standards Action <xreftarget="RFC8126"/>.target="RFC8126" format="default"/>. Each endpoint type should be tracked with the following attributes:<list style='symbols'> <t>Endpoint type</t> <t>Description</t> <t>Defining RFC</t> </list></t> <ul spacing="normal"> <li>Value</li> <li>Type</li> <li>Defining RFC</li> </ul> <t>New endpointtypetypes in the Experimental Use rangeare for experimental use; thesewill not be registered with IANA andMUST NOT<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> be mentioned by any RFCs.</t> <t>The following valueshave beenare defined by thisdocument. (<xref target="endpoints_generalized"></xref>,document (see <xref target="endpoints_generalized_endpoint-type"/>):</t> <texttable suppress-title='true' style='none'> <ttcol align='left'>Value</ttcol> <ttcol align='left'>Type</ttcol> <ttcol align='left'>Meaning</ttcol> <c>0</c><c>Point-to-Point</c> <c></c> <c>1</c><c>Point-to-Multipoint</c><c>New leaves to add</c> <c>2</c><c></c> <c>Old leaves to remove</c> <c>3</c><c></c> <c>Old leaves whose path can be modified/reoptimized</c> <c>4</c><c></c> <c>Old leaves whose path has to be</c> <c></c><c></c> <c>left unchanged</c> <c>5-244</c><c>Unassigned</c><c></c> <c>245-255</c> <c>Experimental range</c><c></c> </texttable> </section> <!-- End END-POINTS object, Object Type Generalized Endpoint--> <section title="Newformat="default"/> in <xref target="endpoints_generalized" format="default"/>):</t> <table align="center"> <thead> <tr> <th align="left">Value</th> <th align="left">Type</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td align="left">0</td> <td align="left">Point-to-Point</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left">1</td> <td align="left">Point-to-Multipoint with leaf type 1</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left">2</td> <td align="left">Point-to-Multipoint with leaf type 2</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left">3</td> <td align="left">Point-to-Multipoint with leaf type 3</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left">4</td> <td align="left">Point-to-Multipoint with leaf type 4</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left">5-244</td> <td align="left">Unassigned</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left">245-255</td> <td align="left">Experimental Use</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </section> <section anchor="iana-tlvs" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>New PCEPTLVs" anchor='iana-tlvs'>TLVs</name> <t> IANA managesthea registry for PCEP TLV codepoint registrypoints (see <xreftarget="RFC5440"></xref>). Thistarget="RFC5440" format="default"/>), which is maintained as the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators"sub-registrysubregistry of the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry. IANAis requested to dohas allocated the followingallocation. Note: TBA-11 is not used <!-- The values here are suggested for use by IANA. -->per this document: </t><texttable suppress-title='true' style='none'> <ttcol align='center'>Value</ttcol> <ttcol align='left'>Meaning</ttcol> <ttcol align='left'>Reference</ttcol> <c>TBA-6</c><c>IPV4-ADDRESS</c><c> This document (<xref target="endpoints_tlvs_ipv4"></xref>) </c> <c>TBA-7</c><c>IPV6-ADDRESS</c><c> This document (<xref target="endpoints_tlvs_ipv6"></xref>) </c> <c>TBA-8</c><c>UNNUMBERED-ENDPOINT</c><c> This document (<xref target="endpoints_tlvs_unnumbered-if"></xref>) </c> <c>TBA-9</c><c>LABEL-REQUEST</c><c> This document (<xref target="endpoints_tlvs_label-request"></xref>) </c> <c>TBA-10</c><c>LABEL-SET</c><c> This document (<xref target="endpoints_tlvs_labels"></xref>) </c> <c>TBA-12 </c><c>PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE</c><c> This document (<xref target="lspa"></xref>) </c> <c>TBA-1</c><c>GMPLS-CAPABILITY</c><c> This document (<xref target="open-extensions"></xref>) </c> </texttable> </section> <!-- End New PCEP TLVs--> <section title="RP<table align="center"> <thead> <tr> <th align="center">Value</th> <th align="left">Meaning</th> <th align="left">Reference</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td align="center">39</td> <td align="left">IPV4-ADDRESS</td> <td align="left">RFC 8779, <xref target="endpoints_tlvs_ipv4" format="default"/></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">40</td> <td align="left">IPV6-ADDRESS</td> <td align="left">RFC 8779, <xref target="endpoints_tlvs_ipv6" format="default"/></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">41</td> <td align="left">UNNUMBERED-ENDPOINT</td> <td align="left">RFC 8779, <xref target="endpoints_tlvs_unnumbered-if" format="default"/></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">42</td> <td align="left">LABEL-REQUEST</td> <td align="left">RFC 8779, <xref target="endpoints_tlvs_label-request" format="default"/></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">43</td> <td align="left">LABEL-SET</td> <td align="left">RFC 8779, <xref target="endpoints_tlvs_labels" format="default"/></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">44 </td> <td align="left">PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE</td> <td align="left">RFC 8779, <xref target="lspa" format="default"/></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">45</td> <td align="left">GMPLS-CAPABILITY</td> <td align="left">RFC 8779, <xref target="open-extensions" format="default"/></td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </section> <section numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>RP Object FlagField">Field</name> <t>As described in <xref target="rp-extensions"></xref>A new flagareis defined in <xref target="rp-extensions" format="default"/> for the Flags field of the RPObject Flagobject. IANAis requested to makehas made the followingObject-Type allocations fromallocation in the "RP Object Flag Field"sub-registry. <!-- The values here are suggested for use by IANA. -->subregistry: </t><texttable suppress-title='true' style='none'> <ttcol align='center'>Bit</ttcol> <ttcol align='left'>Description</ttcol> <ttcol align='left'>Reference</ttcol> <c>TBA-13</c><c>routing granularity (2 bits)</c><c>This document, <xref target="rp-extensions"></xref></c> <c><!-- (suggested bit 17-16) --></c><c> (RG)</c><c></c> </texttable><table align="center"> <thead> <tr> <th align="center">Bit</th> <th align="left">Description</th> <th align="left">Reference</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td align="center">15-16</td> <td align="left">Routing Granularity (RG)</td> <td align="left">RFC 8779, <xref target="rp-extensions" format="default"/></td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </section><!-- RP object flag--><sectiontitle="Newnumbered="true" toc="default"> <name>New PCEP ErrorCodes"> <t>As described in <xref target="error-codes"></xref>, newCodes</name> <t>New PCEP Error-Types and Error-values aredefined.defined in <xref target="error-codes" format="default"/>. IANAis requested to makehas made the followingallocationallocations in the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values"registry. <!-- The values here are suggested for use by IANA. -->registry: </t><texttable suppress-title='true' style='none'> <ttcol align='left' >Error</ttcol> <ttcol align='left' width="50">name</ttcol> <ttcol align='left' >Reference</ttcol> <c>Type=4</c><c>Not<table align="center"> <thead> <tr> <th align="left">Error-Type</th> <th align="left">Meaning</th> <th align="left">Error-value</th> <th align="left">Reference</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td align="left">4</td> <td align="left">Not supportedobject </c><c><xrefobject</td> <td></td> <td align="left"><xref target="RFC5440"/></c> <c>Value=TBA-14:</c><c>Bandwidth Objectformat="default"/></td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td></td> <td align="left">6: BANDWIDTH object typeTBA-23 orTBA-34 notsupported</c><c>This Document</c> <c>Value=TBA-15:</c><c>Unsupportedsupported</td> <td align="left">RFC 8779</td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td></td> <td align="left">7: Unsupported endpoint type in END-POINTS Generalized Endpoint objecttype</c><c>This Document</c> <c>Value=TBA-16:</c><c>Unsupportedtype</td> <td align="left">RFC 8779</td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td></td> <td align="left">8: Unsupported TLV present in END-POINTS Generalized Endpoint objecttype</c><c>This Document</c> <c>Value=TBA-17:</c><c>Unsupportedtype</td> <td align="left">RFC 8779</td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td></td> <td align="left">9: Unsupported granularity in the RP objectflags</c><c>This Document</c> <c>Type=10</c><c>Receptionflags</td> <td align="left">RFC 8779</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left">10</td> <td align="left">Reception of an invalid object</c><c><xref</td> <td></td> <td align="left"><xref target="RFC5440"/></c> <c>Value=TBA-18:</c><c>format="default"/></td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td></td> <td align="left">24: BadBandwidth ObjectBANDWIDTH object typeTBA-2(Generalized bandwidth)3 orTBA-3(Generalized bandwidth of existing TE-LSP for which a reoptimization is requested)</c><c>This Document</c> <c>Value=TBA-20:</c><c>4</td> <td align="left">RFC 8779</td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td></td> <td align="left">25: Unsupported LSP Protection Flags in PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTETLV</c><c>This Document</c> <c>Value=TBA-21:</c><c>TLV</td> <td align="left">RFC 8779</td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td></td> <td align="left">26: Unsupported Secondary LSP Protection Flags in PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTETLV</c><c>This Document</c> <c>Value=TBA-22:</c><c>TLV</td> <td align="left">RFC 8779</td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td></td> <td align="left">27: Unsupported Link Protection Type in PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTETLV</c><c>This Document</c> <c>Value=TBA-24:</c><c>TLV</td> <td align="left">RFC 8779</td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td></td> <td align="left">28: LABEL-SET TLV present with0O bit set but without R bit set inRP</c><c>This Document</c> <c>Value=TBA-25:</c><c>RP</td> <td align="left">RFC 8779</td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td></td> <td align="left">29: Wrong LABEL-SET TLV present with0O and Lbit set</c><c>This Document</c> <c>Value=TBA-26:</c><c>bits set</td> <td align="left">RFC 8779</td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td></td> <td align="left">30: Wrong LABEL-SET TLV present with O bit set and wrongformat</c><c>This Document</c> <c>Value=TBA-42:</c><c>format</td> <td align="left">RFC 8779</td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td></td> <td align="left">31: Missing GMPLS-CAPABILITYTLV</c><c>This Document</c> <c>Type=TBA-27</c><c>PathTLV</td> <td align="left">RFC 8779</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left">29</td> <td align="left">Path computationfailure</c><c>This Document</c> <c>Value=0</c><c> Unassigned</c><c>This Document</c> <c>Value=TBA-28:</c><c>Unacceptablefailure</td> <td></td> <td align="left">RFC 8779</td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td></td> <td align="left">0: Unassigned</td> <td align="left">RFC 8779</td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td></td> <td align="left">1: Unacceptable requestmessage</c><c>This Document</c> <c>Value=TBA-29:</c><c>Generalizedmessage</td> <td align="left">RFC 8779</td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td></td> <td align="left">2: Generalized bandwidth value notsupported</c><c>This Document</c> <c>Value=TBA-30:</c><c>Label Setsupported</td> <td align="left">RFC 8779</td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td></td> <td align="left">3: Label set constraint could not bemet</c><c>This Document</c> <c>Value=TBA-31:</c><c>Labelmet</td> <td align="left">RFC 8779</td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td></td> <td align="left">4: Label constraint could not bemet</c><c>This Document</c> </texttable>met</td> <td align="left">RFC 8779</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </section> <sectiontitle="Newnumbered="true" toc="default"> <name>New Bits in NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV</name> <t>New NO-PATH-VECTOR TLVFields"> <t>As describedbits are defined in <xreftarget="no-path_bits"></xref>, new NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Flag Fields have been defined.target="no-path_bits" format="default"/>. IANAis requested to dohas made the following allocations in the "NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Flag Field"sub-registry. <!-- The values here are suggested for use by IANA. --> <list> <t>Bit number TBA-32 - Protection Mismatch (1-bit). Specifies the mismatch of the protection type of the PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV in the request.subregistry: </t><t>Bit number TBA-33 - No Resource (1-bit). Specifies that the resources are not currently sufficient to provide the path. </t> <t>Bit number TBA-34 - Granularity not supported (1-bit). Specifies that the PCE is not able to provide a path with the requested granularity. </t> <t>Bit number TBA-35 - No endpoint label resource (1-bit). Specifies that the PCE is not able to provide a path because of the endpoint label restriction. </t> <t>Bit number TBA-36 - No<table anchor="no-path-vector-iana"> <thead> <tr> <th>Bit</th> <th>Description</th> <th>Reference</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>18</td> <td>Protection Mismatch</td> <td>RFC 8779</td> </tr> <tr> <td>17</td> <td>No Resource</td> <td>RFC 8779</td> </tr> <tr> <td>16</td> <td>Granularity not supported</td> <td>RFC 8779</td> </tr> <tr> <td>15</td> <td>No endpoint label resource</td> <td>RFC 8779</td> </tr> <tr> <td>14</td> <td>No endpoint label resource inrange (1-bit). Specifies that the PCE is not able to provide a path because of the endpoint label set restriction. </t> <t>Bit number TBA-37 - Norange</td> <td>RFC 8779</td> </tr> <tr> <td>13</td> <td>No label resource inrange (1-bit). Specifies that the PCE is not able to provide a path because of the label set restriction. </t> <t>Bit number TBA-40 - LOAD-BALANCINGrange</td> <td>RFC 8779</td> </tr> <tr> <td>12</td> <td>LOAD-BALANCING could not be performed with the bandwidthconstraits (1 bit). Specifies that the PCE is not able to provide a path because it could not map the BANDWIDTH into the parameters specified by the LOAD-BALANCING. </t> </list> </t>constraints</td> <td>RFC 8779</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </section> <sectiontitle="Newnumbered="true" toc="default"> <name>New Subobject for the Include RouteObject" > <t>The "PCEP Parameters" registry containsObject</name> <t>IANA has added asubregistrynew subobject in the "IRO Subobjects"with an entry forsubregistry of theInclude Route Object (IRO).</t>"Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry.</t> <t>IANA is requested to addIANA has added afurthernew subobject that can be carried in the IRO as follows: </t><texttable suppress-title='true' style='none'> <ttcol align='left'>Subobject</ttcol> <ttcol align='left'>type</ttcol> <ttcol align='left'>Reference</ttcol> <c>TBA-38<!-- , suggested value 3--></c><c>Label subobject</c><c>This Document</c> </texttable> </section> <section title="New<table align="center"> <thead> <tr> <th align="left">Value</th> <th align="left">Description</th> <th align="left">Reference</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td align="left">10</td> <td align="left">Label</td> <td align="left">RFC 8779</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </section> <section numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>New Subobject for the Exclude RouteObject" > <t>The "PCEP Parameters" registry containsObject</name> <t>IANA has added asubregistrynew subobject in the "XRO Subobjects"with an entry forsubregistry of theXRO object (Exclude Route Object).</t>"Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry.</t> <t> IANAis requested to addhas added afurthernew subobject that can be carried in the XRO as follows: </t><texttable suppress-title='true' style='none'> <ttcol align='left'>Subobject</ttcol> <ttcol align='left'>type</ttcol> <ttcol align='left'>Reference</ttcol> <c>TBA-39<!--, suggested value 3--></c><c>Label subobject</c><c>This Document</c> </texttable> </section> <section title="New<table align="center"> <thead> <tr> <th align="left">Value</th> <th align="left">Description</th> <th align="left">Reference</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td align="left">10</td> <td align="left">Label</td> <td align="left">RFC 8779</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </section> <section numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>New GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV FlagField" >Field</name> <t>IANAis requested to createhas created asub-registry to manage the Flag field of the GMPLS-CAPABILITYnew "GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV Flag Field" subregistry within the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers"registry.</t>registry to manage the Flag field of the GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV.</t> <t>New bit numbers are to be assigned by Standards Action <xreftarget="RFC8126"/>.target="RFC8126" format="default"/>. Each bit should be tracked with the following qualities:<list style="symbols"> <t>Bit</t> <ul spacing="normal"> <li>Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significantbit)</t> <t>Capability description</t> <t>Defining RFC</t> </list></t>bit)</li> <li>Capability description</li> <li>Defining RFC</li> </ul> <t>The initial contents of thesub-registrysubregistry are empty, withallbits 0-31 markedunassigned</t>as Unassigned.</t> </section> </section><!-- End IANA --><sectiontitle="Security Considerations">numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Security Considerations</name> <t> GMPLS controls multiple technologies and types of network elements. The LSPs that are established using GMPLS, whose paths can be computed using the PCEP extensions to support GMPLS described in this document, can carry a high volume of traffic and can be a critical part of a network infrastructure. The PCE can then play a key role in the use of the resources and in determining the physical paths of theLSPs and thusLSPs; thus, it is important to ensure the identity of the PCE and PCC, as well as the communication channel. In manydeploymentsdeployments, there will be a completely isolated network where an external attack is of very low probability. However, there are other deployment cases in which the PCC-PCE communication can be moreexposedexposed, and there could be more security considerations.ThreeThere are three main situations in caseofan attack in the GMPLS PCE contextcould happen: <list style="symbols"> <t> PCEhappens: </t> <ul spacing="normal" empty="true"> <li> <dl spacing="normal"> <dt>PCE Identitytheft: Atheft:</dt><dd>A legitimate PCC could request a path for a GMPLS LSP to a malicious PCE, which poses as a legitimate PCE. Theanswer can makeresponse may be that the LSP traverses some geographical place known to the attacker where confidentiality (sniffing), integrity (trafficmodification)modification), or availability (traffic drop) attacks could be performed by use of an attacker-controlled middlebox device. Also, the resulting LSP can omit constraints given in the requests (e.g., excluding certainfibers,fibers and avoiding someSRLGs)SRLGs), which could makethatthe LSPwhichthat will be set up laterset-up canlook perfectly fine, but it will be in a risky situation. Also, the result can lead to the creation of an LSP that does not provide the desired quality and gives less resources thannecessary. </t> <t>necessary.</dd> <dt> PCC Identitytheft: Atheft:</dt><dd>A malicious PCC, acting as a legitimate PCC, requesting LSP paths to a legitimate PCE can obtain a good knowledge of the physical topology of a critical infrastructure. It couldget to knowlearn enough details to plan a later physical attack.</t> <t></dd> <dt> Messageinspection: Asinspection:</dt><dd>As in the previous case, knowledge of an infrastructure can be obtained by sniffing PCEP messages.</t> </list></dd></dl></li> </ul> <t> The security mechanisms can provide authentication and confidentiality for those scenarios wherethePCC-PCE communication cannot be completely trusted. <xref target="RFC8253"/>format="default"/> provides origin verification, messageintegrityintegrity, and replay protection, and it ensures that a third party cannot decipher the contents of a message. </t> <t> In order to protect against the malicious PCEcasecase, the PCCSHOULD<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> have policies in place to accept or not accept the path provided by the PCE. Those policies can verify if the path follows the provided constraints. In addition,technology specific data planea technology-specific data-plane mechanism can be used (following <xref target="RFC5920"/> Section 5.8)sectionFormat="comma" section="5.8"/>) to verify thedata planedata-plane connectivity and deviation from constraints. </t> <t> Thedocument <xref target="RFC8253" /> describes theusage of Transport Layer Security (TLS) to enhance PCEPsecurity.security is described in <xref target="RFC8253" format="default"/>. The document describes the initiation oftheTLS procedures, the TLS handshake mechanisms, the TLS methods for peer authentication, the applicable TLS ciphersuites for data exchange, and the handling of errors in the security checks. PCE and PCCSHOULD<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> use the mechanism in <xref target="RFC8253"/> mechanismformat="default"/> to protect against malicious PCC and PCE. </t> <t> Finally, as mentioned by <xref target="RFC7025"/>format="default"/>, the PCEP extensionstothat support GMPLS should be considered under the same security as current PCEworkwork, and this extension will not change the underlying security issues. However, given the critical natureof the network infrastructures under control by GMPLS, the security issues described above should be seriously considered when deploying a GMPLS-PCE based control plane for such networks. For more information on the security considerations on a GMPLS control plane, not only related to PCE/PCEP, <xref target="RFC5920" /> provides an overview of security vulnerabilities of a GMPLS control plane. </t> </section> <section title="Contributing Authors"> <t>Elie Sfeir<vspace blankLines='0'/> Coriant<vspace blankLines='0'/> St Martin Strasse 76<vspace blankLines='0'/> Munich, 81541<vspace blankLines='0'/> Germany<vspace blankLines='1'/> Email: elie.sfeir@coriant.com<vspace blankLines='0'/> </t> <t> Franz Rambach<vspace blankLines='0'/> Nockherstrasse 2-4,<vspace blankLines='0'/> Munich 81541<vspace blankLines='0'/> Germany<vspace blankLines='1'/> Phone: +49 178 8855738<vspace blankLines='0'/> Email: franz.rambach@cgi.com<vspace blankLines='0'/> </t> <t> Francisco Javier Jimenez Chico<vspace blankLines='0'/> Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo<vspace blankLines='0'/> C/ Emilio Vargas 6<vspace blankLines='0'/> Madrid, 28043<vspace blankLines='0'/> Spain<vspace blankLines='1'/> Phone: +34 91 3379037<vspace blankLines='0'/> Email: fjjc@tid.es<vspace blankLines='0'/> </t> <t> Huawei Technologies <list> <t>Suresh BR<vspace blankLines='0'/> Shenzhen<vspace blankLines='0'/> China<vspace blankLines='0'/> Email: sureshbr@huawei.com<vspace blankLines='0'/> </t> <t> Young Lee<vspace blankLines='0'/> 1700 Alma Drive, Suite 100<vspace blankLines='0'/> Plano, TX 75075<vspace blankLines='0'/> USA<vspace blankLines='1'/> Phone: (972) 509-5599 (x2240)<vspace blankLines='0'/> Email: ylee@huawei.com<vspace blankLines='0'/> </t> <t> SenthilKumar S<vspace blankLines='0'/> Shenzhen<vspace blankLines='0'/> China<vspace blankLines='0'/> Email: senthilkumars@huawei.com<vspace blankLines='0'/> </t> <t> Jun Sun<vspace blankLines='0'/> Shenzhen<vspace blankLines='0'/> China<vspace blankLines='0'/> Email: johnsun@huawei.com <vspace blankLines='0'/> </t> </list> </t> <t> CTTC - Centre Tecnologic de Telecomunicacions de Catalunya <list> <t>Ramon Casellas<vspace blankLines='0'/> PMT Ed B4 Av. Carl Friedrich Gauss 7<vspace blankLines='0'/> 08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona)<vspace blankLines='0'/> Spain<vspace blankLines='0'/> Phone: (34) 936452916 <vspace blankLines='0'/> Email: ramon.casellas@cttc.es<vspace blankLines='0'/> </t> </list> </t> </section> <section title="Acknowledgments"> <t> The research of Ramon Casellas, Francisco Javier Jimenez Chico, Oscar Gonzalez de Dios, Cyril Margaria, and Franz Rambach leading to these results has received funding fromof theEuropean Community's Seventh Framework Program FP7/2007-2013network infrastructures undergrant agreement no 247674 and no 317999. </t> <t> The authors would like to thank Julien Meuric, Lyndon Ong, Giada Lander, Jonathan Hardwick, Diego Lopez, David Sinicrope, Vincent Roca, Dhruv Dhody, Adrian Farrel and Tianran Zhoucontrol by GMPLS, the security issues described above should be seriously considered when deploying a GMPLS-PCE-based control plane fortheir review and useful comments tosuch networks. For an overview of thedocument. </t> <t> Thankssecurity considerations, not only related toAlisa Cooper, Benjamin Kaduk, Elwun-davies, Martin Vigoureux, Roman Danyliw,PCE/PCEP, andSuresh Krishnan for the IESG comments</t>vulnerabilities of a GMPLS control plane, see <xref target="RFC5920" format="default"/>. </t> </section> </middle><!-- *****BACK MATTER ***** --><back><references title="Normative References"><references> <name>References</name> <references> <name>Normative References</name> <reference anchor="G.709-v3" target="https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.709-201606-I/en"> <front> <title> Interfaces for the optical transportnetwork, Recommendation G.709/Y.1331network </title> <author><organization>ITU-T</organization></author><organization>ITU-T</organization> </author> <date year="2016" month="June"/> </front> <refcontent>Recommendation G.709/Y.1331</refcontent> </reference><?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2210.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3209.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3471.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3473.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3477.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3630.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4003.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4328.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4606.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4802.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4872.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4873.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5088.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5089.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5440.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5511.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5520.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5521.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5541.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6001.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6003.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6205.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6387.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7570.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7139.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7792.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8126.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8253.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8282.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8306.xml"?><xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2210.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3209.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3471.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3473.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3477.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3630.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4003.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4328.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4606.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4802.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4872.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4873.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5088.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5089.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5440.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5511.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5520.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5521.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5541.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6001.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6003.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6205.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6387.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7570.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7139.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7792.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8126.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8253.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8282.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8306.xml"/> </references> <references> <name>Informative References</name> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4655.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4657.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5920.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6123.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6163.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7025.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7449.xml"/> </references><references title="Informative References"> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4655.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4657.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5920.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6123.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6163.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7025.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7449.xml"?></references> <section anchor="appendix"title="LOAD-BALANCINGnumbered="true" toc="default"> <name>LOAD-BALANCING Usage for SDH VirtualConcatenation"> <t>For exampleConcatenation</name> <t>As an example, a request for one co-signaled n x VC-4 TE-LSP will not usetheLOAD-BALANCING. In case the VC-4 components can use different paths, the BANDWIDTH with object typeTBA-23 will containa traffic specification indicatingthe complete n x VC-4 trafficspecificationspecification, and the LOAD-BALANCING object will contain the minimum co-signaled VC-4. For an SDH network, a requestto havefor a TE-LSP group with 10 VC-4 containers, with each path using at minimum 2 x VC-4 containers, can be represented with a BANDWIDTH object withOT=TBA-2,object type 3, the Bw Spec Type set to 4, and the content of the Generalized Bandwidthisfield with ST=6, RCC=0, NCC=0, NVC=10, and MT=1. TheLOAD-BALANCING, OT=TBA-4LOAD-BALANCING with object type 2 with the Bw Spec Type set to4,4 and Max-LSP=5, Min Bandwidth Spec is(ST=6,ST=6, RCC=0, NCC=0, NVC=2,MT=1).MT=1. The PCE can respond with aresponse withmaximum of 5 paths, with eachof thempath having a BANDWIDTHOT=TBA-2object type 3 and a Generalized Bandwidth field matching the Min Bandwidth Spec from the LOAD-BALANCING object of the corresponding request.</t> </section> <section numbered="false" toc="default"> <name>Acknowledgments</name> <t> The research of <contact fullname="Ramon Casellas"/>, <contact fullname="Francisco Javier Jimenez Chico"/>, <contact fullname="Oscar Gonzalez de Dios"/>, <contact fullname="Cyril Margaria"/>, and <contact fullname="Franz Rambach"/> that led to the results in this document received funding from the European Community's Seventh Framework Program FP7/2007-2013 under grant agreement no. 247674 and no. 317999. </t> <t> The authors would like to thank <contact fullname="Julien Meuric"/>, <contact fullname="Lyndon Ong"/>, <contact fullname="Giada Lander"/>, <contact fullname="Jonathan Hardwick"/>, <contact fullname="Diego Lopez"/>, <contact fullname="David Sinicrope"/>, <contact fullname="Vincent Roca"/>, <contact fullname="Dhruv Dhody"/>, <contact fullname="Adrian Farrel"/>, and <contact fullname="Tianran Zhou"/> for their review and useful comments. </t> <t> Thanks to <contact fullname="Alisa Cooper"/>, <contact fullname="Benjamin Kaduk"/>, <contact fullname="Elwyn Davies"/>, <contact fullname="Martin Vigoureux"/>, <contact fullname="Roman Danyliw"/>, and <contact fullname="Suresh Krishnan"/> for the IESG-related comments.</t> </section> <section numbered="false" toc="default"> <name>Contributors</name> <contact fullname="Elie Sfeir" > <organization>Coriant</organization> <address> <postal> <street>St. Martin Strasse 76</street> <city>Munich</city> <region></region><code>81541</code> <country>Germany</country> </postal> <email>elie.sfeir@coriant.com</email> </address> </contact> <contact fullname="Franz Rambach" > <organization></organization> <address> <postal> <street>Nockherstrasse 2-4</street> <city>Munich</city> <region></region><code>81541</code> <country>Germany</country> </postal> <phone>+49 178 8855738</phone> <email>franz.rambach@cgi.com</email> </address> </contact> <contact fullname="Francisco Javier Jimenez Chico" > <organization>Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo</organization> <address> <postal> <street>C/ Emilio Vargas 6</street> <city>Madrid</city> <region></region><code>28043</code> <country>Spain</country> </postal> <phone>+34 91 3379037</phone> <email>fjjc@tid.es</email> </address> </contact> <contact fullname="Suresh Babu" > <organization></organization> <address> <postal> <street></street> <city></city> <region></region><code></code> <country></country> </postal> <email>sureshhimnish@gmail.com</email> </address> </contact> <contact fullname="Young Lee" > <organization>Samsung Electronics</organization> <address> <postal> <street></street> <city></city> <region></region><code></code> <country></country> </postal> <phone></phone> <email>younglee.tx@gmail.com</email> </address> </contact> <contact fullname="Senthil Kumar S" > <organization></organization> <address> <postal> <street></street> <city></city> <region></region><code></code> <country></country> </postal> <email>ssenthilkumar@gmail.com</email> </address> </contact> <contact fullname="Jun Sun" > <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization> <address> <postal> <street></street> <city>Shenzhen</city> <region></region><code></code> <country>China</country> </postal> <email>johnsun@huawei.com</email> </address> </contact> <contact fullname="Ramon Casellas" > <organization>CTTC - Centre Tecnologic de Telecomunicacions de Catalunya</organization> <address> <postal> <street>PMT Ed B4 Av. Carl Friedrich Gauss 7</street> <city>Castelldefels,</city> <region>Barcelona</region><code>08660</code> <country>Spain</country> </postal> <phone>+34 93 6452916</phone> <email>ramon.casellas@cttc.e</email> </address> </contact> </section> </back> </rfc>