| rfc9757v2.txt | rfc9757.txt | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Wang | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Wang | |||
| Request for Comments: 9757 China Telecom | Request for Comments: 9757 China Telecom | |||
| Category: Experimental B. Khasanov | Category: Experimental B. Khasanov | |||
| ISSN: 2070-1721 MTS Web Services (MWS) | ISSN: 2070-1721 MTS Web Services (MWS) | |||
| S. Fang | S. Fang | |||
| R. Tan | ||||
| Huawei Technologies | Huawei Technologies | |||
| C. Zhu | C. Zhu | |||
| ZTE Corporation | ZTE Corporation | |||
| March 2025 | March 2025 | |||
| Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for | Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for | |||
| Native IP Networks | Native IP Networks | |||
| Abstract | Abstract | |||
| This document introduces extensions to the Path Computation Element | This document introduces extensions to the Path Computation Element | |||
| Communication Protocol (PCEP) to support path computation in Native | Communication Protocol (PCEP) to support path computation in Native | |||
| IP networks through a PCE-based central control mechanism known as | IP networks through a PCE-based central control mechanism known as | |||
| Centralized Control Dynamic Routing (CCDR). These extensions empower | Centralized Control Dynamic Routing (CCDR). These extensions empower | |||
| a PCE to calculate and manage paths specifically for Native IP | a PCE to calculate and manage paths specifically for Native IP | |||
| networks, thereby expanding PCEP's capabilities beyond its | networks, thereby expanding PCEP's capabilities beyond its past use | |||
| traditional use in MPLS and GMPLS networks. By implementing these | in MPLS and GMPLS networks. By implementing these extensions, IP | |||
| extensions, IP network resources can be utilized more efficiently, | network resources can be utilized more efficiently, facilitating the | |||
| facilitating the deployment of traffic engineering in Native IP | deployment of traffic engineering in Native IP environments. | |||
| environments. | ||||
| Status of This Memo | Status of This Memo | |||
| This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is | This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is | |||
| published for examination, experimental implementation, and | published for examination, experimental implementation, and | |||
| evaluation. | evaluation. | |||
| This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet | This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet | |||
| community. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering | community. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering | |||
| Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF | Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF | |||
| skipping to change at line 213 ¶ | skipping to change at line 211 ¶ | |||
| This document defines a new Path Setup Type (PST) [RFC8408] for | This document defines a new Path Setup Type (PST) [RFC8408] for | |||
| Native IP, as follows: | Native IP, as follows: | |||
| * PST = 4: Path is a Native IP TE path as per [RFC8821]. | * PST = 4: Path is a Native IP TE path as per [RFC8821]. | |||
| A PCEP speaker MUST indicate its support of the function described in | 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 | this document by sending a PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV in the OPEN | |||
| object with this new PST included in the PST list. | object with this new PST included in the PST list. | |||
| [RFC9050] defined the PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV to exchange | [RFC9050] defined the PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV to exchange | |||
| information about their PCECC capability. A new flag is defined in | information about the PCEP speakers' PCECC capability. A new flag is | |||
| the PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV for Native IP: | defined in the PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV for Native IP: | |||
| N (NATIVE-IP-TE-CAPABILITY - 1 bit - 30): When set to 1 by a PCEP | N (NATIVE-IP-TE-CAPABILITY - 1 bit - 30): When set to 1 by a PCEP | |||
| speaker, this flag indicates that the PCEP speaker is capable of TE | speaker, this flag indicates that the PCEP speaker is capable of TE | |||
| in a Native IP network, as specified in this document. Both the PCC | in a Native IP network, as specified in this document. Both the PCC | |||
| and PCE MUST set this flag to support this extension. | and PCE MUST set this flag to support this extension. | |||
| If a PCEP speaker receives the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV with | If a PCEP speaker receives the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV with | |||
| the newly defined PST, but without the N bit set in PCECC-CAPABILITY | the newly defined PST, but without the N bit set in PCECC-CAPABILITY | |||
| sub-TLV, it MUST: | sub-TLV, it MUST: | |||
| skipping to change at line 1382 ¶ | skipping to change at line 1380 ¶ | |||
| Table 3: PCEP Objects Registry | Table 3: PCEP Objects Registry | |||
| 13.4. PCEP-Error Objects | 13.4. PCEP-Error Objects | |||
| IANA has allocated a new Error-Type and several Error-values in the | IANA has allocated a new Error-Type and several Error-values in the | |||
| "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" registry within the "Path | "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" registry within the "Path | |||
| Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry group, as | Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry group, as | |||
| follows: | follows: | |||
| +============+=================+===============================+ | +============+==============+==========================+===========+ | |||
| | Error-Type | Meaning | Error-value | | | Error-Type | Meaning | Error-value | Reference | | |||
| +============+=================+===============================+ | +============+==============+==========================+===========+ | |||
| | 6 | Mandatory | 19: Native IP object missing | | | 6 | Mandatory | 19: Native IP object | RFC 9757 | | |||
| | | Object missing | | | | | Object | missing | | | |||
| +------------+-----------------+-------------------------------+ | | | missing | | | | |||
| | 10 | Reception of an | 39: PCECC NATIVE-IP-TE- | | +------------+--------------+--------------------------+-----------+ | |||
| | | invalid object | CAPABILITY bit is not set | | | 10 | Reception of | 39: PCECC NATIVE-IP-TE- | RFC 9757 | | |||
| +------------+-----------------+-------------------------------+ | | | an invalid | CAPABILITY bit is not | | | |||
| | 19 | Invalid | 22: Only one BPI, EPR, or PPA | | | | object | set | | | |||
| | | Operation | object can be included in | | +------------+--------------+--------------------------+-----------+ | |||
| | | | this message | | | 19 | Invalid | 22: Only one BPI, EPR, | RFC 9757 | | |||
| | | +-------------------------------+ | | | Operation | or PPA object can be | | | |||
| | | | 29: Attempted Native IP | | | | | included in this message | | | |||
| | | | operations when the | | | | +--------------------------+-----------+ | |||
| | | | capability was not advertised | | | | | 29: Attempted Native IP | RFC 9757 | | |||
| | | +-------------------------------+ | | | | operations when the | | | |||
| | | | 30: Unknown Native IP Info | | | | | capability was not | | | |||
| +------------+-----------------+-------------------------------+ | | | | advertised | | | |||
| | 33 | Native IP TE | 0: Unassigned | | | | +--------------------------+-----------+ | |||
| | | failure | | | | | | 30: Unknown Native IP | RFC 9757 | | |||
| | | +-------------------------------+ | | | | Info | | | |||
| | | | 1: Local IP is in use | | +------------+--------------+--------------------------+-----------+ | |||
| | | +-------------------------------+ | | 33 | Native IP TE | 0: Unassigned | RFC 9757 | | |||
| | | | 2: Remote IP is in use | | | | failure | | | | |||
| | | +-------------------------------+ | | | +--------------------------+-----------+ | |||
| | | | 3: Explicit Peer Route Error | | | | | 1: Local IP is in use | RFC9757 | | |||
| | | +-------------------------------+ | | | +--------------------------+-----------+ | |||
| | | | 4: EPR/BPI Peer Info mismatch | | | | | 2: Remote IP is in use | RFC 9757 | | |||
| | | +-------------------------------+ | | | +--------------------------+-----------+ | |||
| | | | 5: BPI/PPA Address Family | | | | | 3: Explicit Peer Route | RFC 9757 | | |||
| | | | mismatch | | | | | Error | | | |||
| | | +-------------------------------+ | | | +--------------------------+-----------+ | |||
| | | | 6: PPA/BPI Peer Info mismatch | | | | | 4: EPR/BPI Peer Info | RFC 9757 | | |||
| +------------+-----------------+-------------------------------+ | | | | mismatch | | | |||
| | | +--------------------------+-----------+ | ||||
| | | | 5: BPI/PPA Address | RFC 9757 | | ||||
| | | | Family mismatch | | | ||||
| | | +--------------------------+-----------+ | ||||
| | | | 6: PPA/BPI Peer Info | RFC 9757 | | ||||
| | | | mismatch | | | ||||
| +------------+--------------+--------------------------+-----------+ | ||||
| Table 4: PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values Registry | Table 4: PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values Registry | |||
| The reference for each new Error-Type/Error-value should be set to | The reference for each new Error-Type/Error-value should be set to | |||
| this document. | this document. | |||
| 13.5. CCI Object Flag Field | 13.5. CCI Object Flag Field | |||
| IANA has created the "CCI Object Flag Field for Native IP" registry | IANA has created the "CCI Object Flag Field for Native IP" registry | |||
| to manage the 16-bit Flag field of the new CCI object. New values | to manage the 16-bit Flag field of the new CCI object. New values | |||
| skipping to change at line 1646 ¶ | skipping to change at line 1651 ¶ | |||
| 2025, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf- | 2025, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf- | |||
| pce-pcep-yang-30>. | pce-pcep-yang-30>. | |||
| Acknowledgements | Acknowledgements | |||
| Thanks to Mike Koldychev, Susan Hares, Siva Sivabalan, and Adam | Thanks to Mike Koldychev, Susan Hares, Siva Sivabalan, and Adam | |||
| Simpson for their valuable suggestions and comments. | Simpson for their valuable suggestions and comments. | |||
| Contributors | Contributors | |||
| Dhruv Dhody has contributed to this document. | Ren Tan and Dhruv Dhody have contributed to this document. | |||
| Authors' Addresses | Authors' Addresses | |||
| Aijun Wang | Aijun Wang | |||
| China Telecom | China Telecom | |||
| Beiqijia Town, Changping District | Beiqijia Town, Changping District | |||
| Beijing | Beijing | |||
| 102209 | 102209 | |||
| China | China | |||
| Email: wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn | Email: wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn | |||
| skipping to change at line 1673 ¶ | skipping to change at line 1678 ¶ | |||
| Russian Federation | Russian Federation | |||
| Email: bhassanov@yahoo.com | Email: bhassanov@yahoo.com | |||
| Sheng Fang | Sheng Fang | |||
| Huawei Technologies | Huawei Technologies | |||
| Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd. | Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd. | |||
| Beijing | Beijing | |||
| China | China | |||
| Email: fsheng@huawei.com | Email: fsheng@huawei.com | |||
| Ren Tan | ||||
| Huawei Technologies | ||||
| Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd. | ||||
| Beijing | ||||
| China | ||||
| Email: tanren@huawei.com | ||||
| Chun Zhu | Chun Zhu | |||
| ZTE Corporation | ZTE Corporation | |||
| 50 Software Avenue, Yuhua District | 50 Software Avenue, Yuhua District | |||
| Nanjing | Nanjing | |||
| Jiangsu, 210012 | Jiangsu, 210012 | |||
| China | China | |||
| Email: zhu.chun1@zte.com.cn | Email: zhu.chun1@zte.com.cn | |||
| End of changes. 6 change blocks. | ||||
| 51 lines changed or deleted | 49 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. | ||||