rfc9050xml2.original.xml   rfc9050.xml 
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="us-ascii"?> <?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" <!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629-xhtml.ent">
[]>
<?rfc toc="yes" ?>
<?rfc tocompact="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="4"?>
<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes" ?>
<?rfc sortrefs="no"?>
<?rfc rfcedstyle="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<?rfc iprnotified="Yes" ?>
<?rfc strict="no" ?>
<rfc ipr="trust200902"
category="std"
docName="draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-14"
obsoletes=""
updates=""
submissionType="IETF"
xml:lang="en">
<front>
<title abbrev="PCECC">PCEP Procedures and Protocol Extensions for
Using PCE as a Central Controller (PCECC) of LSPs</title>
<author initials="Z" <rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" number="9050" consensus="true" i
surname="Li" pr="trust200902" category="std" docName="draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-c
fullname="Zhenbin Li"> ontroller-14" obsoletes="" updates="" submissionType="IETF" xml:lang="en" tocInc
lude="true" tocDepth="4" symRefs="true" sortRefs="false" version="3">
<!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 3.5.0 -->
<front>
<title abbrev="PCECC">Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Procedures and Extensions for Using the PCE as a Central Controller (PCECC) of
LSPs</title>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9050"/>
<author initials="Z" surname="Li" fullname="Zhenbin Li">
<organization>Huawei Technologies</organization> <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
<address> <address>
<postal> <postal>
<street>Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.</street> <street>Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.</street>
<city>Beijing </city> <city>Beijing </city>
<region></region> <region/>
<code>100095</code> <code>100095</code>
<country>China</country> <country>China</country>
</postal> </postal>
<email>lizhenbin@huawei.com</email> <email>lizhenbin@huawei.com</email>
</address> </address>
</author> </author>
<author initials="S" surname="Peng" fullname="Shuping Peng"> <author initials="S" surname="Peng" fullname="Shuping Peng">
<organization>Huawei Technologies</organization> <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
<address> <address>
<postal> <postal>
<street>Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.</street> <street>Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.</street>
<city>Beijing</city> <city>Beijing</city>
<region></region> <region/>
<code>100095</code> <code>100095</code>
<country>China</country> <country>China</country>
</postal> </postal>
<email>pengshuping@huawei.com</email> <email>pengshuping@huawei.com</email>
</address> </address>
</author> </author>
<!--<author fullname="Dhruv Dhody"
initials="D"
surname="Dhody">
<organization abbrev="Huawei Technologies">Huawei
Technologies</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield</street>
<city>Bangalore</city>
<region>Karnataka</region>
<code>560066</code>
<country>India</country>
</postal>
<email>dhruv.ietf@gmail.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author initials="S" surname="Karunanithi" fullname="Satish Karunanithi">
<organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield</street>
<city>Bangalore</city>
<region>Karnataka</region>
<code>560066</code>
<country>India</country>
</postal>
<email>satishk@huawei.com</email>
</address>
</author>-->
<author initials="M" surname="Negi" fullname="Mahendra Singh Negi"> <author initials="M" surname="Negi" fullname="Mahendra Singh Negi">
<organization>RtBrick Inc</organization> <organization>RtBrick Inc</organization>
<address> <address>
<postal> <postal>
<street>N-17L, 18th Cross Rd, HSR Layout</street> <street>N-17L, 18th Cross Rd, HSR Layout</street>
<city>Bangalore</city> <city>Bangalore</city>
<region>Karnataka</region> <region>Karnataka</region>
<code>560102</code> <code>560102</code>
<country>India</country> <country>India</country>
</postal> </postal>
<email>mahend.ietf@gmail.com</email> <email>mahend.ietf@gmail.com</email>
</address> </address>
</author> </author>
<author initials="Q" surname="Zhao" fullname="Quintin Zhao">
<!--<author initials="A"
surname="Farrel"
fullname="Adrian Farrel">
<organization>Juniper Networks, Inc</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street></street>
<city></city>
<region></region>
<code></code>
<country>UK</country>
</postal>
<email>adrian@olddog.co.uk</email>
</address>
</author>-->
<author initials="Q"
surname="Zhao"
fullname="Quintin Zhao">
<organization>Etheric Networks</organization> <organization>Etheric Networks</organization>
<address> <address>
<postal> <postal>
<street>1009 S CLAREMONT ST</street> <street>1009 S Claremont St.</street>
<city>SAN MATEO</city> <city>San Mateo</city>
<region>CA</region> <region>CA</region>
<code>94402</code> <code>94402</code>
<country>USA</country> <country>United States of America</country>
</postal> </postal>
<email>qzhao@ethericnetworks.com</email> <email>qzhao@ethericnetworks.com</email>
</address> </address>
</author> </author>
<author initials="C" <author initials="C" surname="Zhou" fullname="Chao Zhou">
surname="Zhou"
fullname="Chao Zhou">
<organization>HPE</organization> <organization>HPE</organization>
<address> <address>
<postal> <postal>
<street></street> <street/>
<city></city> <city/>
<region></region> <region/>
<code></code> <code/>
<country></country> <country/>
</postal> </postal>
<email>chaozhou_us@yahoo.com</email> <email>chaozhou_us@yahoo.com</email>
</address> </address>
</author> </author>
<date year="2021" /> <date month="July" year="2021"/>
<area>Routing</area> <area>Routing</area>
<workgroup>PCE Working Group</workgroup> <workgroup>PCE Working Group</workgroup>
<keyword>SDN</keyword>
<keyword>CCI</keyword>
<keyword>Central Control</keyword>
<abstract> <abstract>
<t>The Path Computation Element (PCE) is a core component of Software- <t>The Path Computation Element (PCE) is a core component of Software-Defi
Defined Networking (SDN) systems.</t> ned Networking (SDN) systems.</t>
<t>A PCE as a Central Controller (PCECC) can
<t>A PCE-based Central Controller (PCECC) can
simplify the processing of a distributed control plane by blending it simplify the processing of a distributed control plane by blending it
with elements of SDN and without necessarily completely replacing it. with elements of SDN and without necessarily completely replacing it.
Thus, the LSP can be Thus, the Label Switched Path (LSP) can be
calculated/set up/initiated and the label forwarding entries can also be calculated/set up/initiated and the label-forwarding entries can also be
downloaded through a centralized PCE server to each network device downloaded through a centralized PCE server to each network device
along the path, while leveraging the existing PCE technologies as along the path while leveraging the existing PCE technologies as
much as possible.</t> much as possible.</t>
<t>This document specifies the procedures and Path Computation Element Com
<t>This document specifies the procedures and PCEP extensions for munication Protocol (PCEP) extensions for
using the PCE as the central controller for provisioning labels along the pat h of the static LSP. using the PCE as the central controller for provisioning labels along the pat h of the static LSP.
</t> </t>
</abstract>
</abstract>
</front> </front>
<middle> <middle>
<section title="Introduction" <section toc="default" numbered="true">
toc="default"> <name>Introduction</name>
<t>The Path Computation Element (PCE) <xref target='RFC4655'/> was developed <t>The Path Computation Element (PCE) <xref target="RFC4655" format="defau
to offload the lt"/> was developed to offload the
path computation function from routers in an MPLS traffic-engineered path computation function from routers in an MPLS traffic-engineered (TE)
network. It can compute optimal paths for network. It can compute optimal paths for
traffic across a network and can also update the paths to reflect traffic across a network and can also update the paths to reflect
changes in the network or traffic demands. Since then, the role and function changes in the network or traffic demands. Since then, the role and function
of the PCE has grown to of the PCE have grown to
cover a number of other uses (such as GMPLS <xref target='RFC7025'/>) and to cover a number of other uses (such as GMPLS <xref target="RFC7025" format="de
allow fault"/>) and to allow
delegated control <xref target='RFC8231'/> and PCE-initiated use of network delegated control <xref target="RFC8231" format="default"/> and PCE-initiated
resources <xref target='RFC8281'/>.</t> use of network
resources <xref target="RFC8281" format="default"/>.</t>
<t>According to <xref target='RFC7399'/>, Software-Defined Networking (SDN) r <t>According to <xref target="RFC7399" format="default"/>, Software-Define
efers to a d Networking (SDN) refers to a
separation between the control elements and the forwarding components separation between the control elements and the forwarding components
so that software running in a centralized system, called a so that software running in a centralized system, called a
controller, can act to program the devices in the network to behave controller, can act to program the devices in the network to behave
in specific ways. A required element in an SDN architecture is a in specific ways. A required element in an SDN architecture is a
component that plans how the network resources will be used and how component that plans how the network resources will be used and how
the devices will be programmed. It is possible to view this the devices will be programmed. It is possible to view this
component as performing specific computations to place traffic flows component as performing specific computations to place traffic flows
within the network given knowledge of the availability of network within the network given knowledge of the availability of network
resources, how other forwarding devices are programmed, and the way resources, how other forwarding devices are programmed, and the way
that other flows are routed. This is the function and purpose of a that other flows are routed. This is the function and purpose of a
PCE, and the way that a PCE integrates into a wider network control PCE, and the way that a PCE integrates into a wider network control
system (including an SDN system) is presented in <xref target='RFC7491'/>.</t system (including an SDN system) is presented in <xref target="RFC7491" forma
> t="default"/>.</t>
<t>In early PCE implementations, where the PCE was used to derive paths <t>In early PCE implementations, where the PCE was used to derive paths
for MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs), paths were requested by network for MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs), paths were requested by network
elements (known as Path Computation Clients (PCCs)), and the results elements (known as Path Computation Clients (PCCs)), and the results
of the path computations were supplied to network elements using the of the path computations were supplied to network elements using the
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) <xref target='RFC5440' />. Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) <xref target="RFC5440" format="default"/>.
This protocol was later extended to allow a PCE to send unsolicited This protocol was later extended to allow a PCE to send unsolicited
requests to the network for LSP establishment <xref target='RFC8281'/>.</t> requests to the network for LSP establishment <xref target="RFC8281" format="
default"/>.</t>
<t>PCE was developed to derive paths for MPLS Label Switched Paths <t>The PCE was developed to derive paths for MPLS LSPs, which are supplied
(LSPs), which are supplied to the head end of the LSP using the Path to the head end of the LSP using the PCEP. But SDN has a broader
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP). But SDN has a broader applicability than signaled MPLS and GMPLS TE networks, and the PCE may be us
applicability than signaled MPLS and GMPLS traffic-engineered ed to determine paths in a range
(TE) networks, and the PCE may be used to determine paths in a range
of use cases. PCEP has been proposed as a control protocol for of use cases. PCEP has been proposed as a control protocol for
use in these environments to allow the PCE to be fully enabled as a use in these environments to allow the PCE to be fully enabled as a
central controller.</t> central controller.</t>
<t><xref target="RFC8283" format="default"/> introduces the architecture f
<t><xref target='RFC8283'/> introduces the architecture for PCE as a central or the PCE as a central
controller as an extension of the architecture described in <xref target='RFC controller as an extension to the architecture described in <xref target="RFC
4655'/> 4655" format="default"/>
and assumes the continued use of PCEP as the protocol used between and assumes the continued use of PCEP as the protocol used between the PCE an
PCE and PCC. <xref target='RFC8283'/> further examines the motivations and a d PCC. <xref target="RFC8283" format="default"/> further examines the motivatio
pplicability ns and applicability
for PCEP as a Southbound Interface (SBI), and introduces the implications for for PCEP as a Southbound Interface (SBI) and introduces the implications for
the the
protocol. <xref target='I-D.ietf-teas-pcecc-use-cases'/> describes the use c protocol. <xref target="I-D.ietf-teas-pcecc-use-cases" format="default"/> de
ases for scribes the use cases for
the PCECC architecture.</t> the PCECC architecture.</t>
<t>A PCECC can
<t>A PCE-based Central Controller (PCECC) can
simplify the processing of a distributed control plane by blending it simplify the processing of a distributed control plane by blending it
with elements of SDN and without necessarily completely replacing it. with elements of SDN and without necessarily completely replacing it.
Thus, the LSP can be Thus, the LSP can be
calculated/setup/initiated and the label forwarding entries can also be calculated/set up/initiated and the label-forwarding entries can also be
downloaded through a centralized PCE server to each network device downloaded through a centralized PCE server to each network device
along the path while leveraging the existing PCE technologies as along the path while leveraging the existing PCE technologies as
much as possible.</t> much as possible.</t>
<t>This document specifies the procedures and PCEP extensions for
<t>This document specifies the procedures and PCEP extensions for
using the PCE as the central controller for static LSPs, where using the PCE as the central controller for static LSPs, where
LSPs can be provisioned as explicit label instructions at each LSPs can be provisioned as explicit label instructions at each
hop on the end-to-end path. Each router along the path must be hop on the end-to-end path. Each router along the path must be
told what label-forwarding instructions to program and what resources told what label-forwarding instructions to program and what resources
to reserve. The PCE-based controller keeps a view of the network and to reserve. The PCE-based controller keeps a view of the network and
determines the paths of the end-to-end LSPs, and the controller uses PCEP to determines the paths of the end-to-end LSPs, and the controller uses PCEP to
communicate with each router along the path of the end-to-end LSP. </t> communicate with each router along the path of the end-to-end LSP. </t>
<t>While this document is focused on the procedures for the static LSPs (r
<t>While this document is focused on the procedures for the static LSPs (refe eferred to as the basic PCECC mode in <xref target="SEC_M" format="default"/>),
rred to as basic PCECC mode in <xref target="SEC_M"/>), the mechanisms and proto the mechanisms and protocol encodings are specified in such a way that extension
col encodings are specified in such a way that extensions for other use cases ar s for other use cases are easy to achieve. For example, the extensions for the P
e easy to achieve. For example, the extensions for PCECC for Segment Routing (SR CECC for Segment Routing (SR) are specified in <xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-e
) are specified in <xref target='I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr'/ xtension-pce-controller-sr" format="default"/> and <xref target="I-D.dhody-pce-p
> and <xref target='I-D.dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6'/>.</t> cep-extension-pce-controller-srv6" format="default"/>.</t>
<!--<t>[Important Note - Note that this document achieves this by defining a
new PCEP message.
The authors and WG also debated on the use of existing PCEP messages.
<xref target="Procedures"/> defines the first approach where as <xref target
="appendix"/>
defines the latter. The authors are open to either of the approach and
will follow the direction of the WG.]</t>-->
<section title="Requirements Language"
toc="default">
<t>The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED",
"MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as
described in BCP 14 <xref target="RFC2119" /> <xref target="RFC8174"/> whe
n, and only when, they
appear in all capitals, as shown here.</t>
</section>
</section> </section>
<section title="Terminology" <section toc="default" numbered="true">
toc="default"> <name>Terminology</name>
<t>The terminology used in this document is the same as that described in the <t>The terminology used in this document is the same as that described in the
<xref target="RFC8283"/>.</t> <xref target="RFC8283" format="default"/>.</t>
<section toc="default" numbered="true">
<name>Requirements Language</name>
<t>
The key words "<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>REQU
IRED</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 "<bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14>" in this document are to
be interpreted as
described in BCP&nbsp;14 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/>
when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
</t>
</section>
</section> </section>
<section title="Basic PCECC Mode" <section toc="default" anchor="SEC_M" numbered="true">
toc="default" <name>Basic PCECC Mode</name>
anchor="SEC_M"> <t>In this mode, LSPs are provisioned as explicit label instructions at ea
<t>In this mode, LSPs are provisioned as explicit label instructions at each ch
hop on the end-to-end path. Each router along the path must be hop on the end-to-end path. Each router along the path must be
told what label forwarding instructions to program and what resources told what label-forwarding instructions to program and what resources
to reserve. The controller uses PCEP to communicate with each router to reserve. The controller uses PCEP to communicate with each router
along the path of the end-to-end LSP.</t> along the path of the end-to-end LSP.</t>
<t><xref target='RFC8283'/> examines the motivations and applicability for <t><xref target="RFC8283" format="default"/> examines the motivations and
PCECC and use of PCEP as an SBI. Section 3.1.2. of <xref target='RFC8283'/> applicability for the
highlights the use of PCECC for label allocation along the static LSPs and PCECC and use of PCEP as an SBI. <xref target="RFC8283" sectionFormat="of" se
ction="3.1.2"/>
highlights the use of the PCECC for label allocation along the static LSPs, a
nd
it simplifies the processing of a distributed it simplifies the processing of a distributed
control plane by blending it with elements of SDN and without control plane by blending it with elements of SDN and without
necessarily completely replacing it. This allows the operator to introduce necessarily completely replacing it. This allows the operator to introduce
the advantages of SDN (such as programmability) into the network. Further Sec the advantages of SDN (such as programmability) into the network. Further, <x
tion 3.3. of <xref target='I-D.ietf-teas-pcecc-use-cases'/> describes some of th ref target="I-D.ietf-teas-pcecc-use-cases" sectionFormat="of" section="3.3"/> de
e scenarios where the PCECC technique could be useful. Section 4 of <xref target scribes some of the scenarios where the PCECC technique could be useful. <xref t
='RFC8283'/> arget="RFC8283" sectionFormat="of" section="4"/>
also describe the implications on the protocol when used as an SDN SBI. The o also describes the implications on the protocol when used as an SDN SBI. The
perator needs to evaluate the advantages offered by PCECC against the operationa operator needs to evaluate the advantages offered by the PCECC against the opera
l and scalability needs of the PCECC. </t> tional and scalability needs of the PCECC. </t>
<t>As per Section 3.1.2. of <t>As per <xref target="RFC8283" sectionFormat="of" section="3.1.2"/>, the
<xref target='RFC8283'/>, the PCE-based controller will take responsibility f PCE-based controller will take responsibility for
or
managing some part of the MPLS label space for each of the routers managing some part of the MPLS label space for each of the routers
that it controls, and may take wider responsibility for partitioning that it controls and may take wider responsibility for partitioning
the label space for each router and allocating different parts for the label space for each router and allocating different parts for
different uses. The PCC MUST NOT make allocations from the label space set as ide for the PCE to avoid overlap and collisions of label allocations. It is RECO MMENDED that PCE makes allocations (from the label space set aside for the PCE) for all nodes along the path. For the purpose different uses. The PCC <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> make allocations from the lab el space set aside for the PCE to avoid overlap and collisions of label allocati ons. It is <bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14> that the PCE makes allocations (from the l abel space set aside for the PCE) for all nodes along the path. For the purpose
of this document, it is assumed that the exclusive label range to be used by a PCE of this document, it is assumed that the exclusive label range to be used by a PCE
is known and set on both PCEP peers. A future extension could add the capabil ity to is known and set on both PCEP peers. A future extension could add the capabil ity to
advertise this range via a possible PCEP extension as well (see <xref target= "I-D.li-pce-controlled-id-space"/>). advertise this range via a possible PCEP extension as well (see <xref target= "I-D.li-pce-controlled-id-space" format="default"/>).
The rest of the processing is similar The rest of the processing is similar
to the existing stateful PCE mechanism.</t> to the existing stateful PCE mechanism.</t>
<t>This document also allows a case where the label space is maintained by th <t>This document also allows a case where the label space is maintained by
e PCC and the labels are the PCC and the labels are
allocated by it. In this case, the PCE should request the allocation from allocated by it. In this case, the PCE should request the allocation from t
PCC as described in <xref target="PCC"/>.</t> he
PCC, as described in <xref target="PCC" format="default"/>.</t>
</section> </section>
<section title="PCEP Requirements" <section toc="default" anchor="SEC_R" numbered="true">
toc="default" <name>PCEP Requirements</name>
anchor="SEC_R"> <t>The following key requirements should be considered when
<t>The following key requirements should be considered when
designing the PCECC-based solution:</t> designing the PCECC-based solution:</t>
<t> <ol spacing="normal" type="1">
<list style="numbers"> <li>A PCEP speaker supporting this document needs to have the capability
<t>A PCEP speaker supporting this document needs to have the capability to to
advertise its PCECC capability to its peers.</t> advertise its PCECC capability to its peers.</li>
<li>A PCEP speaker needs means to identify PCECC-based LSPs in the
<!--<t>PCEP speaker not supporting this draft be able to reject PCEP messages.</li>
PCECC related extensions with a error reason code that indicates that thi <li>PCEP procedures need to allow for PCC-based label allocations.</li>
s feature is not <li>PCEP procedures need to provide a means to update (or clean up) labe
supported.</t>--> l entries downloaded to the PCC.</li>
<li>PCEP procedures need to provide a means to synchronize the labels be
<t>A PCEP speaker need means to identify PCECC-based LSP in the tween
PCEP messages.</t> the PCE and the PCC via PCEP messages.</li>
</ol>
<t>PCEP procedures need to allow for PCC-based label allocations.</t>
<t>PCEP procedures need to provide a means to update (or clean up) label entr
ies downloaded to the PCC.</t>
<t>PCEP procedures need to provide a means to synchronize the labels between
the PCE and the PCC via PCEP messages.</t>
</list>
</t>
</section> </section>
<section title="Procedures for Using the PCE as a Central Controller (PCECC) <section toc="default" anchor="Procedures" numbered="true">
" <name>Procedures for Using the PCE as a Central Controller (PCECC)</name>
toc="default" anchor="Procedures"> <section toc="default" numbered="true">
<section title="Stateful PCE Model" <name>Stateful PCE Model</name>
toc="default"> <t>Active stateful PCE is described in <xref target="RFC8231" format="de
<t>Active stateful PCE is described in <xref target='RFC8231'/>. PCE fault"/>. A PCE
as a central controller (PCECC) reuses the existing active stateful PCE as a Central Controller (PCECC) reuses the existing active stateful PCE
mechanism as much as possible to control LSPs.</t> mechanism as much as possible to control LSPs.</t>
</section> </section>
<section toc="default" numbered="true">
<section title="New LSP Functions" <name>New LSP Functions</name>
toc="default"> <t>Several new functions are required in PCEP to support the PCECC. This
document extends the
<t>Several new functions are required in PCEP to support PCECC. This document existing messages to support the new functions required by the PCECC:</t>
extends the <dl newline="false" spacing="normal">
existing messages to support the new functions required by PCECC:</t> <dt>PCInitiate:</dt>
<t> <dd>A PCEP message described in <xref target="RFC8281" format="default
<list style="hanging"> "/>.
<t hangText="PCInitiate:">a PCEP message described in <xref target='RF A PCInitiate message is used to set up a PCE-initiated LSP based on a
C8281'/>. PCECC mechanism.
PCInitiate message is used to set up PCE-Initiated LSP based on PCECC It is also extended for Central Controller Instructions (CCI) (downloa
mechanism. d or clean up the label-forwarding instructions in the context of this document)
It is also extended for Central Controller Instructions (CCI) (downloa on all nodes along the path, as described in <xref target="SEC_PCInitiate" form
d or clean up the Label forwarding instructions in the context of this document) at="default"/>.</dd>
on all nodes along the path as described in <xref target='SEC_PCInitiate'/>.</t <dt>PCRpt:</dt>
> <dd>A PCEP message described in <xref target="RFC8231" format="default
"/>.
<t hangText="PCRpt:">a PCEP message described in <xref target='RFC8231 A PCRpt message is used to send the PCECC LSP Reports. It is also exte
'/>. nded to report the set of CCI (label-forwarding instructions in the context of t
PCRpt message is used to send PCECC LSP Reports. It is also extended t his document) received
o report the set of Central Controller Instructions (CCI) (label forwarding inst from the PCE, as described in <xref target="SEC_PCRpt" format="default
ructions in the context of this document) received "/>. <xref target="sec_label_db_sync" format="default"/> describes the use of a
from the PCE as described in <xref target='SEC_PCRpt'/>. <xref target= PCRpt message during synchronization.</dd>
"sec_label_db_sync"/> describes the use of PCRpt message during synchronization. <dt>PCUpd:</dt>
</t> <dd>A PCEP message described in <xref target="RFC8231" format="default
"/>.
<t hangText="PCUpd:">a PCEP message described in <xref target='RFC8231 A PCUpd message is used to send the PCECC LSP Updates.</dd>
'/>. </dl>
PCUpd message is used to send PCECC LSP Updates.</t> <t>The new functions defined in this document are mapped onto the PCEP messa
<!--<t hangText="(PCLabelUpd):">a new PCEP message sent by a PCE to a ges, as
PCC shown in <xref target="SEC_FIG1" format="default"/>.</t>
to download or cleanup the Label entry. The PCLabelUpd <table anchor="SEC_FIG1" align="center">
message described in <xref target="SEC_PCLabelUpd"/>.</t> <name>Functions Mapped to the PCEP Messages</name>
<t hangText="(PCLabelRpt):">a new PCEP message sent by a PCC to a PCE <thead>
to <tr>
report the set of labels for which explicit action is required <th align="left">Function</th>
from PCE to update or cleanup or do nothing for these Label entries. <th align="left">Message</th>
The PCLabelRpt message described in <xref target="SEC_PCLabelRpt"/>.</ </tr>
t>--> </thead>
</list> <tbody>
</t> <tr>
<td align="left">PCECC Capability advertisement </td>
<!--<t>[Editor's Note: This document defines new messages PCLabelUpd and <td align="left">Open </td>
PCLabelRpt. The authors and WG also debated on the use of existing PCEP me </tr>
ssages. <tr>
See <xref target="appendix"/> on how the existing messages can be extended <td align="left">Label entry Add </td>
to add this functionality. WG needs to decide the final direction i.e. new <td align="left">PCInitiate </td>
specific messages </tr>
are needed or existing PCEP messages can be extended.]</t>--> <tr>
<td align="left">Label entry Clean up </td>
<t>The new functions defined in this document are mapped onto the PCEP messa <td align="left">PCInitiate </td>
ges as </tr>
shown in <xref target="SEC_FIG1"/>.</t> <tr>
<td align="left">PCECC-Initiated LSP </td>
<texttable anchor="SEC_FIG1" style="none" suppress-title="false" title="Fun <td align="left">PCInitiate </td>
ctions mapped to the PCEP messages" align="center"> </tr>
<ttcol align="left" width="70%">Function</ttcol> <tr>
<ttcol align="left" width="30%">Message</ttcol> <td align="left">PCECC LSP Update </td>
<c>PCECC Capability advertisement </c> <td align="left">PCUpd </td>
<c>Open </c> </tr>
<tr>
<c>Label entry Add </c> <td align="left">PCECC LSP State Report </td>
<c>PCInitiate </c> <td align="left">PCRpt </td>
</tr>
<c>Label entry Clean up </c> <tr>
<c>PCInitiate </c> <td align="left">PCECC LSP Delegation </td>
<td align="left">PCRpt </td>
<c>PCECC Initiated LSP </c> </tr>
<c>PCInitiate </c> <tr>
<td align="left">PCECC Label Report </td>
<c>PCECC LSP Update </c> <td align="left">PCRpt </td>
<c>PCUpd </c> </tr>
</tbody>
<c>PCECC LSP State Report </c> </table>
<c>PCRpt </c> </section>
<section toc="default" numbered="true">
<c>PCECC LSP Delegation </c> <name>New PCEP Object</name>
<c>PCRpt </c> <t>This document defines a new PCEP object called CCI (<xref target="SEC
_CCI" format="default"/>) to specify the Central Controller Instructions. In the
<c>PCECC Label Report </c> scope of this document, this is limited to label-forwarding instructions. Futur
<c>PCRpt </c> e documents can create new CCI object-types for other types of Central Controlle
r Instructions. The CC-ID is the unique identifier for the CCI in PCEP. The PCEP
</texttable> messages are extended in this document to handle the PCECC operations.</t>
</section>
</section> <section toc="default" numbered="true">
<section title="New PCEP Object" <name>PCECC Capability Advertisement</name>
toc="default"> <t>During the PCEP initialization phase, PCEP speakers (PCE or PCC) adve
<t>This document defines a new PCEP object called CCI (<xref target="SEC rtise their support of and willingness to use PCEP extensions for the PCECC usin
_CCI"/>) to specify the central controller instructions. In the scope of this do g these elements in the OPEN message:</t>
cument, this is limited to Label forwarding instructions. Future documents can c <ul spacing="normal">
reate new CCI object-types for other types of central controller instructions. T <li>a new Path Setup Type (PST) (<xref target="SEC_PATH" format="defau
he CC-ID is the unique identifier for the central controller instructions in PCE lt"/>) in the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV to indicate support for PCEP extens
P. The PCEP messages are extended in this document to handle the PCECC operation ions for the PCECC - 2 (Traffic engineering path is set up using PCECC mode)</li
s.</t> >
</section> <li>a new PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV (<xref target="SEC_PCECC_CAP_TLV" f
ormat="default"/>) with the L bit set to '1' inside the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILI
<section title="PCECC Capability Advertisement" TY TLV to indicate a willingness to use PCEP extensions for the PCECC-based Cent
toc="default"> ral Controller Instructions for label download</li>
<t>During the PCEP Initialization Phase, PCEP Speakers (PCE or PCC) advertise th <li>the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV <xref target="RFC8231" format="def
eir support of and willingness to use PCEP extensions for PCECC using these elem ault"/> (with the I flag set <xref target="RFC8281" format="default"/>)</li>
ents in the OPEN message:<list style="symbols"> </ul>
<t>The new PST is to be listed in the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV by
<t>A new Path Setup Type (PST) (<xref target="SEC_PATH"/>) in the PATH-SETUP- all PCEP speakers that support the PCEP extensions for the PCECC in this documen
TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV to indicate support for PCEP extensions for PCECC - TBD1 (Pa t.</t>
th is set up via PCECC mode)</t> <t>The new PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV is included in the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-C
<t>A new PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV (<xref target="SEC_PCECC_CAP_TLV"/>) with t APABILITY TLV in the OPEN object to indicate a willingness to use the PCEP exten
he L bit set to 1 inside the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV to indicate a willin sions for the PCECC during the established PCEP session. Using the L bit in this
gness to use PCEP extensions for PCECC based central controller instructions for TLV, the PCE shows the intention to function as a PCECC server, and the PCC sho
label download</t> ws a willingness to act as a PCECC client for label download instructions (see <
<t>The STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV (<xref target="RFC8231"/>) (with the I fla xref target="SEC_PCECC_CAP_TLV" format="default"/>).</t>
g set <xref target="RFC8281"/>)</t> <t>If the PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV is advertised and the STATEFUL-PCE-CA
</list></t> PABILITY TLV is not advertised, or is advertised without the I flag set, in the
OPEN object, the receiver <bcp14>MUST</bcp14>:</t>
<t>The new Path Setup Type is to be listed in the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV <ul spacing="normal">
by all PCEP speakers which support the PCEP extensions for PCECC in this docume <li>send a PCErr message with Error-Type=19 (Invalid Operation) and Er
nt.</t> ror-value=17 (Stateful PCE capability was not advertised) and</li>
<li>terminate the session.</li>
<t>The new PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV is included in PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TL </ul>
V in the OPEN object to indicate a willingness to use the PCEP extensions for PC <t>If a PCEP speaker receives the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV with th
ECC during the established PCEP session. Using the L bit in this TLV, the PCE sh e PCECC PST but without the PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV, it <bcp14>MUST</bcp14>:</t
ows the intention to function as a PCECC server, and the PCC shows a willingness >
to act as a PCECC client for label download instructions (see <xref target="SEC <ul spacing="normal">
_PCECC_CAP_TLV"/>).</t> <li>send a PCErr message with Error-Type=10 (Reception of an invalid o
bject) and Error-value=33 (Missing PCECC Capability sub-TLV) and</li>
<t>If the PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV is advertised and the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY <li>terminate the PCEP session.</li>
TLV is not advertised, or is advertised without the I flag set, in the OPEN Obj </ul>
ect, the receiver MUST:<list style="symbols"> <t>The PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> be used without
<t>Send a PCErr message with Error-Type=19 (Invalid Operation) and Error-valu the corresponding PST being listed in the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV. If it
e=TBD4 (stateful PCE capability was not advertised)</t> is present without the corresponding PST listed in the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILIT
<t>Terminate the session</t> Y TLV, it <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be ignored.</t>
</list></t> <t>If one or both speakers (PCE and PCC) have not indicated support and
willingness to use the PCEP extensions for the PCECC, the PCEP extensions for th
<t>If a PCEP speaker receives the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV with the PCECC e PCECC <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> be used. If a PCECC operation is attempted when
Path Setup Type but without the PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV, it MUST:<list style="s both speakers have not agreed in the OPEN messages, the receiver of the message
ymbols"> <bcp14>MUST</bcp14>:</t>
<t>Send a PCErr message with Error-Type 10 (Reception of an invalid object) a <ul spacing="normal">
nd Error-Value TBD2 (Missing PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV)</t> <li>send a PCErr message with Error-Type=19 (Invalid Operation) and Er
<t>Terminate the PCEP session</t> ror-value=16 (Attempted PCECC operations when PCECC capability was not advertise
</list></t> d) and</li>
<li>terminate the PCEP session.</li>
<t>The PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV MUST NOT be used without the corresponding Path </ul>
Setup Type being listed in the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV. If it is present <t>A legacy PCEP speaker (that does not recognize the PCECC Capability s
without the corresponding Path Setup Type listed in the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILI ub-TLV) will ignore the sub-TLV in accordance with <xref target="RFC8408" format
TY TLV, it MUST be ignored.</t> ="default"/> and <xref target="RFC5440" format="default"/>. As per <xref target=
"RFC8408" format="default"/>, the legacy PCEP speaker, on receipt of an unsuppor
<t>If one or both speakers (PCE and PCC) have not indicated support and willingn ted PST in a Request Parameter (RP) / Stateful PCE Request Parameter (SRP) objec
ess to use the PCEP extensions for PCECC, the PCEP extensions for PCECC MUST NOT t, will:</t>
be used. If a PCECC operation is attempted when both speakers have not agreed i <ul spacing="normal">
n the OPEN messages, the receiver of the message MUST:<list style="symbols"> <li>send a PCErr message with Error-Type=21 (Invalid traffic engineeri
<t>Send a PCErr message with Error-Type=19 (Invalid Operation) and Error-Valu ng path setup type) and Error-value=1 (Unsupported path setup type) and </li>
e=TBD3 (Attempted PCECC operations when PCECC capability was not advertised)</t> <li>terminate the PCEP session.</li>
<t>Terminate the PCEP session</t> </ul>
</list></t>
<t>A legacy PCEP speaker (that does not recognize the PCECC Capability sub-TLV)
will ignore the sub-TLV in accordance with <xref target="RFC8408"/> and <xref ta
rget="RFC5440"/>. As per <xref target="RFC8408"/>, the legacy PCEP speaker on re
ceipt of an unsupported PST in RP (Request Parameter) /SRP (Stateful PCE Request
Parameters) Object will:<list style="symbols">
<t>Send a PCErr message with Error-Type = 21 (Invalid traffic engineering pat
h setup type) and Error-value = 1 (Unsupported path setup type) </t>
<t>Terminate the PCEP session</t>
</list></t>
<!--Old, above is the reworded section from Victoria <t>During the PCEP Initi
alization Phase, PCEP Speakers (PCE or PCC)
advertise their support of PCECC extensions.</t>
<t>This document defines a new Path Setup Type (PST) <xref target='RFC8408'/>
for PCECC, as follows:<list style="symbols">
<t>PST = TBD1: Path is set up via PCECC mode.</t></list></t>
<t>A PCEP speaker MUST indicate its support of the function described
in this document by sending a PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV in the
OPEN object with this new PST included in the PST list.</t>
<t>This document also defines the PCECC Capability sub-TLV <xref target="SEC_
PCECC_CAP_TLV"/>. PCEP
speakers use this sub-TLV to exchange information about their PCECC
capability. If a PCEP speaker includes PST=TBD1 in the PST List of the
PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV then the receiving peer MUST also include the
PCECC Capability sub-TLV (with the L bit set to 1) inside the PATH-SETUP-TYPE
-CAPABILITY TLV. If the
sub-TLV is absent or the L bit is not set to 1, then the receiving PCEP speak
er MUST send a PCErr message
with Error-Type 10 (Reception of an invalid object) and Error-Value
TBD2 (Missing PCECC Capability sub-TLV) and MUST then close the PCEP
session. If a PCEP speaker receives a PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV
with a PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV, but the PST list does not contain
PST=TBD1, then the PCEP speaker MUST ignore the PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV.</t>
<t>The presence of the PST=TBD1 and PCECC Capability sub-TLV (with the L bit
set to 1, see <xref target="SEC_PCECC_CAP_TLV"/>) in a PCC's OPEN Object indicat
es that the PCC is willing to function as a PCECC client for label download inst
ructions.
The presence of the PST=TBD1 and PCECC Capability sub-TLV (with the L bit set
to 1) in a PCE's OPEN message indicates that the PCE is interested in function
as a PCECC server for label download instructions.</t>
<t>The PCEP extensions for PCECC for label download MUST NOT be used if one o
r
both PCEP Speakers have not included the PST=TBD1 or the PCECC Capability sub
-TLV (with the L bit set to 1) in their
respective OPEN message. If a PCEP speaker which supports the extensions of t
his draft but did not advertise this capability attempts a PCECC operation, then
a PCErr message with Error-Type=19 (Invalid Operation) and Error-Value=TBD3 (At
tempted PCECC operations when PCECC capability was not advertised) MUST be gener
ated by its peer and the PCEP session will be terminated. If a PCEP speaker does
not recognize the PCECC Capability sub-TLV, it will ignore the sub-TLV in accor
dance with <xref target='RFC8408'/> and <xref target='RFC5440'/>.</t>
<t>A PCC or a PCE MUST include both the PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV (with the L
bit set to 1) and the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV (<xref target='RFC8231'/>) (wi
th the I flag set <xref target='RFC8281'/>) in the OPEN Object to support the ex
tensions defined in this document. If the PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV is advertised
and the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV is not advertised in the OPEN Object, it MU
ST send a PCErr message with Error-Type=19 (Invalid Operation) and Error-value=T
BD4 (stateful PCE capability was not advertised) and terminate the session. This
error is also triggered if the PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV is advertised and the I
flag in the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV is not set.</t>-->
</section> </section>
<section toc="default" numbered="true">
<name>LSP Operations</name>
<t> The PCEP messages pertaining to a PCECC <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> include
the PATH-SETUP-TYPE
TLV <xref target="RFC8408" format="default"/> in the SRP object <xref target=
"RFC8231" format="default"/> with the PST set to '2'
to clearly identify that the PCECC LSP is intended.</t>
<section toc="default" anchor="PCE-I" numbered="true">
<name>PCE-Initiated PCECC LSP</name>
<t>The LSP instantiation operation is defined in <xref target="RFC8281
" format="default"/>. In order to set up a PCE-initiated LSP based on the PCECC
mechanism, a PCE
sends a PCInitiate message with the PST set to '2' for the PCECC
(see <xref target="SEC_PATH" format="default"/>) to the ingress PCC.</t>
<t>The label-forwarding instructions (see <xref target="CCI" format="d
efault"/>) from the PCECC are sent after the initial PCInitiate and PCRpt messag
e exchange with the ingress PCC, as per <xref target="RFC8281" format="default"/
> (see <xref target="SEC_FIG4" format="default"/>). This is done so that the PCE
P-specific identifier for the LSP (PLSP-ID) and other LSP identifiers can be obt
ained from the ingress and can be included in the label-forwarding instruction i
n the next set of PCInitiate messages along the path, as described below.</t>
<t>An LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV <xref target="RFC8231" format="default"/> <b
cp14>MUST</bcp14> be included for the PCECC LSPs; it uniquely identifies the LSP
in the network. Note that the fields in the LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV are described f
or the RSVP-signaled LSPs but are applicable to the PCECC LSP as well. The LSP o
bject is included in the CCI (label download <xref target="SEC_CCI" format="defa
ult"/>) to identify the PCECC LSP for this instruction. The PLSP-ID is the orig
inal identifier used by the ingress PCC, so a transit/egress Label Switching Rou
ter (LSR) could have multiple Central Controller Instructions that have the same
PLSP-ID. The PLSP-ID in combination with the source (in the LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV
) <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be unique. The PLSP-ID is included for maintainability rea
sons to ease debugging. As per <xref target="RFC8281" format="default"/>, the LS
P object could also include the SPEAKER-ENTITY-ID TLV to identify the PCE that i
nitiated these instructions. Also, the CC-ID is unique in each PCEP session, as
described in <xref target="SEC_CCI" format="default"/>.</t>
<t>On receipt of a PCInitiate message for the PCECC LSP, the PCC respo
nds with a PCRpt message with the status set to 'Going-up' and carrying the assi
gned PLSP-ID (see <xref target="SEC_FIG4" format="default"/>). The ingress PCC a
lso sets the D (Delegate) flag (see <xref target="RFC8231" format="default"/>) a
nd C (Create) flag (see <xref target="RFC8281" format="default"/>) in the LSP ob
ject. When the PCE receives this PCRpt message with the PLSP-ID, it assigns labe
ls along the path and sets up the path by sending a PCInitiate message to each n
ode along the path of the LSP, as per the PCECC technique. The CC-ID uniquely id
entifies the Central Controller Instructions within a PCEP session. Each node al
ong the path (PCC) responds with a PCRpt message to acknowledge the CCI with the
PCRpt messages including the CCI and LSP objects. </t>
<t>The ingress node would receive one CCI object with the O bit (out-l
abel) set. The transit node(s) would receive two CCI objects with the in-label C
CI without the O bit set and the out-label CCI with the O bit set. The egress no
de would receive one CCI object without the O bit set (see <xref target="SEC_FIG
4" format="default"/>). A node can determine its role based on the setting of th
e O bit in the CCI object(s) and the LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV in the LSP object.</t>
<t>The LSP deletion operation for the PCE-initiated PCECC LSP is the s
ame as defined
in <xref target="RFC8281" format="default"/>. The PCE should further
perform the label entry cleanup operation, as described in
<xref target="SEC_CLEANUP" format="default"/>, for the corresponding LS
P.</t>
<section title="LSP Operations" <figure anchor="SEC_FIG4">
toc="default"> <name>PCE-Initiated PCECC LSP</name>
<t> The PCEP messages pertaining to a PCECC MUST include PATH-SETUP-TYPE <artwork align="left" alt="" name="" type=""><![CDATA[
TLV <xref target='RFC8408'/> in the SRP object <xref target='RFC8231'/> with
PST set to TBD1
to clearly identify that PCECC LSP is intended.</t>
<section title="PCE-Initiated PCECC LSP"
toc="default" anchor="PCE-I">
<t>The LSP Instantiation operation is defined in <xref target='RFC8281'/>. I
n order to set up a PCE-Initiated LSP based on the PCECC mechanism, a PCE
sends PCInitiate message with PST set to TBD1 for PCECC
(see <xref target="SEC_PATH"/>) to the ingress PCC.</t>
<t>The label forwarding instructions (see <xref target='CCI'/>) from PCECC are s
ent after the initial PCInitiate and PCRpt message exchange with the ingress PCC
as per <xref target='RFC8281'/> (see <xref target="SEC_FIG4"/>). This is done s
o that the PLSP-ID and other LSP identifiers can be obtained from the ingress an
d can be included in the label forwarding instruction in the next set of PCIniti
ate messages along the path as described below.</t>
<t>An LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV <xref target='RFC8231'/> MUST be included for PCEC
C LSPs, it uniquely identifies the LSP in the network. Note that the fields in t
he LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV are described for the RSVP-signaled LSPs but are applicab
le to the PCECC LSP as well. The LSP object is included in the central controlle
r instructions (label download <xref target="SEC_CCI"/>) to identify the PCECC L
SP for this instruction. The PLSP-ID is the original identifier used by the ing
ress PCC, so a transit/egress LSR could have multiple central controller instruc
tions that have the same PLSP-ID. The PLSP-ID in combination with the source (in
LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV) MUST be unique. The PLSP-ID is included for maintainabilit
y reasons to ease debugging. As per <xref target='RFC8281'/>, the LSP object cou
ld also include the SPEAKER-ENTITY-ID TLV to identify the PCE that initiated the
se instructions. Also, the CC-ID is unique in each PCEP session as described in
<xref target="SEC_CCI"/>.</t>
<t>On receipt of PCInitiate message for the PCECC LSP, the PCC responds with
a PCRpt message with the status set to "GOING-UP" and carrying the assigned PLS
P-ID (see <xref target="SEC_FIG4"/>). The ingress PCC also sets the D (Delegate)
flag (see <xref target='RFC8231'/>) and C (Create) flag (see <xref target='RFC8
281'/>) in the LSP object. When the PCE receives this PCRpt message with the PLS
P-ID, it assigns labels along the path; and sets up the path by sending a PCInit
iate message to each node along the path of the LSP as per the PCECC technique.
The CC-ID uniquely identifies the central controller instruction within a PCEP s
ession. Each node along the path (PCC) responds with a PCRpt message to acknowle
dge the central controller instruction with the PCRpt messages including the cen
tral controller instruction (CCI) and the LSP objects. </t>
<t>The ingress node would receive one CCI object with O bit (out-label) set.
The transit node(s) would receive two CCI objects with the in-label CCI without
an O bit set and the out-label CCI with O bit set. The egress node would receive
one CCI object without O bit set (see <xref target="SEC_FIG4"/>). A node can de
termine its role based on the setting of the O bit in the CCI object(s) and the
LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV in the LSP object.</t>
<t>The LSP deletion operation for PCE-Initiated PCECC LSP is the same as def
ined
in <xref target='RFC8281'/>. The PCE should further
perform Label entry clean up operation as described in
<xref target="SEC_CLEANUP"/> for the corresponding LSP.</t>
<t>The PCE-Initiated PCECC LSP setup sequence is shown in <xref target="SEC_
FIG4"/>.</t>
<figure align="left"
alt=""
height=""
suppress-title="false"
title="PCE-Initiated PCECC LSP"
width=""
anchor="SEC_FIG4">
<artwork align="left"
alt=""
height=""
name=""
type=""
width=""
xml:space="preserve">
<![CDATA[
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
|PCC | | PCE | |PCC | | PCE |
|ingress| +-------+ |ingress| +-------+
+------| | | +------| | |
| PCC +-------+ | | PCC +-------+ |
| transit| | | | transit| | |
+------| | |<--PCInitiate,PLSP-ID=0,PST=TBD1------| PCECC LSP +------| | |<--PCInitiate,PLSP-ID=0,PST=2---------| PCECC LSP
|PCC +--------+ | | Initiate |PCC +--------+ | | Initiate
|egress | | |----PCRpt,PLSP-ID=2,D=1,C=1---------->| PCECC LSP |egress | | |----PCRpt,PLSP-ID=2,D=1,C=1---------->| PCECC LSP
+--------+ | | (GOING-UP) | +--------+ | | (GOING-UP) |
| | | | | | | |
|<-------PCInitiate,CC-ID=X,PLSP-ID=2----------------| Label |<-------PCInitiate,CC-ID=X,PLSP-ID=2----------------| Label
| | | | download | | | | download
|--------PCRpt,CC-ID=X,PLSP-ID=2-------------------->| CCI |--------PCRpt,CC-ID=X,PLSP-ID=2-------------------->| CCI
| | | | | | | |
| |<------PCInitiate,CC-ID=Y1,Y2,PLSP-ID=2-----| Label | |<------PCInitiate,CC-ID=Y1,Y2,PLSP-ID=2-----| Label
| | | | download | | | | download
| |-------PCRpt,CC-ID=Y1,Y2,PLSP-ID=2--------->| CCI | |-------PCRpt,CC-ID=Y1,Y2,PLSP-ID=2--------->| CCI
| | | | | | | |
| | |<----PCInitiate,CC-ID=Z,PLSP-ID=2-----| Label | | |<----PCInitiate,CC-ID=Z,PLSP-ID=2-----| Label
| | | | download | | | | download
| | |-----PCRpt,CC-ID=Z,PLSP-ID=2--------->| CCI | | |-----PCRpt,CC-ID=Z,PLSP-ID=2--------->| CCI
| | | | | | | |
| | |<---PCUpd,PLSP-ID=2,PST=TBD1,D=1------| PCECC LSP | | |<---PCUpd,PLSP-ID=2,PST=2,D=1---------| PCECC LSP
| | | (UP) | Update | | | (UP) | Update
| | |----PCRpt,PLSP-ID=2,D=1,C=1---------->| | | |----PCRpt,PLSP-ID=2,D=1,C=1---------->|
| | | (UP) | | | | (UP) |
]]> ]]></artwork>
</artwork> </figure>
</figure> <t>Once the label operations are completed, the PCE <bcp14>MUST</bcp14
<t>Once the label operations are completed, the PCE MUST send a PCUpd me > send a PCUpd message to the
ssage to the ingress PCC. As per <xref target="RFC8231" format="default"/>, the PCUpd mes
ingress PCC. The PCUpd message is as per <xref target='RFC8231'/> with D fla sage is with the D flag set.</t>
g set.</t> <t>The PCECC LSPs are considered to be 'up' by default (on receipt of
<t>The PCECC LSPs are considered to be 'up' by default (on receipt of PC a PCUpd message from the PCE).
Upd message from PCE). The ingress could further choose to deploy a data-plane check
The ingress could further choose to deploy a data plane check
mechanism and report the status back to the PCE via a PCRpt message to m ake sure that the correct label instructions are made along the path of the PCEC C LSP (and it is ready to carry traffic). The exact mechanism is out of scope of this document.</t> mechanism and report the status back to the PCE via a PCRpt message to m ake sure that the correct label instructions are made along the path of the PCEC C LSP (and it is ready to carry traffic). The exact mechanism is out of scope of this document.</t>
<t>In the case where the label allocations are made by the PCC itself
<t>In the case where the label allocations are made by the PCC itself (see <xref (see <xref target="PCC" format="default"/>), the PCE could request an allocation
target="PCC"/>), the PCE could request an allocation to be made by the PCC, and to be made by the PCC; then, the PCC would send a PCRpt message with the alloca
then the PCC would send a PCRpt with the allocated label encoded in ted label encoded in
the CC-ID object as shown in <xref target="SEC_FIG4b"/> in the configuratio the CC-ID object (as shown in <xref target="SEC_FIG4b" format="default"/>)
n sequence from the egress towards the ingress along the path.</t> in the configuration sequence from the egress towards the ingress along the path
<figure align="left" .</t>
alt="" <figure anchor="SEC_FIG4b">
height="" <name>PCE-Initiated PCECC LSP (PCC Allocation)</name>
suppress-title="false" <artwork align="left" alt="" name="" type=""><![CDATA[
title="PCE-Initiated PCECC LSP (PCC allocation)"
width=""
anchor="SEC_FIG4b">
<artwork align="left"
alt=""
height=""
name=""
type=""
width=""
xml:space="preserve">
<![CDATA[
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
|PCC | | PCE | |PCC | | PCE |
|ingress| +-------+ |ingress| +-------+
+------| | | +------| | |
| PCC +-------+ | | PCC +-------+ |
| transit| | | | transit| | |
+------| | |<--PCInitiate,PLSP-ID=0,PST=TBD1,-----| PCECC LSP +------| | |<--PCInitiate,PLSP-ID=0,PST=2,--------| PCECC LSP
|PCC +--------+ | | Initiate |PCC +--------+ | | Initiate
|egress | | |----PCRpt,PLSP-ID=2,D=1,C=1---------->| PCECC LSP |egress | | |----PCRpt,PLSP-ID=2,D=1,C=1---------->| PCECC LSP
+--------+ | | (GOING-UP) | +--------+ | | (GOING-UP) |
| | | | | | | |
|<-------PCInitiate,CC-ID=X,PLSP-ID=2----------------| Label |<-------PCInitiate,CC-ID=X,PLSP-ID=2----------------| Label
| | | C=1,O=0 | download | | | C=1,O=0 | download
|--------PCRpt,CC-ID=X,PLSP-ID=2-------------------->| CCI |--------PCRpt,CC-ID=X,PLSP-ID=2-------------------->| CCI
| | | Label=L1 | | | | Label=L1 |
| |<------PCInitiate,PLSP-ID=2,----------------| Labels | |<------PCInitiate,PLSP-ID=2,----------------| Labels
| | | CC-ID=Y1,C=1,O=0 | download | | | CC-ID=Y1,C=1,O=0 | download
| | | CC-ID=Y2,C=0,O=1,L1 | CCI | | | CC-ID=Y2,C=0,O=1,L1 | CCI
| |-------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=2--------------------->| | |-------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=2--------------------->|
| | | CC-ID=Y1,O=0,Label=L2 | | | | CC-ID=Y1,O=0,Label=L2 |
| | | CC-ID=Y2,O=1 | | | | CC-ID=Y2,O=1 |
| | |<----PCInitiate,CC-ID=Z,PLSP-ID=2-----| Label | | |<----PCInitiate,CC-ID=Z,PLSP-ID=2-----| Label
| | | C=0,O=1,L2 | download | | | C=0,O=1,L2 | download
| | |-----PCRpt,CC-ID=Z,PLSP-ID=2--------->| CCI | | |-----PCRpt,CC-ID=Z,PLSP-ID=2--------->| CCI
| | | | | | | |
| | |<---PCUpd,PLSP-ID=2,PST=TBD1,D=1------| PCECC LSP | | |<---PCUpd,PLSP-ID=2,PST=2,D=1---------| PCECC LSP
| | | (UP) | Update | | | (UP) | Update
]]></artwork>
]]> </figure>
</artwork> <t>In this example, it should be noted that the request is made to the
</figure>
<t>It should be noted that in this example, the request is made to the
egress node with the C bit set in the CCI object to indicate that the egress node with the C bit set in the CCI object to indicate that the
label allocation needs to be done by the egress and the egress responds wit label allocation needs to be done by the egress, and the egress responds wi
h the th the
allocated label to the PCE. The PCE further inform the allocated label to the PCE. The PCE further informs the
transit PCC without setting the C bit to 1 in the CCI object for out-label transit PCC without setting the C bit to '1' in the CCI object for the out-
but the C bit is set to 1 for in-label so the transit node make the label alloca label, but the C bit is set to '1' for the in-label, so the transit node makes t
tion (for the in-label) and report to the PCE. Similarly, the C bit is unset tow he label allocation (for the in-label) and reports to the PCE. Similarly, the C
ards the ingress to complete all the label allocation for the PCECC LSP. </t> bit is unset towards the ingress to complete all the label allocations for the P
CECC LSP. </t>
<!--<t>[Note: See <xref target="appendix"/> for how
we could use PCInitiate message instead of PCLabelUpd message.]</t> -->
</section> </section>
<section title="PCC-Initiated PCECC LSP" <section toc="default" anchor="SEC_BASIC_SETUP" numbered="true">
toc="default" <name>PCC-Initiated PCECC LSP</name>
anchor="SEC_BASIC_SETUP"> <t>In order to set up an LSP based on the PCECC mechanism where the LS
<t>In order to set up an LSP based on the PCECC mechanism where the LSP is c P is configured at the PCC, a PCC <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> delegate the LSP by
onfigured at the PCC, a PCC MUST delegate the LSP by sending a PCRpt message with the PST set for the PCECC (see <xref target="SE
sending a PCRpt message with PST set for PCECC (see <xref target="SEC_PATH"/ C_PATH" format="default"/>) and D (Delegate)
>) and D (Delegate) flag (see <xref target="RFC8231" format="default"/>) set in the LSP object (
flag (see <xref target='RFC8231'/>) set in the LSP object (see <xref target= see <xref target="SEC_FIG2" format="default"/>).</t>
"SEC_FIG2"/>).</t> <t>When a PCE receives the initial PCRpt message with the D flag and PST set
to '2', it <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> calculate the path and assign labels along the
<!--Paragaraph moved up "An LSP-IDENTIFIER TLV MUST be..."--> path in addition to setting up the path by sending a PCInitiate message to each
node along the path of the LSP, as per the PCECC technique (see <xref target="S
<t>When a PCE receives the initial PCRpt message with D flag and PST Type se EC_FIG2" format="default"/>). The CC-ID uniquely identifies the CCI within a PCE
t to TBD1, it SHOULD calculate the path and assigns labels along the path; and s P session. Each PCC further responds with the PCRpt messages, including the CCI
ets up the path by sending a PCInitiate message to each node along the path of t and LSP objects.</t>
he LSP as per the PCECC technique (see <xref target="SEC_FIG2"/>). The CC-ID uni <t>Once the CCI (label operations) are completed, the PCE <bcp14>MUST</bcp14
quely identifies the central controller instruction within a PCEP session. Each > send the PCUpd message to the
PCC further responds with the PCRpt messages including the central controller in ingress PCC. As per <xref target="RFC8231" format="default"/>, this PCUpd me
struction (CCI) and the LSP objects.</t> ssage should include the path information calculated by the PCE. </t>
<t>Note that the PCECC LSPs <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be delegated to a PCE
<!-- Paragaraph moved up at all times. </t>
<t>The ingress node would receive one CCI object with O bit (out-label) set. <t>The LSP deletion operation for the PCECC LSPs
The transit node(s) would receive two CCI objects with the in-label CCI without is the same as defined in <xref target="RFC8231" format="default"/>. If the
an O bit set and the out-label CCI with O bit set. The egress node would receive PCE receives
one CCI object without O bit set. A node can determine its role based on the se a PCRpt message for LSP deletion, then it does label the cleanup operation,
tting of the O bit in the CCI object(s) and the LSP-IDENTIFIER TLV in the LSP ob as
ject.</t> described in <xref target="SEC_CLEANUP" format="default"/>, for the correspo
--> nding LSP.</t>
<t>Once the central controller instructions (label operations) are completed <t>The basic PCECC LSP setup sequence is as shown in <xref target="SEC_FIG2" for
, the PCE MUST send the PCUpd message to the mat="default"/>.</t>
ingress PCC. As per <xref target='RFC8231'/>, this PCUpd message should incl <figure anchor="SEC_FIG2">
ude the path information calculated by the PCE. </t> <name>PCC-Initiated PCECC LSP</name>
<artwork align="left" alt="" name="" type=""><![CDATA[
<t>Note that the PCECC LSPs MUST be delegated to a PCE at all times. </t>
<t>The LSP deletion operation for PCECC LSPs
is the same as defined in <xref target='RFC8231'/>. If the PCE receives
a PCRpt message for LSP deletion then it does label clean up operation as
described in <xref target="SEC_CLEANUP"/> for the corresponding LSP.</t>
<t>The Basic PCECC LSP setup sequence is as shown in <xref target="SEC_FIG2"
/>.</t>
<figure align="left"
alt=""
height=""
suppress-title="false"
title="PCC-Initiated PCECC LSP"
width=""
anchor="SEC_FIG2">
<artwork align="left"
alt=""
height=""
name=""
type=""
width=""
xml:space="preserve">
<![CDATA[
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
|PCC | | PCE | |PCC | | PCE |
|ingress| +-------+ |ingress| +-------+
+------| | | +------| | |
| PCC +-------+ | | PCC +-------+ |
| transit| | | | transit| | |
+------| | |---PCRpt,PLSP-ID=1,PST=TBD1,D=1----->| PCECC LSP +------| | |---PCRpt,PLSP-ID=1,PST=2,D=1-------->| PCECC LSP
|PCC +--------+ | | |PCC +--------+ | |
|egress | | | | |egress | | | |
+--------+ | | | +--------+ | | |
| | | | | | | |
|<-------PCInitiate,CC-ID=X,PLSP-ID=1---------------| Label |<-------PCInitiate,CC-ID=X,PLSP-ID=1---------------| Label
| | | L1,O=0 | download | | | L1,O=0 | download
|--------PCRpt,CC-ID=X,PLSP-ID=1------------------->| CCI |--------PCRpt,CC-ID=X,PLSP-ID=1------------------->| CCI
| | | | | | | |
| |<------PCInitiate,PLSP-ID=1,---------------| Labels | |<------PCInitiate,PLSP-ID=1,---------------| Labels
| | | CC-ID=Y1,O=0,L2 | download | | | CC-ID=Y1,O=0,L2 | download
| | | CC-ID=Y2,O=1,L1 | CCI | | | CC-ID=Y2,O=1,L1 | CCI
| |-------PCRpt,CC-ID=Y1,Y2,PLSP-ID=1-------->| | |-------PCRpt,CC-ID=Y1,Y2,PLSP-ID=1-------->|
| | | | | | | |
| | |<----PCInitiate,CC-ID=Z,PLSP-ID=1----| Label | | |<----PCInitiate,CC-ID=Z,PLSP-ID=1----| Label
| | | L2,O=1 | download | | | L2,O=1 | download
| | |-----PCRpt,CC-ID=Z,PLSP-ID=1-------->| CCI | | |-----PCRpt,CC-ID=Z,PLSP-ID=1-------->| CCI
| | | | | | | |
| | |<---PCUpd,PLSP-ID=1,PST=TBD1,D=1-----| PCECC LSP | | |<---PCUpd,PLSP-ID=1,PST=2,D=1--------| PCECC LSP
| | | | Update | | | | Update
| | | | | | | |
]]> ]]></artwork>
</artwork> </figure>
</figure> <t>In the case where the label allocations are made by the PCC itself (s
<!-- Paragaraph moved up ee <xref target="PCC" format="default"/>), the PCE could request an allocation t
<t>The PCECC LSPs are considered to be 'up' by default (on receipt of PC o be made by the PCC; then,
Upd message from PCE). the PCC would send a PCRpt message with the allocated label encoded in
The ingress MAY further choose to deploy a data plane check the CC-ID object, as shown in <xref target="SEC_FIG2b" format="default
mechanism and report the status back to the PCE via a PCRpt message to m "/>.</t>
ake sure that the correct label instructions are made along the path of the PCEC <figure anchor="SEC_FIG2b">
C LSP (and it is ready to carry traffic).</t> <name>PCC-Initiated PCECC LSP (PCC Allocation)</name>
<t>In the case where the label allocations are made by the PCC itself (s <artwork align="left" alt="" name="" type=""><![CDATA[
ee <xref target="PCC"/>), the PCE could request an allocation to be made by the
PCC, and
then the PCC would send a PCRpt with the allocated label encoded in
the CC-ID object as shown in <xref target="SEC_FIG2b"/>.</t>
<figure align="left"
alt=""
height=""
suppress-title="false"
title="PCC-Initiated PCECC LSP (PCC allocation)"
width=""
anchor="SEC_FIG2b">
<artwork align="left"
alt=""
height=""
name=""
type=""
width=""
xml:space="preserve">
<![CDATA[
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
|PCC | | PCE | |PCC | | PCE |
|ingress| +-------+ |ingress| +-------+
+------| | | +------| | |
| PCC +-------+ | | PCC +-------+ |
| transit| | | | transit| | |
+------| | |---PCRpt,PLSP-ID=1,PST=TBD1,D=1----->| PCECC LSP +------| | |---PCRpt,PLSP-ID=1,PST=2,D=1-------->| PCECC LSP
|PCC +--------+ | | |PCC +--------+ | |
|egress | | | | |egress | | | |
+--------+ | | | +--------+ | | |
| | | | | | | |
|<-------PCInitiate,CC-ID=X,PLSP-ID=1---------------| Label |<-------PCInitiate,CC-ID=X,PLSP-ID=1---------------| Label
| | | C=1 | download | | | C=1 | download
|--------PCRpt,CC-ID=X,PLSP-ID=1------------------->| CCI |--------PCRpt,CC-ID=X,PLSP-ID=1------------------->| CCI
| | | Label=L1 | | | | Label=L1 |
| |<------PCInitiate,PLSP-ID=1,---------------| Labels | |<------PCInitiate,PLSP-ID=1,---------------| Labels
| | | CC-ID=Y1,C=1 | download | | | CC-ID=Y1,C=1 | download
| | | CC-ID=Y2,C=0,L1 | CCI | | | CC-ID=Y2,C=0,L1 | CCI
| |-------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=1-------------------->| | |-------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=1-------------------->|
| | | CC-ID=Y1,Label=L2 | | | | CC-ID=Y1,Label=L2 |
| | | CC-ID=Y2 | | | | CC-ID=Y2 |
| | |<----PCInitiate,CC-ID=Z,PLSP-ID=1----| Label | | |<----PCInitiate,CC-ID=Z,PLSP-ID=1----| Label
| | | C=0,L2 | download | | | C=0,L2 | download
| | |-----PCRpt,CC-ID=Z,PLSP-ID=1-------->| CCI | | |-----PCRpt,CC-ID=Z,PLSP-ID=1-------->| CCI
| | | | | | | |
| | |<---PCUpd,PLSP-ID=1,PST=TBD1,D=1-----| PCECC LSP | | |<---PCUpd,PLSP-ID=1,PST=2,D=1--------| PCECC LSP
| | | | Update | | | | Update
| | | | | | | |
]]></artwork>
- The O bit is set as before (and thus not included) </figure>
]]> <aside>
</artwork> <t>Note:</t>
</figure> <t>The O bit is set as before (and thus not included).</t>
</aside>
<t>In the case where the label allocations are made by the PCC itself (see < <t>In the case where the label allocations are made by the PCC itself
xref target="PCC"/>), the procedure remains the same, with just an additional (see <xref target="PCC" format="default"/>), the procedure remains the same, wit
h just an additional
constraint on the configuration sequence.</t> constraint on the configuration sequence.</t>
<t>The rest of the PCC-initiated PCECC LSP setup operations are the sa
<t>The rest of the PCC-Initiated PCECC LSP setup operations are the same as tho me as those described in <xref target="PCE-I" format="default"/>.</t>
se described in <xref target="PCE-I"/>.</t>
<!-- Paragaraph moved up
<t>It should be noted that in this example, the request is made to the
egress node with the C bit set in the CCI object to indicate that the
label allocation needs to be done by the egress and the egress respond
s with the
allocated label to the PCE. The PCE further inform the
transit PCC without setting the C bit to 1 in the CCI object for out-l
abel but the C bit is set to 1 for in-label so the transit node make the label a
llocation (for the in-label) and report to the PCE. Similarly, the C bit is unse
t towards the ingress to complete all the label allocation for the PCECC LSP. </
t>
</section> </section>
<section toc="default" anchor="CCI" numbered="true">
<section title="Central Controller Instructions" <name>Central Controller Instructions</name>
toc="default" anchor="CCI"> <t>The new CCI for the label operations in PCEP are done via the PCIni
<t>The new central controller instructions (CCI) for the label operations in tiate message (<xref target="SEC_PCInitiate" format="default"/>) by
PCEP are done via the PCInitiate message (<xref target="SEC_PCInitiate"/>), by defining a new PCEP object for CCI operations. The local label range of
defining a new PCEP Object for CCI operations. The local label range of
each PCC is assumed to be known by both the PCC and the PCE. </t> each PCC is assumed to be known by both the PCC and the PCE. </t>
<section toc="default" anchor="LabelDownloadCCI" numbered="true">
<section title="Label Download CCI" <name>Label Download CCI</name>
toc="default" anchor="LabelDownloadCCI"> <t>In order to set up an LSP based on the PCECC, the PCE sends a PCI
<t>In order to set up an LSP based on PCECC, the PCE sends a PCInitiate mess nitiate message
age to each node along the path to download the label instructions, as described
to each node along the path to download the Label instruction as described i in Sections <xref target="PCE-I" format="counter"/> and
n <xref target="PCE-I"/> and <xref target="SEC_BASIC_SETUP" format="counter"/>.
<xref target="SEC_BASIC_SETUP"/>. </t>
</t> <t>The CCI object <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be included, along with the LS
<t>The CCI object MUST be included, along with the LSP object in the PCIniti P object in the PCInitiate message. The LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV <bcp14>MUST</bcp14>
ate message. The LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV MUST be included in the LSP object. The SPE be included in the LSP object. The SPEAKER-ENTITY-ID TLV
AKER-ENTITY-ID TLV <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> be included in the LSP object.</t>
SHOULD be included in the LSP object.</t> <t>If a node (PCC) receives a PCInitiate message that includes a lab
<t>If a node (PCC) receives a PCInitiate message which includes a Label to d el to download (as part of CCI) that is out
ownload, as part of CCI, that is out of the range set aside for the PCE, it <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> send a PCErr m
of the range set aside for the PCE, it MUST send a PCErr message with Err essage with Error-Type=31
or-type=TBD5 (PCECC failure) and Error-value=1 (Label out of range) and <bcp14>MUST</bcp14
(PCECC failure) and Error-value=TBD6 (Label out of range) and MUST include th > include the
e SRP object to specify the error is for the corresponding label update via a P
SRP object to specify the error is for the corresponding label update via PCI CInitiate message.
nitiate message.
If a PCC receives a PCInitiate message but fails to download If a PCC receives a PCInitiate message but fails to download
the Label entry, it MUST send a PCErr message with Error-type=TBD5 the label entry, it <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> send a PCErr message with Error-Type=
(PCECC failure) and Error-value=TBD7 (instruction failed) and MUST include th 31
e (PCECC failure) and Error-value=2 (Instruction failed) and <bcp14>MUST</bcp14
SRP object to specify the error is for the corresponding label update via PCI > include the
nitiate message.</t> SRP object to specify the error is for the corresponding label update via a P
CInitiate message.</t>
<t>A new PCEP object for central controller instructions (CCI) is defined in <t>A new PCEP object for CCI is defined in <xref target="SEC_CCI" fo
<xref target='SEC_CCI'/>.</t> rmat="default"/>.</t>
</section> </section>
<section toc="default" anchor="SEC_CLEANUP" numbered="true">
<section title="Label Clean up CCI" <name>Label Cleanup CCI</name>
toc="default" <t>In order to delete an LSP based on the PCECC, the PCE sends Centr
anchor="SEC_CLEANUP"> al Controller Instructions via a PCInitiate
<t>In order to delete an LSP based on PCECC, the PCE sends a central control message to each node along the path of the LSP to clean up the label-forward
ler instructions via a PCInitiate ing instruction.
message to each node along the path of the LSP to clean up the Label forward </t>
ing instruction. <t>If the PCC receives a PCInitiate message but does not recognize t
</t> he
<t>If the PCC receives a PCInitiate message but does not recognize the label in the CCI, the PCC <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> generate a PCErr message with E
label in the CCI, the PCC MUST generate a PCErr message with Error-Type rror-Type=19 (Invalid operation) and Error-value=18 (Unknown Label) and
19(Invalid operation) and Error-Value=TBD8, "Unknown Label" and <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> include the SRP object to specify the error is for the
MUST include the SRP object to specify the error is for the corresponding label cleanup (via a PCInitiate message).
corresponding label clean up (via PCInitiate message). </t>
</t> <t>The R flag in the SRP object defined in <xref target="RFC8281" fo
<t>The R flag in the SRP object defined in <xref target='RFC8281'/> specifie rmat="default"/> specifies
s the deletion of the label entry in the PCInitiate message.</t>
the deletion of Label Entry in the PCInitiate message.</t> <figure anchor="SEC_FIG3">
<figure align="left" <name>Label Cleanup</name>
alt="" <artwork align="left" alt="" name="" type=""><![CDATA[
height=""
suppress-title="false"
title="Label Cleanup"
width=""
anchor="SEC_FIG3">
<artwork align="left"
alt=""
height=""
name=""
type=""
width=""
xml:space="preserve">
<![CDATA[
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
|PCC | | PCE | |PCC | | PCE |
|ingress| +-------+ |ingress| +-------+
+------| | | +------| | |
| PCC +-------+ | | PCC +-------+ |
| transit| | | | transit| | |
+------| | | | +------| | | |
|PCC +--------+ | | |PCC +--------+ | |
|egress | | | | |egress | | | |
+--------+ | | | +--------+ | | |
| | | | | | | |
|<-------PCInitiate,CC-ID=X,PLSP-ID=2----------------| Label |<-------PCInitiate,CC-ID=X,PLSP-ID=2----------------| Label
| | | R=1 | clean up | | | R=1 | cleanup
|--------PCRpt,CC-ID=X,PLSP-ID=2-------------------->| CCI |--------PCRpt,CC-ID=X,PLSP-ID=2-------------------->| CCI
| | | R=1 | | | | R=1 |
| |<------PCInitiate,CC-ID=Y1,Y2,PLSP-ID=2-----| Label | |<------PCInitiate,CC-ID=Y1,Y2,PLSP-ID=2-----| Label
| | | R=1 | clean up | | | R=1 | cleanup
| |-------PCRpt,CC-ID=Y1,Y2,PLSP-ID=2--------->| CCI | |-------PCRpt,CC-ID=Y1,Y2,PLSP-ID=2--------->| CCI
| | | R=1 | | | | R=1 |
| | |<----PCInitiate,CC-ID=Z,PLSP-ID=2-----| Label | | |<----PCInitiate,CC-ID=Z,PLSP-ID=2-----| Label
| | | R=1 | clean up | | | R=1 | cleanup
| | |-----PCRpt,CC-ID=Z,PLSP-ID=2--------->| CCI | | |-----PCRpt,CC-ID=Z,PLSP-ID=2--------->| CCI
| | | R=1 | | | | R=1 |
| | |<--PCInitiate,PLSP-ID=2,PST=TBD1,R=1--| PCECC LSP | | |<--PCInitiate,PLSP-ID=2,PST=2,R=1-----| PCECC LSP
| | | | remove | | | | remove
]]> ]]></artwork>
</artwork> </figure>
</figure> <t>As per <xref target="RFC8281" format="default"/>, following the r
<t>As per <xref target='RFC8281'/>, following the removal of the Label f emoval of the label-forwarding instruction, the PCC <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> send a P
orwarding instruction, the PCC MUST send a PCRpt message. CRpt message.
The SRP object in the PCRpt MUST include the The SRP object in the PCRpt message <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> include the
SRP-ID-number from the PCInitiate message that triggered the removal. SRP-ID-number from the PCInitiate message that triggered the removal.
The R flag in the SRP object MUST be set.</t> The R flag in the SRP object <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be set.</t>
<t>In the case where the label allocation is made by the PCC itself (see <xre <t>In the case where the label allocation is made by the PCC itself
f target="PCC"/>), the removal procedure remains the same, adding the sequence c (see <xref target="PCC" format="default"/>), the removal procedure remains the s
onstraint.</t> ame, adding the sequence constraint.</t>
</section> </section>
</section> </section>
<section toc="default" numbered="true">
<section title="PCECC LSP Update" <name>PCECC LSP Update</name>
toc="default"> <t>The update is done as per the make-before-break procedures, i.e., t
<t>The update is done as per the make-before-break procedures, i.e. the PCEC he PCECC first updates new label instructions based on the updated path and then
C first updates new label instructions based on the updated path and then inform informs the ingress to switch traffic before cleaning up the former instruction
s the ingress to switch traffic, before cleaning up the former instructions. New s. New CC-IDs are used to identify the updated instructions; the identifiers in
CC-IDs are used to identify the updated instructions; the identifiers in the LS the LSP object uniquely identify the existing LSP. Once new instructions are dow
P object uniquely identify the existing LSP. Once new instructions are downloade nloaded, the PCE further updates the new path at the ingress, which triggers the
d, the PCE further updates the new path at the ingress which triggers the traffi traffic switch on the updated path. The ingress PCC acknowledges with a PCRpt m
c switch on the updated path. The ingress PCC acknowledges with a PCRpt message, essage, on receipt of the PCRpt message, the PCE does the cleanup operation for
on receipt of the PCRpt message, the PCE does clean up operation for the former the former LSP, as described in <xref target="SEC_CLEANUP" format="default"/>.</
LSP as described in <xref target="SEC_CLEANUP"/>.</t> t>
<t>The PCECC LSP Update sequence is shown in <xref target="SEC_FIG5"/>. <figure anchor="SEC_FIG5">
</t> <name>PCECC LSP Update</name>
<figure align="left" <artwork align="left" alt="" name="" type=""><![CDATA[
alt=""
height=""
suppress-title="false"
title="PCECC LSP Update"
width=""
anchor="SEC_FIG5">
<artwork align="left"
alt=""
height=""
name=""
type=""
width=""
xml:space="preserve">
<![CDATA[
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
|PCC | | PCE | |PCC | | PCE |
|ingress| +-------+ |ingress| +-------+
+------| | | +------| | |
| PCC +-------+ | | PCC +-------+ |
| transit| | | | transit| | |
+------| | | | +------| | | |
|PCC +--------+ | | |PCC +--------+ | |
|egress | | | | |egress | | | |
+--------+ | | | +--------+ | | |
skipping to change at line 869 skipping to change at line 608
|--------PCRpt,CC-ID=XX,PLSP-ID=1------------------>| new CCI |--------PCRpt,CC-ID=XX,PLSP-ID=1------------------>| new CCI
| | | | | | | |
| |<------PCInitiate,CC-ID=YY1,YY2,PLSP-ID=1--| Label | |<------PCInitiate,CC-ID=YY1,YY2,PLSP-ID=1--| Label
| | | | download | | | | download
| |-------PCRpt,CC-ID=YY1,YY2,PLSP-ID=1------>| CCI | |-------PCRpt,CC-ID=YY1,YY2,PLSP-ID=1------>| CCI
| | | | | | | |
| | |<----PCInitiate,CC-ID=ZZ,PLSP-ID=1---| Label | | |<----PCInitiate,CC-ID=ZZ,PLSP-ID=1---| Label
| | | | download | | | | download
| | |-----PCRpt,CC-ID=ZZ,PLSP-ID=1------->| CCI | | |-----PCRpt,CC-ID=ZZ,PLSP-ID=1------->| CCI
| | | | | | | |
| | |<---PCUpd,PLSP-ID=1,PST=TBD1,D=1-----| PCECC | | |<---PCUpd,PLSP-ID=1,PST=2,D=1--------| PCECC
| | | SRP=S | LSP Update | | | SRP=S | LSP Update
| | | | | | | |
| | |---PCRpt,PLSP-ID=1,PST=TBD1,D=1----->| Trigger | | |---PCRpt,PLSP-ID=1,PST=2,D=1-------->| Trigger
| | | (SRP=S) | Delete | | | (SRP=S) | Delete
| | | | former CCI | | | | former CCI
| | | | | | | |
|<-------PCInitiate,CC-ID=X,PLSP-ID=1---------------| Label |<-------PCInitiate,CC-ID=X,PLSP-ID=1---------------| Label
| | | R=1 | clean up | | | R=1 | cleanup
|--------PCRpt,CC-ID=X,PLSP-ID=1------------------->| CCI |--------PCRpt,CC-ID=X,PLSP-ID=1------------------->| CCI
| | | R=1 | | | | R=1 |
| |<------PCInitiate,CC-ID=Y1,Y2,PLSP-ID=1----| Label | |<------PCInitiate,CC-ID=Y1,Y2,PLSP-ID=1----| Label
| | | R=1 | clean up | | | R=1 | cleanup
| |-------PCRpt,CC-ID=Y1,Y2,PLSP-ID=1-------->| CCI | |-------PCRpt,CC-ID=Y1,Y2,PLSP-ID=1-------->| CCI
| | | R=1 | | | | R=1 |
| | |<----PCInitiate,CC-ID=Z,PLSP-ID=1----| Label | | |<----PCInitiate,CC-ID=Z,PLSP-ID=1----| Label
| | | R=1 | clean up | | | R=1 | cleanup
| | |-----PCRpt,CC-ID=Z,PLSP-ID=1-------->| CCI | | |-----PCRpt,CC-ID=Z,PLSP-ID=1-------->| CCI
| | | R=1 | | | | R=1 |
]]> ]]></artwork>
</artwork> </figure>
</figure> <t>The modified PCECC LSPs are considered to be 'up' by default.
The ingress could further choose to deploy a data-plane check
<t>The modified PCECC LSPs are considered to be 'up' by default.
The ingress could further choose to deploy a data plane check
mechanism and report the status back to the PCE via a PCRpt message. The exact mechanism is out of scope of this document.</t> mechanism and report the status back to the PCE via a PCRpt message. The exact mechanism is out of scope of this document.</t>
<t>In the case where the label allocations are made by the PCC itself
<t>In the case where the label allocations are made by the PCC itself (s (see <xref target="PCC" format="default"/>), the procedure remains the same.</t>
ee <xref target="PCC"/>), the procedure remains the same.</t>
<!--<t>[Note: We could use PCInitiate message instead of PCLabelUpd mess
age, See <xref target="appendix"/>]</t>-->
</section> </section>
<section toc="default" numbered="true">
<section title="Re-Delegation and Clean up" <name>Re-delegation and Cleanup</name>
toc="default"> <t>As described in <xref target="RFC8281" format="default"/>, a new PC
E can gain control over an orphaned LSP. In the case of a PCECC LSP, the new PCE
<t>As described in <xref target='RFC8281'/>, a new PCE can gain control over <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> also gain control over the CCI in the same way by sending a
an orphaned LSP. In the case of a PCECC LSP, the new PCE MUST also gain control PCInitiate
over the central controller instructions in the same way by sending a PCInitiate
message that includes the SRP, LSP, and CCI objects and carries the message that includes the SRP, LSP, and CCI objects and carries the
CC-ID and PLSP-ID identifying the instruction that it wants to take control o CC-ID and PLSP-ID identifying the instructions that it wants to take control
f. </t> of. </t>
<t>Further, as described in <xref target='RFC8281'/>, the State Timeout I <t>Further, as described in <xref target="RFC8281" format="default"/>,
nterval timer ensures that a PCE crash does not the State Timeout Interval timer ensures that a PCE crash does not
result in automatic and immediate disruption for the services using result in automatic and immediate disruption for the services using
PCE-initiated LSPs. Similarly the central controller instructions are not rem oved immediately PCE-initiated LSPs. Similarly the Central Controller Instructions are not rem oved immediately
upon PCE failure. Instead, they are cleaned up on the expiration of upon PCE failure. Instead, they are cleaned up on the expiration of
this timer. This allows for network clean up without manual this timer. This allows for network cleanup without manual
intervention. The PCC MUST support the removal of CCI as intervention. The PCC <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> support the removal of CCI as
one of the behaviors applied on expiration of the State Timeout one of the behaviors applied on expiration of the State Timeout
Interval timer.</t> Interval timer.</t>
<t>In the case of the PCC-initiated PCECC LSP, the control over the or
<t>In case of PCC-initiated PCECC LSP, the control over the orphaned LSP at t phaned LSP at the ingress PCC is taken over by the mechanism specified in <xref
he ingress PCC is taken over by the mechanism specified in <xref target='RFC8741 target="RFC8741" format="default"/> to request delegation. The control over the
'/> to request delegation. The control over the central controller instructions CCI is described above using <xref target="RFC8281" format="default"/>.</t>
is described above using <xref target='RFC8281'/>.</t> </section>
<section toc="default" anchor="sec_label_db_sync" numbered="true">
</section> <name>Synchronization of Central Controller Instructions</name>
<t>The purpose of CCI synchronization (labels in the context of this d
<section title="Synchronization of Central Controllers Instructions" ocument) is to make sure that the
toc="default" anchor="sec_label_db_sync"> PCE's view of CCI (labels) matches with the PCC's label allocation.
This synchronization is performed as part of the LSP State Synchronization,
<t>The purpose of Central Controllers Instructions synchronization (labels in as described in <xref target="RFC8231" format="default"/> and
the context of this document) is to make sure that the <xref target="RFC8232" format="default"/>.</t>
PCE's view of CCI (Labels) matches with the PCC's Label allocation. <t>As per LSP State Synchronization <xref target="RFC8231" format="def
This synchronization is performed as part of the LSP state synchronization ault"/>, a PCC reports the state of
as described in <xref target='RFC8231'/> and its LSPs to the PCE using PCRpt messages and, as per <xref target="RFC8281" f
<xref target='RFC8232'/>.</t> ormat="default"/>, the PCE would
<t>As per LSP State Synchronization <xref target='RFC8231'/>, a PCC reports
the state of
its LSPs to the PCE using PCRpt messages and as per <xref target='RFC8281'/>,
PCE would
initiate any missing LSPs and/or remove any LSPs that are not wanted. The sam e PCEP messages and procedures are initiate any missing LSPs and/or remove any LSPs that are not wanted. The sam e PCEP messages and procedures are
also used for the Central Controllers Instructions synchronization. The PCRpt message includes the CCI and the LSP object to report the label forwarding inst ructions. The PCE would further also used for the CCI synchronization. The PCRpt message includes the CCI and the LSP object to report the label-forwarding instructions. The PCE would furth er
remove any unwanted instructions or initiate any missing instructions.</t> remove any unwanted instructions or initiate any missing instructions.</t>
<!--<t>[Note: This section currently describe procedure based on new messages
,
suitable modification can be made if existing message are used instead
<xref target="appendix"/>. In the case, some modifications needs to be made
to the existing
LSP-DB synchronization mechanism to also handle the label synchronization.]<
/t>-->
</section> </section>
<section toc="default" numbered="true">
<section title="PCECC LSP State Report" <name>PCECC LSP State Report</name>
toc="default"> <t>As mentioned before, an ingress PCC <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> choose to ap
<t>As mentioned before, an ingress PCC MAY choose to apply any OAM mechanism ply any Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) mechanism to check the
to check the status status
of LSP in the Data plane and MAY further send its status in a PCRpt message of the LSP in the data plane and <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> further send its status
to the PCE. </t> in a PCRpt message to the PCE. </t>
</section> </section>
<section toc="default" anchor="PCC" numbered="true">
<section title="PCC-Based Allocations" <name>PCC-Based Allocations</name>
toc="default" <t>
anchor="PCC">
<t>
The PCE can request the PCC to allocate the label using the The PCE can request the PCC to allocate the label using the
PCInitiate message. The C flag in the PCInitiate message. The C flag in the
CCI object is set to 1 to indicate that the allocation needs to be done by CCI object is set to '1' to indicate that the allocation needs to be made b
the PCC. y the PCC.
The PCC MUST try to allocate the Label and MUST report to the PCE via PCRpt The PCC <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> try to allocate the label and <bcp14>MUST</bcp1
or PCErr message. 4> report to the PCE via a PCRpt or PCErr message.
</t> </t>
<t>If the value of the Label is 0 and the C flag is set to 1, it <t>If the value of the label is 0 and the C flag is set to '1', it
indicates that the PCE is requesting the allocation to be done by the PCC. indicates that the PCE is requesting the allocation to be made by the PCC.
If the If the
Label is 'n' and the C flag is set to 1 in the CCI object, it label is 'n' and the C flag is set to '1' in the CCI object, it
indicates that the PCE requests a specific value 'n' for the Label. indicates that the PCE requests a specific value 'n' for the label.
If If
the allocation is successful, the PCC MUST report the allocation is successful, the PCC <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> report
via the PCRpt message with the CCI object. If the value of the Label in th via the PCRpt message with the CCI object. If the value of the label in th
e CCI object is invalid, it MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type = e CCI object is invalid, it <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> send a PCErr message with Error-
TBD5 ("PCECC failure") and Error Value = TBD9 ("Invalid CCI"). If Type=31 (PCECC failure) and Error-value=3 (Invalid CCI). If
it is valid but the PCC is unable to it is valid but the PCC is unable to
allocate it, it MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type = allocate it, it <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> send a PCErr message with Error-Type=31
TBD5 ("PCECC failure") and Error Value = TBD10 ("Unable to (PCECC failure) and Error-value=4 (Unable to
allocate the specified CCI"). allocate the specified CCI).
</t> </t>
<t>If the PCC wishes to withdraw or modify the previously assigned label, it <t>If the PCC wishes to withdraw or modify the previously assigned lab
MUST send a PCRpt message without any Label el, it <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> send a PCRpt message without any label
or with the Label containing the new value respectively in or with the label containing the new value, respectively, in
the CCI object. The PCE would further trigger the Label cleanup of older l the CCI object. The PCE would further trigger the label cleanup of the old
abel as per <xref target="SEC_CLEANUP"/>.</t> er label, as per <xref target="SEC_CLEANUP" format="default"/>.</t>
</section> </section>
<!-- move this section to draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid
<section title="Binding Label"
toc="default"
anchor="BSID">
<t>As per <xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-binding-label-sid"/>, when a stateful PC
E is deployed for setting up TE paths, it may be desirable to report the binding
label to the stateful PCE for the purpose of enforcing end-to-end TE. In the ca
se of the PCECC, the binding label may be allocated by the PCE itself as describ
ed in this section. This procedure is
thus applicable for all path setup types including PCECC.</t>
<t>A P flag in the LSP object is introduced in <xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-sr-
path-segment"/> to indicate the allocation needs to be made by the PCE. A PCC w
ould set this bit to 1 (and carry the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV <xref target="I-D.ietf
-pce-binding-label-sid"/> in the LSP object) to request for
allocation of the binding label by the PCE in the PCReq or PCRpt
message. A PCE would also set this bit to 1 to indicate that the
binding label is allocated by PCE and encoded in the PCRep,
PCUpd, or PCInitiate message (the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV is present in
LSP object). Further, a PCE would set this bit to 0 to indicate
that the allocation is done by the PCC instead.</t>
<t>The ingress PCC could request the binding label to be allocated by the PCE
via a PCRpt message as per <xref target="RFC8231"/>. The delegate flag (D-fl
ag) MUST
also be set for this LSP. The TE-PATH-BINDING TLV MUST be included with no B
inding
Value. The PCECC would allocate the binding label and further respond to
ingress PCC with PCUpd message as per <xref target="RFC8231"/> and MUST inclu
de the
TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in an LSP object. The P flag in the LSP object would be
set to 1 to indicate that the allocation is made by the PCE.</t>
<t>The PCE could allocate the binding label on its own accord for a PCE-
Initiated (or delegated) LSP. The allocated binding label needs to be
informed to the PCC. The PCE would use the
PCInitiate message <xref target="RFC8281"/> or PCUpd message <xref target="RF
C8231"/> towards the
PCC and MUST include the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in the LSP object. The P flag in
the LSP object would be set to 1 to indicate that the allocation is made by the
PCE.</t>
<t>Before a PCE can allocate a binding label the PCECC capability MUST be exc
hanged on the PCEP session. Note that the CCI object is not used for binding all
ocation; this is done to maintain consistency with the rest of the binding label
/SID procedures as per <xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-binding-label-sid"/>.</t>
</section> -->
</section> </section>
</section> </section>
<section toc="default" numbered="true">
<section title="PCEP Messages" <name>PCEP Messages</name>
toc="default"> <t>As defined in <xref target="RFC5440" format="default"/>, a PCEP message
<t>As defined in <xref target="RFC5440" />, a PCEP message consists of a com consists of a common header
mon header
followed by a variable-length body made of a set of objects that can followed by a variable-length body made of a set of objects that can
be either mandatory or optional. An object is said to be mandatory be either mandatory or optional. An object is said to be mandatory
in a PCEP message when the object must be included for the message to in a PCEP message when the object must be included for the message to
be considered valid. For each PCEP message type, a set of rules is be considered valid. For each PCEP message type, a set of rules is
defined that specify the set of objects that the message can carry. defined, which specifies the set of objects that the message can carry.
An implementation MUST form the PCEP messages using the object An implementation <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> form the PCEP messages using the object
ordering specified in this document.</t> ordering specified in this document.</t>
<t>The LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be included in the LSP obje
<t>LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV MUST be included in the LSP object for PCECC ct for the PCECC
LSP.</t> LSP.</t>
<t>The message formats in this document are specified using Routing
<t>The message formats in this document are specified using Routing Backus-Naur Form (RBNF) encoding, as specified in <xref target="RFC5511" form
Backus-Naur Form (RBNF) encoding as specified in <xref target="RFC5511" />.</ at="default"/>.</t>
t> <section toc="default" anchor="SEC_PCInitiate" numbered="true">
<name>The PCInitiate Message</name>
<!--<section title="Label Operations" <t>The PCInitiate message <xref target="RFC8281" format="default"/> can
toc="default" be used to download or remove the labels; this document extends the message, as
anchor="SEC_LabelOp"> shown below.</t>
<t>[Editor's Note: This document defines new messages PCLabelUpd and <sourcecode type=""><![CDATA[
PCLabelRpt. The authors and WG also debated on the use of existing PCEP me
ssages.
See <xref target="appendix"/> on how the existing messages can be extended
to add this functionality. WG needs to decide the final direction i.e. new
specific messages
are needed or existing PCEP messages can be extended.]</t>-->
<!--<section title="The PCLabelUpd message"
toc="default"
anchor="SEC_PCLabelUpd">
<t>A new Label Update Message (also referred to as PCLabelUpd) is a
PCEP message sent by a PCE to a PCC to download label or update the
label map. The same message is also used to cleanup the Label entry.
The Message-Type field of the PCEP common header for the PCLabelUpd message
is set to TBD.</t>
<t>The format of the PCLabelUpd message is as follows:</t>
<figure align="left"
alt=""
height=""
suppress-title="true"
title=""
width=""
anchor="SEC_FIG7">
<artwork align="left"
alt=""
height=""
name=""
type=""
width=""
xml:space="preserve">
<![CDATA[
<PCLabelUpd Message> ::= <Common Header>
<pce-label-update-list>
Where:
<pce-label-update-list> ::= <pce-label-update>
[<pce-label-update-list>]
<pce-label-update> ::= <pce-label-download>
Where:
<pce-label-download> ::= <SRP>
<LSP>
<label-list>
<label-list > ::= <LABEL>
[<label-list>]
]]>
</artwork>
</figure>
<t>The PCLabelUpd message is used to download label along the path
of the LSP.</t>
<t>The SRP object is defined in <xref target='RFC8231'/> and this
document extends the use of SRP object in PCLabelUpd message.
The SRP object is mandatory and MUST be included in PCLabelUpd
message. If the SRP object is missing, the receiving PCC MUST send
a PCErr message with Error-type=6 (Mandatory Object missing) and
Error-value=10 (SRP object missing).</t>
<t>The LSP object is defined in <xref target='RFC8231'/> and this
document extends the use of LSP object in PCLabelUpd message.
LSP Identifiers TLV is defined in <xref target='RFC8231'/>,
it MAY be included in the LSP object in PCLabelUpd message.
Either LSP object or FEC object defined in
<xref target='I-D.zhao-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr'/> is mandatory
in
PCLabelUpd message.
</t>
<t>The LABEL object is defined in <xref target="SEC_LABEL"/>. The LABEL is t
he mandatory object
and MUST be included in PCLabelUpd message. If the LABEL object is
missing, the receiving PCC MUST send a PCErr message with Error-type=6
(Mandatory Object missing) and Error-value=TBD (LABEL object missing).
More than one LABEL object MAY be included in the PCLabelUpd message
for the transit LSR.</t>
<t>To cleanup the SRP object must set the R (remove) bit.</t>
</section>
<section title="The PCLabelRpt message"
toc="default"
anchor="SEC_PCLabelRpt">
<t>A new Label Report Message (also referred to as PCLabelRpt) is a PCEP
message sent by a PCC to a PCE to report the label. The Message-Type
field of the PCEP common header for the PCLabelRpt message is set to TBD.</t>
<t>The format of the PCLabelRpt message is as follows:</t>
<figure align="left"
alt=""
height=""
suppress-title="true"
title=""
width=""
anchor="SEC_FIGRPT">
<artwork align="left"
alt=""
height=""
name=""
type=""
width=""
xml:space="preserve">
<![CDATA[
<PCLabelRpt Message> ::= <Common Header>
<pce-label-report-list>
Where:
<pce-label-report-list> ::= <pce-label-report>
[<pce-label-report-list>]
<pce-label-report> ::= <pce-label-delegate>
Where:
<pce-label-delegate> ::= <SRP>
<LSP>
<label-list>
<label-list > ::= <LABEL>
[<label-list>]
]]>
</artwork>
</figure>
<t>The SRP object is defined in <xref target='RFC8231'/> and this
document extends the use of SRP object in PCLabelRpt message.
The SRP object is mandatory and MUST be included in PCLabelRpt
message. If the SRP object is missing, the receiving PCE MUST send
a PCErr message with Error-type=6 (Mandatory Object missing) and
Error-value=10 (SRP object missing).</t>
<t>The LSP object is defined in <xref target='RFC8231'/> and this
document extends the use of LSP object in PCLabelRpt message.
LSP Identifiers TLV is defined in <xref target='RFC8231'/>,
it MAY be included in the LSP object in PCLabelRpt message.
Either LSP object or FEC object defined in
<xref target='I-D.zhao-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr'/> is mandatory
in
PCLabelRpt message.
</t>
<t>The LABEL object is defined in <xref target="SEC_LABEL"/>. The LABEL is t
he mandatory object
and MUST be included in PCLabelRpt message. If the LABEL object is
missing, the receiving PCE MUST send a PCErr message with Error-type=6
(Mandatory Object missing) and Error-value=TBD (LABEL object missing).
More than one LABEL object MAY be included in the PCLabelRpt message.</t>
</section>-->
<section title="The PCInitiate Message"
toc="default"
anchor="SEC_PCInitiate">
<t>The PCInitiate message <xref target='RFC8281'/> can be used to download or re
move the labels, this document extends the message as shown below - </t>
<figure title="" suppress-title="false" align="left" alt="" width="" height=
"">
<artwork xml:space="preserve" name="" type="" align="left" alt="" width="
" height=""><![CDATA[
<PCInitiate Message> ::= <Common Header> <PCInitiate Message> ::= <Common Header>
<PCE-initiated-lsp-list> <PCE-initiated-lsp-list>
Where: ]]></sourcecode>
<Common Header> is defined in [RFC5440] <t>Where:</t>
<ul spacing="normal">
<li>&lt;Common Header&gt; is defined in <xref target="RFC5440" format="defa
ult"/>.</li>
</ul>
<sourcecode type=""><![CDATA[
<PCE-initiated-lsp-list> ::= <PCE-initiated-lsp-request> <PCE-initiated-lsp-list> ::= <PCE-initiated-lsp-request>
[<PCE-initiated-lsp-list>] [<PCE-initiated-lsp-list>]
<PCE-initiated-lsp-request> ::= <PCE-initiated-lsp-request> ::=
(<PCE-initiated-lsp-instantiation>| (<PCE-initiated-lsp-instantiation>|
<PCE-initiated-lsp-deletion>| <PCE-initiated-lsp-deletion>|
<PCE-initiated-lsp-central-control>) <PCE-initiated-lsp-central-control>)
<PCE-initiated-lsp-central-control> ::= <SRP> <PCE-initiated-lsp-central-control> ::= <SRP>
<LSP> <LSP>
<cci-list> <cci-list>
<cci-list> ::= <CCI> <cci-list> ::= <CCI>
[<cci-list>] [<cci-list>]
]]></sourcecode>
Where: <t>Where:</t>
<PCE-initiated-lsp-instantiation> and <ul spacing="normal">
<PCE-initiated-lsp-deletion> are as per <li>&lt;PCE-initiated-lsp-instantiation&gt; and
[RFC8281]. &lt;PCE-initiated-lsp-deletion&gt; are as per
<xref target="RFC8281" format="default"/>.</li>
The LSP and SRP object is defined in [RFC8231]. <li>The LSP and SRP object is defined in <xref target="RFC8231" format="def
ault"/>.</li>
]]></artwork> </ul>
</figure> <t>When a PCInitiate message is used for the CCI (labels), the SRP, LSP,
and CCI objects <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be present.
<t>When PCInitiate message is used for the central controller instructions The SRP object is defined in <xref target="RFC8231" format="default"/>;
(labels), the SRP, LSP, and CCI objects MUST be present. if the SRP object is missing, the receiving PCC <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> send
The SRP object is defined in <xref target='RFC8231'/> and if the SRP obj a PCErr message with Error-Type=6 (Mandatory Object missing) and
ect is missing, the receiving PCC MUST send Error-value=10 (SRP object missing). The LSP object is defined in <xref targ
a PCErr message with Error-type=6 (Mandatory Object missing) and et="RFC8231" format="default"/>, and if the LSP object is missing, the receiving
Error-value=10 (SRP object missing). The LSP object is defined in <xref targ PCC <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> send
et='RFC8231'/> and if the LSP object is missing, the receiving PCC MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type=6 (Mandatory Object missing) and
a PCErr message with Error-type=6 (Mandatory Object missing) and Error-value=8 (LSP object missing). The CCI object is defined in <xref targe
Error-value=8 (LSP object missing). The CCI object is defined in <xref targe t="SEC_CCI" format="default"/>, and if the CCI object is
t="SEC_CCI"/> and if the CCI object is missing, the receiving PCC <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> send a PCErr message with Err
missing, the receiving PCC MUST send a PCErr message with Error-type=6 or-Type=6
(Mandatory Object missing) and Error-value=TBD11 (CCI object missing). (Mandatory Object missing) and Error-value=17 (CCI object missing).
More than one CCI object MAY be included in the PCInitiate message More than one CCI object <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> be included in the PCInitiate me
ssage
for a transit LSR.</t> for a transit LSR.</t>
<t>To clean up entries, the R (remove) bit <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be set in
<t>To clean up entries, the R (remove) bit MUST be set in the SRP object to the SRP object to be encoded along with the LSP and CCI objects.</t>
be encoded along with the LSP and the CCI object.</t> <t>The CCI object received at the ingress node <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> have
the O bit (out-label) set. The CCI object received at the egress <bcp14>MUST</bc
<t>The CCI object received at the ingress node MUST have the O bit (out-label) s p14> have the O bit unset. If this is not the case, the PCC <bcp14>MUST</bcp14>
et. The CCI Object received at the egress MUST have the O bit unset. If this is send a PCErr message with Error-Type=31 (PCECC failure) and Error-value=3 (Inval
not the case, PCC MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type = TBD5 ("PCECC failu id CCI). Other instances of the CCI object, if present, <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be i
re") and Error Value = TBD9 ("Invalid CCI"). Other instances of the CCI object i gnored.</t>
f present, MUST be ignored.</t> <t>For the point-to-point (P2P) LSP setup via the PCECC technique, at th
e transit LSR, two CCI objects are expected for incoming and outgoing labels ass
<t>For the P2P LSP setup via PCECC technique, at the transit LSR two CCI objects ociated with the LSP object. If any other CCI object is included in the PCInitia
are expected for in-coming and outgoing label associated with the LSP object. I te message, it <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be ignored. If the transit LSR did not receiv
f any other CCI object is included in the PCInitiate message, it MUST be ignored e two CCI objects, with one of them having the O bit set and another with the O
. If the transit LSR did not receive two CCI object with one of them having the bit unset, it <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> send a PCErr message with Error-Type=31 (PCECC
O bit set and another with O bit unset, it MUST send a PCErr message with Error- failure) and Error-value=3 (Invalid CCI).</t>
Type = TBD5 ("PCECC failure") and Error Value = TBD9 ("Invalid CCI").</t> <t>Note that, on receipt of the PCInitiate message with CCI object, the
ingress, egress, or transit role of the PCC is identified via the ingress and eg
<t>Note that, on receipt of the PCInitiate message with CCI object, the ingress, ress IP address encoded in the LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV.</t>
egress, or transit role of the PCC is identified via the ingress and egress IP </section>
address encoded in the LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV.</t> <section toc="default" anchor="SEC_PCRpt" numbered="true">
<name>The PCRpt Message</name>
</section> <t>The PCRpt message can be used to report the labels that were allocate
d by the PCE to be used during the State Synchronization phase or as an acknowle
<section title="The PCRpt Message" dgment to a PCInitiate message.
toc="default" </t>
anchor="SEC_PCRpt"> <sourcecode type=""><![CDATA[
<t>The PCRpt message can be used to report the labels that were allocated by th
e PCE, to be used during the state synchronization phase or as an acknowledgment
to PCInitiate message.
<figure title="" suppress-title="false" align="left" alt="" width="" height=
"">
<artwork xml:space="preserve" name="" type="" align="left" alt="" width="
" height=""><![CDATA[
<PCRpt Message> ::= <Common Header> <PCRpt Message> ::= <Common Header>
<state-report-list> <state-report-list>
Where: ]]></sourcecode>
<t>Where:</t>
<sourcecode type=""><![CDATA[
<state-report-list> ::= <state-report>[<state-report-list>] <state-report-list> ::= <state-report>[<state-report-list>]
<state-report> ::= (<lsp-state-report>| <state-report> ::= (<lsp-state-report>|
<central-control-report>) <central-control-report>)
<lsp-state-report> ::= [<SRP>] <lsp-state-report> ::= [<SRP>]
<LSP> <LSP>
<path> <path>
<central-control-report> ::= [<SRP>] <central-control-report> ::= [<SRP>]
<LSP> <LSP>
<cci-list> <cci-list>
<cci-list> ::= <CCI> <cci-list> ::= <CCI>
[<cci-list>] [<cci-list>]
]]></sourcecode>
Where: <t>Where:</t>
<path> is as per [RFC8231] and the LSP and SRP object are <ul spacing="normal">
also defined in [RFC8231]. <li>&lt;path&gt; is as per <xref target="RFC8231" format="default"/>, and
]]></artwork> the LSP and SRP objects are
</figure> also defined in <xref target="RFC8231" format="default"/>.</li>
</t> </ul>
<t>When PCRpt message is used to report the central controller instruction <t>When a PCRpt message is used to report the CCI (labels), the LSP and
s (labels), the LSP and CCI objects MUST be present. CCI objects <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be present.
The LSP object is defined in <xref target='RFC8231'/> and if the LSP obj The LSP object is defined in <xref target="RFC8231" format="default"/>,
ect is missing, the receiving PCE MUST send and if the LSP object is missing, the receiving PCE <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> send
a PCErr message with Error-type=6 (Mandatory Object missing) and a PCErr message with Error-Type=6 (Mandatory Object missing) and
Error-value=8 (LSP object missing). The CCI object is defined in <xref targe Error-value=8 (LSP object missing). The CCI object is defined in <xref targe
t="SEC_CCI"/> and if the CCI object is t="SEC_CCI" format="default"/>, and if the CCI object is
missing, the receiving PCE MUST send a PCErr message with Error-type=6 missing, the receiving PCE <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> send a PCErr message with Err
(Mandatory Object missing) and Error-value=TBD11 (CCI object missing). or-Type=6
(Mandatory Object missing) and Error-value=17 (CCI object missing).
Two CCI objects can be included in the PCRpt message Two CCI objects can be included in the PCRpt message
for a transit LSR.</t> for a transit LSR.</t>
</section>
</section> </section>
</section> <section toc="default" numbered="true">
<name>PCEP Objects</name>
<section title="PCEP Objects" <t>The PCEP objects defined in this document are compliant with the PCEP o
toc="default"> bject
<t>The PCEP objects defined in this document are compliant with the PCEP obj format defined in <xref target="RFC5440" format="default"/>.
ect </t>
format defined in <xref target="RFC5440" />. <!-- The P flag and the I flag <section toc="default" numbered="true">
of the PCEP objects <name>OPEN Object</name>
defined in this document MUST always be set to 0 on transmission and MUST <t>This document defines a new PST (2) to be included in the PATH-SETUP-
be ignored on receipt since these flags are exclusively related to TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV in the OPEN object. Further, a new sub-TLV for the PCECC cap
path computation requests.--></t> ability exchange is also defined.</t>
<section title="OPEN Object" <section toc="default" anchor="SEC_PCECC_CAP_TLV" numbered="true">
toc="default"> <name>PCECC Capability Sub-TLV</name>
<t>This document defines a new PST (TBD1) to be included in the PATH-SETUP-T <t>The PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV is an optional TLV for use in the OPEN
YPE-CAPABILITY TLV in the OPEN Object. Further, a new sub-TLV for PCECC capabili object in the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV when the Path Setup Type list incl
ty exchange is also defined.</t> udes the PCECC Path Setup Type 2. A PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV <bcp14>MUST</bcp14>
<section title="PCECC Capability sub-TLV" be ignored if the PST list does not contain PST=2.</t>
toc="default" <t>Its format is shown in <xref target="SEC_FIG8" format="default"/>.</t>
anchor="SEC_PCECC_CAP_TLV"> <figure anchor="SEC_FIG8">
<t>The PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV is an optional TLV for use in the OPEN Objec <name>PCECC Capability Sub-TLV</name>
t in the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV, when the Path Setup Type list includes <artwork align="left" alt="" name="" type=""><![CDATA[
the PCECC Path Setup Type TBD1. A PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV MUST be ignored if th
e PST list does not contain PST=TBD1.</t>
<!--<t>The PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV is an optional TLV for use in the OPEN O
bject
for PCECC capability advertisement in PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV. Advert
isement of the PCECC capability
implies support of LSPs that are set up through PCECC as per PCEP extensions
defined in this document.</t>-->
<t>Its format is shown in <xref target="SEC_FIG8"/>.</t>
<figure align="left"
alt=""
height=""
suppress-title="false"
title="PCECC Capability sub-TLV"
width=""
anchor="SEC_FIG8">
<artwork align="left"
alt=""
height=""
name=""
type=""
width=""
xml:space="preserve">
<![CDATA[
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type=TBD12 | Length=4 | | Type=1 | Length=4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags |L| | Flags |L|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]> ]]></artwork>
</artwork> </figure>
</figure> <t>The type of the TLV is 1, and it has a fixed length of 4 octets.</t
>
<t>The type of the TLV is TBD12 and it has a fixed length of 4 octets.</t> <t>The value comprises a single field: Flags (32 bits).
<t>The value comprises a single field - Flags (32 bits).
Currently, the following flag bit is Currently, the following flag bit is
defined: <list style="symbols"> defined: </t>
<t>L bit (Label): if set to 1 by a PCEP speaker, the L flag <dl newline="false" spacing="normal">
indicates that the PCEP speaker support and is willing to handle the PCECC <dt>L bit (Label):</dt>
based central controller instructions for label download. The bit MUST be set t <dd>If set to '1' by a PCEP speaker, the L flag
o 1 by both a PCC and a PCE for the PCECC label download/report on a PCEP sessio indicates that the PCEP speaker will support and is willing to handle the
n.</t> PCEC-based Central Controller Instructions for label download. The bit <bcp14>MU
<t>Unassigned bits MUST be set to 0 on ST</bcp14> be set to '1' by both a PCC and a PCE for the PCECC label download/re
transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.</t> port on a PCEP session.</dd></dl>
</list></t> <t>Unassigned bits <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be set to '0' on
transmission and <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be ignored on receipt.</t>
</section> </section>
</section>
</section> <section toc="default" anchor="SEC_PATH" numbered="true">
<name>PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV</name>
<section title="PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV" <t>The PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV is defined in <xref target="RFC8408" format="
toc="default" default"/>;
anchor="SEC_PATH">
<t>The PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV is defined in <xref target='RFC8408'/>;
this document defines a new PST value: this document defines a new PST value:
<list style="symbols"> </t>
<t>PST = TBD1: Path is set up via PCECC mode.</t> <dl newline="false" spacing="normal">
</list></t> <dt>PST=2:</dt>
<dd>Path is set up via the PCECC mode.</dd>
<t>On a PCRpt/PCUpd/PCInitiate message, the PST=TBD1 in the PATH-SETUP-TYPE </dl>
TLV <t>On a PCRpt/PCUpd/PCInitiate message, the PST=2 in the PATH-SETUP-TYPE
in the SRP object MUST be included for a LSP set up via the PCECC-based mecha TLV
nism.</t> in the SRP object <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be included for an LSP set up via the P
</section> CECC-based mechanism.</t>
</section>
<section title="CCI Object" <section toc="default" anchor="SEC_CCI" numbered="true">
toc="default" <name>CCI Object</name>
anchor="SEC_CCI"> <t>The CCI object is used by the PCE to specify the forwarding instructi
<t>The Central Controller Instructions (CCI) Object is used by the PCE to sp ons (label information in the context of this document) to the PCC and
ecify the forwarding instructions (Label information in the context of this docu <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> be carried within a PCInitiate or PCRpt message for label
ment) to the PCC, and download/report.</t>
MAY be carried within PCInitiate or PCRpt message for label download/report. <t>CCI Object-Class is 44.</t>
</t> <t>CCI Object-Type is 1 for the MPLS label.</t>
<t>CCI Object-Class is TBD13.</t> <figure anchor="SEC_FIG9">
<t>CCI Object-Type is 1 for the MPLS Label.</t> <name>CCI Object</name>
<figure align="left" <artwork align="left" alt="" name="" type=""><![CDATA[
alt=""
height=""
suppress-title="false"
title="CCI Object"
width=""
anchor="SEC_FIG9">
<artwork align="left"
alt=""
height=""
name=""
type=""
width=""
xml:space="preserve">
<![CDATA[
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| CC-ID | | CC-ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved1 | Flags |C|O| | Reserved1 | Flags |C|O|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label | Reserved2 | | Label | Reserved2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
// Optional TLV // // Optional TLV //
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]> ]]></artwork>
</artwork>
</figure> </figure>
<t>The fields in the CCI object are as follows: <t>The fields in the CCI object are as follows:
<list style="hanging"> </t>
<t hangText="CC-ID:"> A PCEP-specific identifier for the CCI <dl newline="false" spacing="normal">
information. A PCE creates a CC-ID for each instruction, the value is <dt>CC-ID:</dt>
<dd> A PCEP-specific identifier for the CCI
information. A PCE creates a CC-ID for each instruction; the value is
unique within the scope of the PCE and is constant for the lifetime unique within the scope of the PCE and is constant for the lifetime
of a PCEP session. The values 0 and 0xFFFFFFFF are reserved of a PCEP session. The values 0 and 0xFFFFFFFF are reserved
and MUST NOT be used. Note and <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> be used. Note
that <xref target='I-D.gont-numeric-ids-sec-considerations'/> gives advice on that <xref target="I-D.gont-numeric-ids-sec-considerations" format="default"/
assigning transient numeric identifiers such as the CC-ID so as to > gives advice on
minimize security risks.</t> assigning transient numeric identifiers, such as the CC-ID, so as to
<t hangText="Reserved1 (16 bit):">Set to zero while sending, ignored on recei minimize security risks.</dd>
ve.</t> <dt>Reserved1 (16 bit):</dt>
<t hangText="Flags (16 bit):"> A field used to carry any additional informat <dd>Set to 'zero' while sending; ignored on receipt.</dd>
ion <dt>Flags (16 bit):</dt>
<dd>
<t> A field used to carry any additional information
pertaining to the CCI. Currently, the following flag bits are pertaining to the CCI. Currently, the following flag bits are
defined: <list style="symbols"> defined: </t>
<t>O bit(Out-label) : If the bit is set to 1, it specifies the label is <ul spacing="normal">
the OUT label and it is mandatory to encode the next-hop <li>O bit (out-label) : If the bit is set to '1', it specifies the
information (via Address TLVs <xref target="AddressTLVs"/> in label is
the out-label, and it is mandatory to encode the next-hop
information (via Address TLVs (<xref target="AddressTLVs" format="default"/>
) in
the CCI object). If the bit is not set, it specifies the label is the CCI object). If the bit is not set, it specifies the label is
the IN label and it is optional to encode the local interface the in-label, and it is optional to encode the local interface
information (via Address TLVs in information (via Address TLVs in
the CCI object).</t> the CCI object).</li>
<t>C Bit (PCC Allocation): If the bit is set to 1, it indicates that <li>C Bit (PCC allocation): If the bit is set to '1', it indicates
the label allocation needs to be done by the PCC for this central that
controller instruction. A PCE sets this bit to request the PCC to the label allocation needs to be done by the PCC for the Central
Controller Instruction. A PCE sets this bit to request the PCC to
make an allocation from its label space. A PCC would set make an allocation from its label space. A PCC would set
this bit to indicate that it has allocated the label and report it this bit to indicate that it has allocated the label and report it
to the PCE.</t> to the PCE.</li>
<t>All unassigned bits MUST be set to zero at transmission and ignored at re <li>All unassigned bits <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be set to 'zero' at tr
ceipt.</t> ansmission and ignored at receipt.</li>
</list></t> </ul>
<t hangText="Label (20-bit):">The Label information.</t> </dd>
<t hangText="Reserved2 (12 bit):">Set to zero while sending, ignored on rece <dt>Label (20-bit):</dt>
ive.</t> <dd>The label information.</dd>
</list></t> <dt>Reserved2 (12 bit):</dt>
<dd>Set to 'zero' while sending; ignored on receive.</dd>
<section title="Address TLVs" </dl>
toc="default" <section toc="default" anchor="AddressTLVs" numbered="true">
anchor="AddressTLVs"> <name>Address TLVs</name>
<t><xref target="RFC8779"/> defines IPV4-ADDRESS, IPV6-ADDRESS, and UNNUMBER <t><xref target="RFC8779" format="default"/> defines the IPV4-ADDRESS,
ED-ENDPOINT TLVs for the use of Generalized Endpoint. The same TLVs can also be IPV6-ADDRESS, and UNNUMBERED-ENDPOINT TLVs for the use of Generalized Endpoint.
used in the CCI object to The same TLVs can also be used in the CCI object to
associate the next-hop information in the case of an outgoing label and associate the next-hop information in the case of an outgoing label and
local interface information in the case of an incoming label. The next-hop i local interface information in the case of an incoming label. The next-hop i
nformation encoded in these TLVs needs to be a directly connected IP address/int nformation encoded in these TLVs needs to be a directly connected IP address/int
erface information. If the PCC is not able to resolve the next-hop information, erface information. If the PCC is not able to resolve the next-hop information,
it MUST reject the CCI and respond with a PCErr message with Error-Type = TBD5 ( it <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> reject the CCI and respond with a PCErr message with Erro
"PCECC failure") and Error r-Type=31 (PCECC failure) and Error-value=5 (Invalid next-hop information).</t>
Value = TBD15 ("Invalid next-hop information").</t>
<!--<t>Further, this document specifies a new TLV called LINKLOCAL-IPV6-ADDRE
SS TLV
to describe an IPv6 adjacency for an interface that does not
have a global IPv6 address assigned.</t>-->
<!--<t>An IPv6 adjacency for an interface that does not have a global IPv6 a
ddress assigned, could use the link-local IPv6 address in the IPV6-ADDRESS TLV.
Further, this document specifies a new TLV called LINKLOCAL-IPV6-ADDRESS TLV tha
t can use the Interface ID and the global IPv6 address of the node to identify t
he IPv6 adjacency.</t>
<figure align="left"
alt=""
height=""
suppress-title="false"
title="LINKLOCAL-IPV6-ADDRESS TLV"
width=""
anchor="SEC_FIGC">
<artwork align="left"
alt=""
height=""
name=""
type=""
width=""
xml:space="preserve">
<![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=TBD14 | Length = 20 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| IPv6 address |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interface ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]>
</artwork>
</figure>-->
<!--<t>The address TLVs are as follows:
<list style="hanging">
<t hangText="IPV4-ADDRESS TLV:">an IPv4 address.</t>
<t hangText="IPV6-ADDRESS TLV:">an IPv6 address.</t>
<t hangText="UNNUMBERED-IPV4-ID-ADDRESS TLV:">a Node ID / Interface ID tuple
.</t>
<t hangText="LINKLOCAL-IPV6-ID-ADDRESS TLV:">a pair of (global IPv6
address, interface ID) tuples as described in Section 4.3.2 of <xref targ
et="RFC8664"/> for the IPv6 Link-Local Adjacency NAI (Node or Adjacency Identifi
er).</t>
</list>
</t>-->
<!--<t>The type of the LINKLOCAL-IPV6-ADDRESS TLV is TBD14 and it has a
fixed length of 20 octets. The value portion of the TLV includes:
<list style="symbols">
<t>IPv6 address: A 128-bit IPv6 address of the node.</t>
<t>Interface ID: A 32-bit identifier assigned to the link.</t>
</list></t>-->
</section>
</section> </section>
</section>
<!--<section title="Extension of SRP object" anchor="SEC_SRP_OBJ">
<t>
SRP object is defined in <xref target="RFC8231"/>
and extended in <xref target="RFC8281"/>.
This draft defines a new 'SYNC' flag (S bit) to specify the LABEL-DB synchroniz
ation operation.
</t>
<t>The format of the SRP object is shown <xref target="SEC_SRP_OBJ_FIG"/>:</t>
<t>
<figure title="SRP Object format" suppress-title="false" align="center" alt="" w
idth="" height="" anchor="SEC_SRP_OBJ_FIG">
<artwork xml:space="preserve" name="" type="" align="center" alt="" width="" hei
ght="">
<![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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags |S|R|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SRP-ID-number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Optional TLVs //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]>
</artwork>
</figure>
</t>
<t>S (SYNC - 1 bit):The S Flag MUST be set to 1 on each PCLabelUpd and
PCLabelRpt sent from a PCE and PCC respectively during LABEL-DB
Synchronization. The S Flag MUST be set to 0 in other messages sent
from the PCE and PCC.</t>
</section> -->
</section> </section>
<section anchor="Imp" title="Implementation Status"> <section toc="default" numbered="true">
<t>[Note to the RFC Editor - remove this section before publication, as well as <name>Security Considerations</name>
remove the reference to RFC 7942.]</t> <t>As per <xref target="RFC8283" format="default"/>, the security consider
<t>This section records the status of known implementations of the ations for a PCE-based controller are a little
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of
this Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in
<xref target="RFC7942"/>. The description of implementations in this secti
on is
intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in
progressing drafts to RFCs. Please note that the listing of any
individual implementation here does not imply endorsement by the
IETF. Furthermore, no effort has been spent to verify the
information presented here that was supplied by IETF contributors.
This is not intended as, and must not be construed to be, a
catalog of available implementations or their features. Readers
are advised to note that other implementations may exist.</t>
<t>According to <xref target="RFC7942"/>, "this will allow reviewers and wo
rking
groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the
benefit of running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable
experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented
protocols more mature. It is up to the individual working groups
to use this information as they see fit".</t>
<section anchor="Onos" title="Huawei's Proof of Concept based on ONOS">
<t>The PCE function was developed in the ONOS open source platform. This exten
sion was implemented on a private version as a proof of concept for PCECC.
<list style="symbols">
<t>Organization: Huawei</t>
<t>Implementation: Huawei's PoC based on ONOS</t>
<t>Description: PCEP as a southbound plugin was added to ONOS. To support PC
ECC, an earlier version of this I-D was implemented. Refer https://wiki.onosproj
ect.org/display/ONOS/PCEP+Protocol</t>
<t>Maturity Level: Prototype</t>
<t>Coverage: Partial</t>
<t>Contact: satishk@huawei.com</t>
</list></t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Security Considerations"
toc="default">
<t>As per <xref target="RFC8283"/>, the security considerations for a PCE-
based controller is a little
different from those for any other PCE system. That is, the different from those for any other PCE system. That is, the
operation relies heavily on the use and security of PCEP, so operation relies heavily on the use and security of PCEP, so
consideration should be given to the security features discussed in consideration should be given to the security features discussed in
<xref target="RFC5440"/> and the additional mechanisms described in <xref tar <xref target="RFC5440" format="default"/> and the additional mechanisms descr
get="RFC8253"/>. It further lists the vulnerability of a central controller arch ibed in <xref target="RFC8253" format="default"/>. It further lists the vulnerab
itecture, such as a central ility of a central controller architecture, such as a central
point of failure, denial-of-service, and a focus for point of failure, denial of service, and a focus for
interception and modification of messages sent to individual NEs.</t> interception and modification of messages sent to individual Network Elements
<t>In PCECC operations, the PCEP sessions are also required to the internal r (NEs).</t>
outers and thus increasing the resources required for the session management at <t>In the PCECC operations, the PCEP sessions are also required to the int
the PCE. </t> ernal routers, thus increasing the resources required for the session management
<t>The PCECC extension builds on the existing PCEP messages and thus the s at the PCE. </t>
ecurity considerations described in <xref target="RFC5440"/>, <xref target="RFC8 <t>The PCECC extension builds on the existing PCEP messages; thus, the sec
231"/> and urity considerations described in <xref target="RFC5440" format="default"/>, <xr
<xref target="RFC8281"/> continue to apply. <xref target="RFC8253"/> spec ef target="RFC8231" format="default"/>, and
ify the support of Transport Layer Security (TLS) in PCEP, as it <xref target="RFC8281" format="default"/> continue to apply. <xref target
="RFC8253" format="default"/> specifies the support of Transport Layer Security
(TLS) in PCEP, as it
provides support for peer authentication, message encryption, and provides support for peer authentication, message encryption, and
integrity. It further provide mechanisms for integrity. It further provides mechanisms for
associating peer identities with different levels of access and/or associating peer identities with different levels of access and/or
authoritativeness via an attribute in X.509 certificates or a local policy wi th a specific accept-list of X.509 certificate. This can be used to check the au thority for the PCECC operations. authoritativeness via an attribute in X.509 certificates or a local policy wi th a specific accept-list of X.509 certificates. This can be used to check the a uthority for the PCECC operations.
Additional considerations are discussed in following sections.</t> Additional considerations are discussed in following sections.</t>
<section title="Malicious PCE" <section toc="default" numbered="true">
toc="default"> <name>Malicious PCE</name>
<t>In this extension, the PCE has complete control over the PCC to <t>In this extension, the PCE has complete control over the PCC to downl
download/remove the labels and can oad/remove the labels and can
cause the LSP's to behave inappropriately and cause a major impact cause the LSPs to behave inappropriately and cause a major impact
to the network. As a general precaution, it is RECOMMENDED that to the network. As a general precaution, it is <bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14> tha
this PCEP extension be activated on mutually-authenticated and encrypted t
this PCEP extension be activated on mutually authenticated and encrypted
sessions across PCEs and PCCs belonging to the same administrative sessions across PCEs and PCCs belonging to the same administrative
authority, using TLS <xref target="RFC8253"/>, authority, using TLS <xref target="RFC8253" format="default"/>,
as per the recommendations and best current practices in BCP 195 <xref target as per the recommendations and best current practices in BCP 195 <xref target
="RFC7525"/>. </t> ="RFC7525" format="default"/>. </t>
<t>Further, an attacker may flood the PCC <t>Further, an attacker may flood the PCC
with PCECC related messages at a rate that exceeds either the PCC's ability with the PCECC-related messages at a rate that exceeds either the PCC's abili
ty
to process them or the network's ability to send them, by to process them or the network's ability to send them, by
either spoofing messages or compromising the PCE itself. <xref target="RFC828 either spoofing messages or compromising the PCE itself. <xref target="RFC828
1"/> provides a mechanism to protect the PCC by imposing a limit. The same can b 1" format="default"/> provides a mechanism to protect the PCC by imposing a limi
e used for the PCECC operations as well.</t> t. The same can be used for the PCECC operations as well.</t>
<t>As specified in <xref target="LabelDownloadCCI"/>, a PCC needs to check if <t>As specified in <xref target="LabelDownloadCCI" format="default"/>, a
the label in the CCI object is in the range set aside for the PCE, otherwise it PCC needs to check if the label in the CCI object is in the range set aside for
MUST send a PCErr message with Error-type=TBD5 the PCE; otherwise, it <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> send a PCErr message with Error-Type
(PCECC failure) and Error-value=TBD6 (Label out of range).</t> =31
</section> (PCECC failure) and Error-value=1 (Label out of range).</t>
<section title="Malicious PCC" </section>
toc="default"> <section toc="default" numbered="true">
<t>The PCECC mechanism described in this document requires <name>Malicious PCC</name>
<t>The PCECC mechanism described in this document requires
the PCE to keep labels (CCI) that it downloads and relies on the the PCE to keep labels (CCI) that it downloads and relies on the
PCC responding (with either an acknowledgment or an error message) to PCC responding (with either an acknowledgment or an error message) to
requests for LSP instantiation. This is an additional attack surface by request for LSP instantiation. This is an additional attack surface by
placing a requirement for the PCE to keep a CCI/label replica for placing a requirement for the PCE to keep a CCI/label replica for
each PCC. It is RECOMMENDED that PCE implementations provide a limit each PCC. It is <bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14> that PCE implementations provide
on resources (in this case the CCI) a single PCC can occupy. <xref target="RF a limit
C8231"/> provides a notification mechanism when such threshold is reached. </t> on resources (in this case the CCI) a single PCC can occupy. <xref target="RF
</section> C8231" format="default"/> provides a notification mechanism when such threshold
is reached. </t>
</section>
</section> </section>
<section toc="default" numbered="true">
<section title="Manageability Considerations" <name>Manageability Considerations</name>
toc="default"> <section toc="default" numbered="true">
<section title="Control of Function and Policy" <name>Control of Function and Policy</name>
toc="default"> <t>A PCE or PCC implementation <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> allow the PCECC cap
<t>A PCE or PCC implementation SHOULD allow the PCECC capability to be e ability to be enabled/disabled as part of the global configuration. <xref target
nabled/disabled as part of the global configuration. ="RFC8664" sectionFormat="of" section="6.1"/> list various controlling factors r
egarding the Path Setup Type. They are also applicable to the PCECC Path Setup T
Section 6.1 of <xref target="RFC8664"/> list various controlling factors rega ypes. Further, <xref target="RFC8664" sectionFormat="of" section="6.2"/> describ
rding path setup type. They are also applicable to the PCECC path setup types. F es the migration steps when the Path Setup Type of an existing LSP is changed.</
urther, Section 6.2 of <xref target="RFC8664"/> describe the migration steps whe t>
n path setup type of an existing LSP is changed.</t>
</section> </section>
<section title="Information and Data Models" <section toc="default" numbered="true">
toc="default"> <name>Information and Data Models</name>
<t><xref target="RFC7420"/> describes the PCEP MIB, this MIB can be exte <t><xref target="RFC7420" format="default"/> describes the PCEP MIB; thi
nded to get the s MIB can be extended to get the
PCECC capability status.</t> PCECC capability status.</t>
<t>The PCEP YANG module <xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang" format="de
<t>The PCEP YANG module <xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang"/> could be fault"/> could be extended
extended to enable/disable the PCECC capability.</t>
to enable/disable PCECC capability.</t>
</section> </section>
<section title="Liveness Detection and Monitoring" <section toc="default" numbered="true">
toc="default"> <name>Liveness Detection and Monitoring</name>
<t>Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness <t>Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness
detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already
listed in <xref target="RFC5440"/>.</t> listed in <xref target="RFC5440" format="default"/>.</t>
</section> </section>
<section title="Verify Correct Operations" <section toc="default" numbered="true">
toc="default"> <name>Verify Correct Operations</name>
<!--<t>Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new operatio
n
verification requirements in addition to those already listed in
<xref target="RFC5440"/> and <xref target="RFC8231"/>.</t>-->
<t>The operator needs the following information to verify that PCEP is <t>The operator needs the following information to verify that PCEP is
operating correctly with respect to the PCECC path setup operating correctly with respect to the PCECC Path Setup
type.</t> Type.</t>
<t> <ul spacing="normal">
<list style="symbols"> <li>An implementation <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> allow the operator to view
<t>An implementation SHOULD allow the operator to view whether the whether the
PCEP speaker sent the PCECC PST capability to its peer.</t> PCEP speaker sent the PCECC PST capability to its peer.</li>
<li>An implementation <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> allow the operator to view
<t>An implementation SHOULD allow the operator to view whether the whether the
peer sent the PCECC PST capability. </t> peer sent the PCECC PST capability. </li>
<li>An implementation <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> allow the operator to view
<t>An implementation SHOULD allow the operator to view whether the whether the
PCECC PST is enabled on a PCEP session.</t> PCECC PST is enabled on a PCEP session.</li>
<li>If one PCEP speaker advertises the PCECC PST capability,
<t>If one PCEP speaker advertises the PCECC PST capability, but the other does not, then the implementation <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> crea
but the other does not, then the implementation SHOULD create a te a
log to inform the operator of the capability mismatch.</t> log to inform the operator of the capability mismatch.</li>
<li>If a PCEP speaker rejects a CCI, then it <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>
<t>If a PCEP speaker rejects a CCI, then it SHOULD
create a log to inform the operator, giving the reason for the create a log to inform the operator, giving the reason for the
decision (local policy, Label issues, etc.).</t> decision (local policy, label issues, etc.).</li>
</ul>
</list></t>
</section> </section>
<section title="Requirements On Other Protocols" <section toc="default" numbered="true">
toc="default"> <name>Requirements on Other Protocols</name>
<t>PCEP extensions defined in this document do not put new requirements <t>PCEP extensions defined in this document do not put new requirements
on other protocols.</t> on other protocols.</t>
</section> </section>
<section title="Impact On Network Operations" <section toc="default" numbered="true">
toc="default"> <name>Impact on Network Operations</name>
<t>PCEP extensions defined in this document do not put new requirements <t>PCEP extensions defined in this document do not put new requirements
on network operations.</t> on network operations.</t>
</section> </section>
</section> </section>
<section toc="default" numbered="true">
<section title="IANA Considerations" <name>IANA Considerations</name>
toc="default"> <section toc="default" numbered="true">
<name>PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY Sub-TLV Type Indicators</name>
<!--<section title="PCLabelUpd-PCLabelRpt message" toc="default"> <t><xref target="RFC8408" format="default"/> detailed the creation of th
<t>IANA is requested to allocate a new message type within the "PCEP e "PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY Sub-TLV Type Indicators" subregistry. Further, IAN
Messages" sub-registry of the PCEP Numbers registry for:</t> A has allocated the following codepoint:</t>
<texttable anchor="PCEP-LBL-MSG" style="none" suppress-title="true" title=" <table anchor="PCEP-SUBTYPE-IND" align="center">
" align="center"> <name>PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY Sub-TLV Type Indicators Subregistry Ad
<ttcol align="left" width="20%">Value</ttcol> dition</name>
<ttcol align="left" width="30%">Meaning</ttcol> <thead>
<ttcol align="left" width="20%">Reference</ttcol> <tr>
<c>TBD</c> <th align="left">Value</th>
<c>Label Update</c> <th align="left">Meaning</th>
<c>This document</c> <th align="left">Reference</th>
<c>TBD</c> </tr>
<c>Label Report</c> </thead>
<c>This document</c> <tbody>
</texttable> <tr>
</section>--> <td align="left">1</td>
<td align="left">PCECC-CAPABILITY</td>
<!--<section title="PCEP TLV Type Indicators" toc="default"> <td align="left">RFC 9050</td>
<t>IANA is requested to allocate the following </tr>
TLV Type Indicator value within the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" sub-regist </tbody>
ry of the PCEP Numbers registry:</t> </table>
<texttable anchor="PCEP-TYPE-IND" style="none" suppress-title="true" title=
"" align="center">
<ttcol align="left" width="20%">Value</ttcol>
<ttcol align="left" width="30%">Meaning</ttcol>
<ttcol align="left" width="20%">Reference</ttcol>
<c>TBD14</c>
<c>LINKLOCAL-IPV6-ADDRESS TLV</c>
<c>This document</c>
</texttable>
</section>-->
<section title="PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY Sub-TLV Type Indicators" toc="d
efault">
<t><xref target="RFC8408"/> requested the creation of "PATH-SETUP-TYPE-C
APABILITY Sub-TLV Type Indicators" sub-registry. Further IANA is requested to al
locate the following code-point:</t>
<texttable anchor="PCEP-SUBTYPE-IND" style="none" suppress-title="true" tit
le="" align="center">
<ttcol align="left" width="20%">Value</ttcol>
<ttcol align="left" width="30%">Meaning</ttcol>
<ttcol align="left" width="20%">Reference</ttcol>
<c>TBD12</c>
<c>PCECC-CAPABILITY</c>
<c>This document</c>
</texttable>
</section> </section>
<section title="PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV's Flag field" toc="default"> <section toc="default" numbered="true">
<name>PCECC-CAPABILITY Sub-TLV's Flag Field</name>
<t>This document defines the <t>This document defines the
PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV and requests that IANA to create a new sub-regist PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV; IANA has created a new subregistry to
ry to manage the value of the PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV's 32-bit Flag field. Ne
manage the value of the PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV's 32-bits Flag field. N w
ew values are to be assigned by Standards Action <xref target="RFC8126" format="
values are to be assigned by Standards Action <xref target="RFC8126"/>. Each default"/>. Each bit
bit should be tracked with the following qualities:</t>
should be tracked with the following qualities:<list style="symbols"> <ul spacing="normal">
<li>bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit)</li>
<t>Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit)</t> <li>capability description</li>
<li>defining RFC</li>
<t>Capability description</t> </ul>
<t>Currently, there is one allocation in this registry.</t>
<t>Defining RFC</t></list></t> <table anchor="PCEP-CAP-SubTLv" align="center">
<t>Currently, there is one allocation in this registry.</t> <name>Initial Contents of the PCECC-CAPABILITY Sub-TLV Subregistry</nam
<texttable anchor="PCEP-CAP-SubTLv" style="none" suppress-title="true" title= e>
"" align="center"> <thead>
<ttcol align="left" width="20%">Bit</ttcol> <tr>
<ttcol align="left" width="30%">Name</ttcol> <th align="left">Bit</th>
<ttcol align="left" width="20%">Reference</ttcol> <th align="left">Name</th>
<c>31</c> <th align="left">Reference</th>
<c>Label</c> </tr>
<c>This document</c> </thead>
<c>0-30</c> <tbody>
<c>Unassigned</c> <tr>
<c>This document</c> <td align="left">0-30</td>
</texttable> <td align="left">Unassigned</td>
<td align="left">RFC 9050</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left">31</td>
<td align="left">Label</td>
<td align="left">RFC 9050</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</section> </section>
<section toc="default" numbered="true">
<section title="Path Setup Type Registry" toc="default"> <name>PCEP Path Setup Type Registry</name>
<t><xref target="RFC8408"/> created a sub-registry within the "Path Comp <t><xref target="RFC8408" format="default"/> created a subregistry withi
utation Element n the "Path Computation Element
Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry called "PCEP Path Setup Types". Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry called "PCEP Path Setup Types".
IANA is requested to allocate a new code point within this registry, IANA has allocated a new codepoint within this registry,
as follows:</t> as follows:</t>
<texttable anchor="PCEP-PATH-TYPE" style="none" suppress-title="true" title <table anchor="PCEP-PATH-TYPE" align="center">
="" align="center"> <name>Path Setup Type Registry Codepoint Addition</name>
<ttcol align="left" width="20%">Value</ttcol> <thead>
<ttcol align="left" width="30%">Description</ttcol> <tr>
<ttcol align="left" width="20%">Reference</ttcol> <th align="left">Value</th>
<c>TBD1</c> <th align="left">Description</th>
<c>Traffic engineering path is</c> <th align="left">Reference</th>
<c>This document</c> </tr>
<c> </c> </thead>
<c>set up using PCECC mode</c> <tbody>
<c> </c> <tr>
</texttable> <td align="left">2</td>
<td align="left">Traffic engineering path is set up using PCECC mo
de</td>
<td align="left">RFC 9050</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</section> </section>
<section toc="default" numbered="true">
<name>PCEP Object</name>
<t>IANA has allocated new codepoints in the "PCEP Objects" subregistry f
or the CCI object as follows:</t>
<section title="PCEP Object" toc="default"> <table anchor="PCEP-OBJECT" align="center">
<t>IANA is requested to allocate new code-point in the "PCEP Objects" su <name>PCEP Objects Subregistry Additions</name>
b-registry for the CCI object as follows:</t> <thead>
<texttable anchor="PCEP-OBJECT" style="none" suppress-title="true" title="" <tr>
align="center"> <th align="left">Object-Class Value</th>
<ttcol align="left" width="20%">Object-Class Value</ttcol> <th align="left">Name</th>
<ttcol align="left" width="30%">Name</ttcol> <th align="left">Object-Type</th>
<ttcol align="left" width="20%">Reference</ttcol> <th align="left">Reference</th>
<c>TBD13</c> </tr>
<c>CCI Object-Type</c> </thead>
<c>This document</c> <tbody>
<c> </c> <tr>
<c>0</c> <td align="left">44</td>
<c>Reserved </c> <td align="left">CCI Object-Type</td>
<c> </c> <td align="left"><ul empty="true" spacing="compact" bare="true"><li
<c>1</c> >0: Reserved</li><li>1: MPLS Label</li><li>2-15: Unassigned</li></ul></td>
<c>MPLS Label</c> <td align="left">RFC 9050</td>
</texttable> </tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</section> </section>
<section toc="default" numbered="true">
<section title="CCI Object Flag Field" toc="default"> <name>CCI Object Flag Field</name>
<t>IANA is requested to create a new sub-registry to manage the Flag fie <t>IANA has created a new subregistry to manage the Flag field
ld
of the CCI object called "CCI Object Flag Field for MPLS Label". New of the CCI object called "CCI Object Flag Field for MPLS Label". New
values are to be assigned by Standards Action <xref target="RFC8126"/>. Each values are to be assigned by Standards Action <xref target="RFC8126" format="
bit default"/>. Each bit
should be tracked with the following qualities:<list style="symbols"> should be tracked with the following qualities:</t>
<ul spacing="normal">
<t>Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit)</t> <li>bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit)</li>
<li>capability description</li>
<t>Capability description</t> <li>defining RFC</li>
</ul>
<t>Defining RFC</t></list></t> <t>Two bits are defined for the CCI Object flag field in this document a
<t>Two bits to be defined for the CCI Object flag field in this document s follows:</t>
as follows:</t> <table anchor="CCI-FLAG" align="center">
<name>CCI Object Flag Field for MPLS Label Initial Contents</name>
<texttable anchor="CCI-FLAG" style="none" suppress-title="true" title="" al <thead>
ign="center"> <tr>
<ttcol align="left" width="20%">Bit</ttcol> <th align="left">Bit</th>
<ttcol align="left" width="30%">Description</ttcol> <th align="left">Description</th>
<ttcol align="left" width="20%">Reference</ttcol> <th align="left">Reference</th>
<c>0-13</c> </tr>
<c>Unassigned</c> </thead>
<c>This document</c> <tbody>
<c>14</c> <tr>
<c>C Bit - PCC allocation</c> <td align="left">0-13</td>
<c>This document</c> <td align="left">Unassigned</td>
<c>15</c> <td align="left"></td>
<c>O Bit - Specifies label</c> </tr>
<c>This document</c> <tr>
<c> </c> <td align="left">14</td>
<c>is out-label</c> <td align="left">C Bit - PCC allocation</td>
<c> </c> <td align="left">RFC 9050</td>
</tr>
</texttable> <tr>
<td align="left">15</td>
<td align="left">O Bit - Specifies label is out-label</td>
<td align="left">RFC 9050</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</section> </section>
<section toc="default" numbered="true">
<name>PCEP-Error Object</name>
<t>IANA has allocated new error types and error values within
the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" subregistry of the
"Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry for the fol
lowing errors:</t>
<table anchor="error-type">
<name>PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values Additions</name>
<thead>
<tr>
<th>Error-Type</th>
<th>Meaning</th>
<th>Error-value</th>
<th>Reference</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>6</td>
<td>Mandatory Object missing</td>
<td>17: CCI object missing</td>
<td>RFC 9050</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>10</td>
<td>Reception of an invalid object</td>
<td>33: Missing PCECC Capability sub-TLV</td>
<td>RFC 9050</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>19</td>
<td>Invalid Operation</td>
<td>
<t>16: Attempted PCECC operations when PCECC capability was not advertise
d</t>
<t>17: Stateful PCE capability was not advertised</t>
<t>18: Unknown Label</t>
</td>
<td>RFC 9050</td>
</tr>
<!--<section title="SRP Object Flag Field" toc="default"> <tr>
<t>SRP object is defined in <xref target="RFC8231"/> and extended in <td>31</td>
<xref target="RFC8281"/>. IANA is requested to allocate a new <td>PCECC failure</td>
bit in SRP object flag. Field registry, as follows:</t> <td>
<texttable anchor="SRP-FLAG" style="none" suppress-title="true" title="" al <t>1: Label out of range</t>
ign="center"> <t>2: Instruction failed</t>
<ttcol align="left" width="20%">Bit</ttcol> <t>3: Invalid CCI</t>
<ttcol align="left" width="30%">Description</ttcol> <t>4: Unable to allocate the specified CCI</t>
<ttcol align="left" width="20%">Reference</ttcol> <t>5: Invalid next-hop information</t>
<c>30</c> </td>
<c>S(SYNC Flag)</c> <td>RFC 9050</td>
<c>This document</c> </tr>
</texttable> </tbody>
</section>--> </table>
<section title="PCEP-Error Object" toc="default">
<t>IANA is requested to allocate new error types and error values within
the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" sub-registry of the
PCEP Numbers registry for the following errors:
<vspace blankLines="1" />
<?rfc subcompact="yes"?>
<list style="hanging" hangIndent="13">
<t hangText="Error-Type">Meaning</t>
<t hangText="---------- -------"></t>
<t hangText="6">Mandatory Object missing.
<list style="hanging" hangIndent="37">
<t hangText=" Error-value = TBD11 :">CCI object missing</t>
</list>
</t>
<t></t>
<t hangText="10">Reception of an invalid object.
<list style="hanging" hangIndent="37">
<t hangText=" Error-value = TBD2 :">Missing PCECC Capability sub-TLV
</t>
</list></t>
<t hangText="19">Invalid operation.
<list style="hanging" hangIndent="37">
<t hangText=" Error-value = TBD3 :">Attempted PCECC operations when
PCECC capability was not advertised</t>
<t hangText=" Error-value = TBD4 :">Stateful PCE capability was not
advertised</t>
<t hangText=" Error-value = TBD8 :">Unknown Label</t>
</list>
</t>
<t></t>
<t hangText="TBD5">PCECC failure.
<list style="hanging" hangIndent="37">
<t hangText=" Error-value = TBD6 :">Label out of range.</t>
<t hangText=" Error-value = TBD7 :">Instruction failed.</t>
<t hangText=" Error-value = TBD9 :">Invalid CCI.</t>
<t hangText=" Error-value = TBD10 :">Unable to allocate the specifie
d CCI.</t>
<t hangText=" Error-value = TBD15 :">Invalid next-hop information.</
t>
</list>
</t>
<!--<t hangText="TBD">Label DB synchronization failed.
<list style="hanging" hangIndent="37">
<t hangText=" Error-value = TBD :">Processing label update Failed du
ring synchronization.</t>
<t hangText=" Error-value = TBD :">Internal PCE Error during synchro
nization.</t>
</list>
</t> -->
</list>
</t>
</section> </section>
</section> </section>
<section title="Acknowledgments"
toc="default">
<t>We would like to thank Robert Tao, Changjing Yan, Tieying Huang, Avanti
ka, and Aijun Wang for
their useful comments and suggestions.</t>
<t>Thanks to Julien Meuric for shepherding this I-D and providing valuable co
mments. Thanks to Deborah Brungard for being the responsible AD.</t>
<t>Thanks to Victoria Pritchard for a very detailed RTGDIR review. Thanks to
Yaron Sheffer for the
SECDIR review. Thanks to Gyan Mishra for the GENART review.</t>
<t>Thanks to Alvaro Retana, Murray Kucherawy, Benjamin Kaduk, Roman Danyliw, Rob
ert Wilton, Eric Vyncke, and Erik Kline for the IESG review.</t>
</section>
</middle> </middle>
<back> <back>
<references title="Normative References"> <displayreference target="I-D.ietf-teas-pcecc-use-cases" to="PCECC"/>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119.xml" ?> <displayreference target="I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang" to="PCEP-YANG"/>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.5440.xml" ?> <displayreference target="I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr" to="PCE
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.5511.xml" ?> CC-SR"/>
<displayreference target="I-D.dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6" to="
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.7525.xml" ?> PCECC-SRv6"/>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.8126.xml"?> <displayreference target="I-D.li-pce-controlled-id-space" to="PCE-ID"/>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.8174.xml"?> <displayreference target="I-D.gont-numeric-ids-sec-considerations" to="SECURITY-
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.8231.xml"?> ID"/>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.8253.xml"?> <references>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.8281.xml"?> <name>References</name>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.8408.xml"?> <references>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.8664.xml"?> <name>Normative References</name>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.8779.xml"?> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
FC.2119.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
FC.5440.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
FC.5511.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
FC.7525.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
FC.8126.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
FC.8174.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
FC.8231.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
FC.8253.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
FC.8281.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
FC.8408.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
FC.8664.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
FC.8779.xml"/>
</references> </references>
<references>
<name>Informative References</name>
<reference anchor='RFC4655' target='https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655'>
<front>
<title>A Path Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture</title>
<author initials='A.' surname='Farrel' fullname='A. Farrel'><organization /></au
thor>
<author initials='JP.' surname='Vasseur' fullname='JP. Vasseur'><organization />
</author>
<author initials='J.' surname='Ash' fullname='J. Ash'><organization /></author>
<date year='2006' month='August' />
</front>
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='4655'/>
<seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC4655'/>
</reference>
<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
FC.7025.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
FC.7399.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
FC.7420.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
FC.7491.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
FC.8232.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
FC.8283.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
FC.8741.xml"/>
<references title="Informative References"> <xi:include href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-te
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.4655.xml"?> as-pcecc-use-cases.xml"/>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.7025.xml"?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.7399.xml"?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.7420.xml" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.7491.xml"?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.7942.xml" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.8232.xml"?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.8283.xml"?> <reference anchor='I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang'>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.8741.xml"?> <front>
<?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-teas-pcecc-use-cases"?> <title>A YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element Communications Protocol (P
CEP)</title>
<author initials='D' surname='Dhody' fullname='Dhruv Dhody' role='editor'>
</author>
<author initials='J' surname='Hardwick' fullname='Jonathan Hardwick'>
</author>
<author initials='V' surname='Beeram' fullname='Vishnu Beeram'>
</author>
<author initials='J' surname='Tantsura' fullname='Jeff Tantsura'>
</author>
<date month='February' day='22' year='2021' />
</front>
<seriesInfo name='Internet-Draft' value='draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-16' />
<format type='TXT'
target='http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-16.
txt' />
</reference>
<?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang"?> <xi:include href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-pc
<?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr"?> e-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr.xml"/>
<?rfc include="reference.I-D.dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6"?>
<?rfc include="reference.I-D.li-pce-controlled-id-space"?>
<?rfc include="reference.I-D.gont-numeric-ids-sec-considerations"?>
<!--<?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-pce-binding-label-sid"?> <xi:include href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.dhody-p
<?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-pce-sr-path-segment"?>--> ce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6.xml"/>
<!--<?rfc include="reference.I-D.palle-pce-controller-labeldb-sync"?>--> <xi:include href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bibxml3/reference.I-D .li-pce-controlled-id-space.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bibxml3/reference.I-D .gont-numeric-ids-sec-considerations.xml"/>
</references> </references>
<section title="Contributor Addresses" toc="default"> </references>
<t> <section toc="default" numbered="false">
<figure title="" suppress-title="false" align="left" alt="" width="" height= <name>Acknowledgments</name>
""> <t>We would like to thank <contact fullname="Robert Tao"/>, <contact fulln
<artwork xml:space="preserve" name="" type="" align="left" alt="" width=" ame="Changjing Yan"/>, <contact fullname="Tieying Huang"/>, <contact fullname="A
" height=""><![CDATA[ vantika"/>, and <contact fullname="Aijun Wang"/> for
Dhruv Dhody their useful comments and suggestions.</t>
Huawei Technologies <t>Thanks to <contact fullname="Julien Meuric"/> for shepherding this docu
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield ment and providing valuable comments. Thanks to <contact fullname="Deborah Brung
Bangalore, Karnataka 560066 ard"/> for being the responsible AD.</t>
India <t>Thanks to <contact fullname="Victoria Pritchard"/> for a very detailed
RTGDIR review. Thanks to <contact fullname="Yaron Sheffer"/> for the
EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com SECDIR review. Thanks to <contact fullname="Gyan Mishra"/> for the Gen-ART revie
w.</t>
Satish Karunanithi <t>Thanks to <contact fullname="Alvaro Retana"/>, <contact fullname="Murra
Huawei Technologies y Kucherawy"/>, <contact fullname="Benjamin Kaduk"/>, <contact fullname="Roman D
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield anyliw"/>, <contact fullname="Robert Wilton"/>, <contact fullname="Éric Vyncke"/
Bangalore, Karnataka 560066 >, and <contact fullname="Erik Kline"/> for the IESG review.</t>
India </section>
<section toc="default" numbered="false">
EMail: satishk@huawei.com <name>Contributors</name>
<contact fullname="Dhruv Dhody">
Adrian Farrel <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
Old Dog Consulting <address>
UK <postal>
<street>Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield</street>
EMail: adrian@olddog.co.uk <city>Bangalore</city>
<region>Karnataka</region>
Xuesong Geng <code>560066</code>
Huawei Technologies <country>India</country>
China </postal>
<email>dhruv.ietf@gmail.com</email>
Email: gengxuesong@huawei.com </address>
</contact>
Udayasree Palle
EMail: udayasreereddy@gmail.com
Katherine Zhao <contact fullname="Satish Karunanithi">
Futurewei Technologies <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield</street>
<city>Bangalore</city>
<region>Karnataka</region>
<code>560066</code>
<country>India</country>
</postal>
<email>satishk@huawei.com</email>
</address>
</contact>
EMail: katherine.zhao@futurewei.com <contact fullname="Adrian Farrel">
<organization>Old Dog Consulting</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<country>United Kingdom</country>
</postal>
<email>adrian@olddog.co.uk</email>
</address>
</contact>
Boris Zhang <contact fullname="Xuesong Geng">
Telus Ltd. <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
Toronto <address>
Canada <postal>
<country>China</country>
</postal>
<email>gengxuesong@huawei.com </email>
</address>
</contact>
EMail: boris.zhang@telus.com <contact fullname="Udayasree Palle">
<organization/>
<address>
<postal/>
<email>udayasreereddy@gmail.com</email>
</address>
</contact>
Alex Tokar <contact fullname="Katherine Zhao">
Cisco Systems <organization>Futurewei Technologies</organization>
Slovak Republic <address>
<postal/>
<email>katherine.zhao@futurewei.com</email>
</address>
</contact>
EMail: atokar@cisco.com <contact fullname="Boris Zhang">
<organization>Telus Ltd.</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<city>Toronto</city>
<country>Canada</country>
</postal>
<email>boris.zhang@telus.com</email>
</address>
</contact>
]]></artwork> <contact fullname="Alex Tokar">
</figure> <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
</t> <address>
<postal>
<country>Slovakia</country>
</postal>
<email>atokar@cisco.com</email>
</address>
</contact>
</section> </section>
</back> </back>
</rfc> </rfc>
 End of changes. 162 change blocks. 
1921 lines changed or deleted 1326 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/