rfc9757.original   rfc9757.txt 
PCE Working Group A. Wang Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Wang
Internet-Draft China Telecom Request for Comments: 9757 China Telecom
Intended status: Experimental B. Khasanov Category: Experimental B. Khasanov
Expires: 15 March 2025 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
11 September 2024 March 2025
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for
Native IP Networks Native IP Networks
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-40
Abstract Abstract
This document introduces extensions to the PCE Communication Protocol This document introduces extensions to the Path Computation Element
(PCEP) to support path computation in native IP networks through a Communication Protocol (PCEP) to support path computation in Native
PCE-based central control mechanism known as Centralized Control IP networks through a PCE-based central control mechanism known as
Dynamic Routing (CCDR). These extensions empower a PCE to calculate Centralized Control Dynamic Routing (CCDR). These extensions empower
and manage paths specifically for native IP networks, expand PCEP’s a PCE to calculate and manage paths specifically for Native IP
capabilities beyond its traditional use in MPLS and GMPLS networks. networks, thereby expanding PCEP's capabilities beyond its past use
By implementing these extensions, IP network resources can be in MPLS and GMPLS networks. By implementing these extensions, IP
utilized more efficiently, facilitating the deployment of traffic network resources can be utilized more efficiently, facilitating the
engineering in native IP environments. deployment of traffic engineering in Native IP environments.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. published for examination, experimental implementation, and
evaluation.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any community. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." community. It has received public review and has been approved for
publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not
all documents approved by the IESG are candidates for any level of
Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on 15 March 2025. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9757.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights publication of this document. Please review these documents
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Conventions Used in This Document
2.1. Use of RBNF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. Use of RBNF
2.2. Experimental Status Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2. Experimental Status Consideration
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Terminology
4. Capability Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Capability Advertisement
4.1. Open Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1. Open Message
5. PCEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. PCEP Messages
5.1. The PCInitiate Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.1. The PCInitiate Message
5.2. The PCRpt Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.2. The PCRpt Message
6. PCECC Native IP TE Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. PCECC Native IP TE Procedures
6.1. BGP Session Establishment Procedures . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.1. BGP Session Establishment Procedures
6.2. Explicit Route Establishment Procedures . . . . . . . . . 12 6.2. Explicit Route Establishment Procedures
6.3. BGP Prefix Advertisement Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6.3. BGP Prefix Advertisement Procedures
6.4. Selection of Raw Mode and Tunnel Mode Forwarding 6.4. Selection of the Raw Mode and Tunnel Mode Forwarding
Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Strategy
6.5. Clean Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6.5. Cleanup
6.6. Other Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6.6. Other Procedures
7. New PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 7. New PCEP Objects
7.1. CCI Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 7.1. CCI Object
7.2. BGP Peer Info Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 7.2. BGP Peer Info Object
7.3. Explicit Peer Route Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 7.3. Explicit Peer Route Object
7.4. Peer Prefix Advertisement Object . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 7.4. Peer Prefix Advertisement Object
8. New Error-Types and Error-Values Defined . . . . . . . . . . 26 8. New Error-Type and Error-Values Defined
9. BGP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 9. BGP Considerations
10. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 10. Deployment Considerations
11. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 11. Manageability Considerations
11.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 11.1. Control of Function and Policy
11.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 11.2. Information and Data Models
11.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . 29 11.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
11.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 11.4. Verify Correct Operations
11.5. Requirements on Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 11.5. Requirements on Other Protocols
11.6. Impact on Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 11.6. Impact on Network Operations
12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 12. Security Considerations
13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 13. IANA Considerations
13.1. Path Setup Type Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 13.1. PCEP Path Setup Types
13.2. PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV's Flag field . . . . . . . . . 31 13.2. PCECC-CAPABILITY Sub-TLV Flag Field
13.3. PCEP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 13.3. PCEP Objects
13.4. PCEP-Error Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 13.4. PCEP-Error Objects
13.5. CCI Object Flag Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 13.5. CCI Object Flag Field
13.6. BPI Object Status Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 13.6. BPI Object Status Codes
13.7. BPI Object Error Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 13.7. BPI Object Error Codes
13.8. BPI Object Flag Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 13.8. BPI Object Flag Field
14. Contributor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 14. References
15. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 14.1. Normative References
16. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 14.2. Informative References
16.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Acknowledgements
16.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Contributors
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Authors' Addresses
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Generally, Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (MPLS- Generally, Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (MPLS-
TE) requires the corresponding network devices to support Resource TE) requires the corresponding network devices to support the
ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)[RFC3209]/Label Distribution Protocol Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) [RFC3209] and the Label
(LDP)[RFC5036] protocols to ensure the End-to-End (E2E) traffic Distribution Protocol (LDP) [RFC5036] to ensure End-to-End (E2E)
performance. But in native IP network scenarios described in traffic performance. But in Native IP network scenarios described in
[RFC8735], there will be no such signaling protocol to synchronize [RFC8735], there will be no such signaling protocol to synchronize
the actions among different network devices. It is feasible to use the actions among different network devices. It is feasible to use
the central control mode described in [RFC8283] to correlate the the central control mode described in [RFC8283] to correlate the
forwarding behavior among different network devices. [RFC8821] forwarding behavior among different network devices. [RFC8821]
describes the architecture and solution philosophy for the E2E describes the architecture and solution philosophy for the E2E
traffic assurance in the Native IP network via multiple Border traffic assurance in the Native IP network via a solution based on
Gateway Protocol (BGP) sessions-based solution. It requires only the multiple Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) sessions. It requires only
PCE to send the instructions to the PCCs, to build multiple BGP the PCE to send the instructions to the Path Computation Clients
sessions, distribute different prefixes on the established BGP (PCCs) to build multiple BGP sessions, distribute different prefixes
sessions and assign the different paths to the BGP next hops. on the established BGP sessions, and assign the different paths to
the BGP next hops.
This document describes the corresponding Path Computation Element This document describes the corresponding Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions to transfer the key Communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions to transfer the key
information about BGP peer, peer prefix advertisement, and the information about the BGP peer, peer prefix advertisement, and
explicit peer route on on-path routers. explicit peer route on on-path routers.
2. Conventions used in this document 2. Conventions Used in This Document
The keywords "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
2.1. Use of RBNF 2.1. Use of RBNF
The message formats in this document are illustrated using Routing The message formats in this document are illustrated using Routing
Backus-Naur Form (RBNF) encoding, as specified in [RFC5511]. The use Backus-Naur Form (RBNF) encoding, as specified in [RFC5511]. The use
of RBNF is illustrative only and may elide certain important details; of RBNF is illustrative only and may elide certain important details;
the normative specification of messages is found in the prose the normative specification of messages is found in the prose
description. If there is any divergence between the RBNF and the description. If there is any divergence between the RBNF and the
prose, the prose is considered authoritative. prose, the prose is considered authoritative.
2.2. Experimental Status Consideration 2.2. Experimental Status Consideration
The procedures outlined in this document are experimental. The The procedures outlined in this document are experimental. The
experiment aims to explore the use of PCE (and PCEP) for end-to-end experiment aims to explore the use of PCE (and PCEP) for E2E traffic
traffic assurance in Native IP networks through multiple BGP assurance in Native IP networks through multiple BGP sessions.
sessions. Additional implementation is necessary to gain a deeper Additional implementation is necessary to gain a deeper understanding
understanding of the operational impact, scalability, and stability of the operational impact, scalability, and stability of the
of the mechanism described. Feedback from deployments will be mechanism described. Feedback from deployments will be crucial in
crucial in determining whether this specification should advance from determining whether this specification should advance from
Experimental to the IETF Standards Track. Experimental to the IETF Standards Track.
3. Terminology 3. Terminology
This document uses the following terms defined in [RFC5440]: PCC, This document uses the following terms defined in [RFC5440]: PCC,
PCE, PCEP. PCE, and PCEP.
The following terminology is used in this document: Additionally, the following terminology is used in this document:
* BPI: BGP Peer Info BPI: BGP Peer Info
* CCDR: Central Control Dynamic Routing CCDR: Centralized Control Dynamic Routing
* CCI: Central Controller Instructions, defined in [RFC9050] CCI: Central Controller Instructions (defined in [RFC9050])
* E2E: End-to-End E2E: End-to-End
* EPR: Explicit Peer Route EPR: Explicit Peer Route
* Native IP network: Network that forwards traffic based solely on Native IP network: Network that forwards traffic based solely on the
the IP address, instead of other indicator, for example MPLS etc. IP address, instead of another indicator, for example, MPLS, etc.
* PCECC: PCE as a Central Controller, defined in [RFC8283] PCECC: PCE as a Central Controller (defined in [RFC8283])
* PPA: Peer Prefix Advertisement PPA: Peer Prefix Advertisement
* PST: Path Setup Type, defined in [RFC8408] PST: Path Setup Type (defined in [RFC8408])
* SRP: Stateful PCE Request Parameters, defined in [RFC8231] SRP: Stateful PCE Request Parameter (defined in [RFC8231])
* RR: Route Reflector
RR: Route Reflector
4. Capability Advertisement 4. Capability Advertisement
4.1. Open Message 4.1. Open Message
During the PCEP Initialization Phase, PCEP Speakers (PCE or PCC) During the PCEP Initialization Phase, PCEP speakers (PCE or PCC)
advertise their support of Native IP extensions. advertise their support of Native IP extensions.
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
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 path setup type, but without the N bit set in the newly defined PST, but without the N bit set in PCECC-CAPABILITY
PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV, it MUST: sub-TLV, it MUST:
* send a PCErr message with Error-Type=10 (Reception of an invalid * send a PCErr message with Error-Type=10 (Reception of an invalid
object) and Error-Value=39 (PCECC NATIVE-IP-TE-CAPABILITY bit is object) and Error-value=39 (PCECC NATIVE-IP-TE-CAPABILITY bit is
not set). not set) and
* terminate the PCEP session * terminate the PCEP session.
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 path setup type, but without the PCECC-CAPABILITY the newly defined PST, but without the PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV, it
sub-TLV, it MUST: MUST:
* send a PCErr message with Error-Type=10(Reception of an invalid * send a PCErr message with Error-Type=10 (Reception of an invalid
object) and Error-Value=33 (Missing PCECC Capability sub-TLV). object) and Error-value=33 (Missing PCECC Capability sub-TLV) and
* terminate the PCEP session.
* terminate the PCEP session
If one or both speakers (PCE and PCC) have not indicated the support If one or both speakers (PCE and PCC) have not indicated the support
for Native-IP, the PCEP extensions for the Native-IP MUST NOT be for Native IP, the PCEP extensions for the Native IP MUST NOT be
used. If a Native-IP operation is attempted when both speakers have used. If a Native IP operation is attempted when both speakers have
not agreed on the OPEN messages, the receiver of the message MUST: not agreed on the OPEN messages, the receiver of the message MUST:
* send a PCErr message with Error-Type=19 (Invalid Operation) and * send a PCErr message with Error-Type=19 (Invalid Operation) and
Error-value=29 (Attempted Native-IP operations when the capability Error-value=29 (Attempted Native IP operations when the capability
was not advertised) and was not advertised) and
* terminate the PCEP session. * terminate the PCEP session.
5. PCEP Messages 5. PCEP Messages
PCECC Native IP TE solution uses the existing PCE Label Switched Path The PCECC Native IP TE solution uses the existing PCE Label Switched
(LSP) Initiate Request message (PCInitiate) [RFC8281], and PCE Report Path (LSP) Initiate Request message (PCInitiate) [RFC8281] and PCE
message (PCRpt) [RFC8231] to accomplish the multiple BGP sessions Report message (PCRpt) [RFC8231] to establish multiple BGP sessions,
establishment, E2E Native-IP TE path deployment, and route prefixes deploy the E2E Native IP TE path, and advertise route prefixes among
advertisement among different BGP sessions. A new PST for Native-IP different BGP sessions. A new PST for Native IP is used to indicate
is used to indicate the path setup based on TE in Native IP networks. the path setup based on TE in Native IP networks.
The extended PCInitiate message described in [RFC9050] is used to The extended PCInitiate message described in [RFC9050] is used to
download or remove the central controller's instructions (CCIs). download or remove the Central Controller Instructions (CCI).
[RFC9050] specifies an object called CCI for the encoding of the [RFC9050] specifies an object called CCI for the encoding of the
central controller's instructions. This document specifies a new CCI central controller's instructions. This document specifies a new CCI
Object-Type for Native IP. The PCEP messages are extended in this Object-Type for Native IP. The PCEP messages are extended in this
document to handle the PCECC operations for Native IP. Three new document to handle the PCECC operations for Native IP. Three new
PCEP Objects (BGP Peer Info (BPI) Object, Explicit Peer Route (EPR) PCEP objects (BGP Peer Info (BPI), Explicit Peer Route (EPR), and
Object, and Peer Prefix Advertisement (PPA) Object) are defined in Peer Prefix Advertisement (PPA)) are defined in this document. Refer
this document. Refer to Section 7 for detailed object definitions. to Section 7 for detailed object definitions. All PCEP procedures
All PCEP procedures specified in [RFC9050] continue to apply unless specified in [RFC9050] continue to apply unless specified otherwise.
specified otherwise.
5.1. The PCInitiate Message 5.1. The PCInitiate Message
The PCInitiate Message defined in [RFC8281] and extended in [RFC9050] The PCInitiate message defined in [RFC8281] and extended in [RFC9050]
is further extended to support Native-IP CCI. is further extended to support Native IP CCI.
The format of the extended PCInitiate message is as follows: The format of the extended PCInitiate message is as follows:
<PCInitiate Message> ::= <Common Header> <PCInitiate Message> ::= <Common Header>
<PCE-initiated-lsp-list> <PCE-initiated-lsp-list>
Where:
<Common Header> is defined in [RFC5440] Where:
<Common Header> is defined in RFC 5440
<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>
[<BPI>|<EPR>|<PPA>] [<BPI>|<EPR>|<PPA>]
[<cci-list>] [<cci-list>]
Where: Where:
<PCE-initiated-lsp-instantiation> and <PCE-initiated-lsp-deletion> * <PCE-initiated-lsp-instantiation> and <PCE-initiated-lsp-deletion>
are as per [RFC8281]. are as per [RFC8281].
The LSP and SRP objects are defined in [RFC8231]. * The LSP and SRP objects are defined in [RFC8231].
When the PCInitiate message is used for Native IP instructions, i.e. When the PCInitiate message is used for Native IP instructions, i.e.,
When the CCI Object-Type is 2, the SRP, LSP and CCI objects MUST be when the CCI Object-Type is 2, the SRP, LSP, and CCI objects MUST be
present. Error handling for missing SRP, LSP or CCI objects MUST be present. Error handling for missing SRP, LSP, or CCI objects MUST be
performed as specified in [RFC9050]. Additionally, exactly one performed as specified in [RFC9050]. Additionally, exactly one
object among the BPI, EPR, or PPA objects MUST be present. The PLSP- object among the BPI, EPR, or PPA objects MUST be present. The PCEP-
ID and Symbolic Path Name TLVs are set as per the existing rules in specific LSP identifier (PLSP-ID) and Symbolic Path Name TLVs are set
[RFC8231], [RFC8281], and [RFC9050]. The Symbolic Path Name is used as per the existing rules in [RFC8231], [RFC8281], and [RFC9050].
by the PCE/PCC to uniquely identify the E2E native IP TE path. The The Symbolic Path Name is used by the PCE/PCC to uniquely identify
related Native-IP instructions with BPI, EPR or PPA objects are the E2E Native IP TE path. The related Native IP instructions with
identified by the same Symbolic Path Name. BPI, EPR, or PPA objects are identified by the same Symbolic Path
Name.
If none of the BPI, EPR or PPA objects are present, the receiving PCC If none of the BPI, EPR, or PPA objects are present, the receiving
MUST send a PCErr message with Error-type=6 (Mandatory Object PCC MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type=6 (Mandatory Object
missing) and Error-value=19 (Native IP object missing). If there is missing) and Error-value=19 (Native IP object missing). If there is
more than one instance of BPI, EPR or PPA object present, the more than one BPI, EPR, or PPA object present, the receiving PCC MUST
receiving PCC MUST send a PCErr message with Error-type=19 (Invalid send a PCErr message with Error-Type=19 (Invalid Operation) and
Operation) and Error-value=22 (Only one BPI, EPR or PPA object can be Error-value=22 (Only one BPI, EPR, or PPA object can be included in
included in this message). this message).
When the PCInitiate message is not used for Native IP instructions, When the PCInitiate message is not used for Native IP instructions,
i.e. When CCI Object-Type is not equal to 2, the BPI, EPR and PPA i.e., when the CCI Object-Type is not equal to 2, the BPI, EPR, and
objects SHOULD NOT be present. If present, they MUST be ignored by PPA objects SHOULD NOT be present. If present, they MUST be ignored
the receiver. by the receiver.
To clean up the existing Native IP instructions, the SRP object MUST To clean up the existing Native IP instructions, the SRP object MUST
set the R (remove) bit. set the R (remove) bit.
5.2. The PCRpt Message 5.2. The PCRpt Message
The PCRpt message is used to acknowledge the Native-IP instructions The PCRpt message is used to acknowledge the Native IP instructions
received from the central controller (PCE) as well as during the received from the central controller (PCE) as well as during the
State Synchronization phase. State Synchronization phase.
The format of the PCRpt message is as follows: The format of the PCRpt message is as follows:
<PCRpt Message> ::= <Common Header> <PCRpt Message> ::= <Common Header>
<state-report-list> <state-report-list>
Where:
Where:
<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>
[<BPI>|<EPR>|<PPA>] [<BPI>|<EPR>|<PPA>]
[<cci-list>] [<cci-list>]
Where: <path> is as per [RFC8231] and the LSP and SRP objects are Where:
also defined in [RFC8231].
* <path> is as per [RFC8231].
* The LSP and SRP objects are also defined in [RFC8231].
The error handling for missing CCI objects is as per [RFC9050]. The error handling for missing CCI objects is as per [RFC9050].
Furthermore, one, and only one, object among BPI, EPR or PPA object Furthermore, one and only one BPI, EPR, or PPA object MUST be
MUST be present. present.
If none of the BPI, EPR or PPA objects are present, the receiving PCE If none of the BPI, EPR, or PPA objects are present, the receiving
MUST send a PCErr message with Error-type=6 (Mandatory Object PCE MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type=6 (Mandatory Object
missing) and Error-value=19 (Native IP object missing). If there are missing) and Error-value=19 (Native IP object missing). If there is
more than one instance of BPI, EPR or PPA objects present, the more than one BPI, EPR, or PPA object present, the receiving PCE MUST
receiving PCE MUST send a PCErr message with Error-type=19 (Invalid send a PCErr message with Error-Type=19 (Invalid Operation) and
Operation) and Error-value=22 (Only one BPI, EPR or PPA object can be Error-value=22 (Only one BPI, EPR, or PPA object can be included in
included in this message). this message).
When the PCInitiate message is not used for Native IP instructions, When the PCInitiate message is not used for Native IP instructions,
i.e. When CCI Object-Type is not equal to 2, the BPI, EPR and PPA i.e., when the CCI Object-Type is not equal to 2, the BPI, EPR, and
objects SHOULD NOT be present. If present, they MUST be ignored by PPA objects SHOULD NOT be present. If present, they MUST be ignored
the receiver. by the receiver.
6. PCECC Native IP TE Procedures 6. PCECC Native IP TE Procedures
The detailed procedures for the TE in the native IP environment are The detailed procedures for the TE in the Native IP environment are
described in the following sections. described in the following sections.
6.1. BGP Session Establishment Procedures 6.1. BGP Session Establishment Procedures
The PCInitiate and PCRpt message pair is used to exchange the The PCInitiate and PCRpt message pair is used to exchange the
configuration parameters for a BGP peer session. This pair of PCEP configuration parameters for a BGP peer session. This pair of PCEP
messages are exchanged between a PCE and each BGP peer (acting as messages are exchanged between a PCE and each BGP peer (acting as the
PCC) which needs to establish a BGP session. After the BGP peer PCC), which needs to establish a BGP session. After the BGP peer
session has been initiated via this pair of PCEP messages, the BGP session has been initiated via this pair of PCEP messages, the BGP
session establishes and operates in a normal fashion. The BGP peers session establishes and operates in a normal fashion. The BGP peers
can be used for External BGP (EBGP) peers or Internal BGP (IBGP) can be used for External BGP (EBGP) peers or Internal BGP (IBGP)
peers. For IBGP connection topologies, the Route Reflector (RR) is peers. For IBGP connection topologies, the Route Reflector (RR) is
required. required.
The PCInitiate message is sent to the BGP router and/or RR (which are The PCInitiate message is sent to the BGP router and/or RR (which are
acting as PCC). acting as the PCC).
The RR topology for a single Autonomous System (AS) is shown in The RR topology for a single Autonomous System (AS) is shown in
Figure 1. The BGP routers R1, R3, and R7 are within a single AS. R1 Figure 1. The BGP routers R1, R3, and R7 are within a single AS. R1
and R7 are BGP RR clients, and R3 is a RR. The PCInitiate message is and R7 are BGP RR clients, and R3 is an RR. The PCInitiate message
sent to the BGP routers R1, R3 and R7 that need to establish a BGP is sent to the BGP routers R1, R3, and R7, which need to establish a
session. BGP session.
PCInitiate message creates an auto-configuration function for these PCInitiate message creates an autoconfiguration function for these
BGP peers by providing the indicated Peer AS and the Local/Peer IP BGP peers by providing the indicated Peer AS and the Local/Peer IP
Address. Address.
When the PCC receives the BPI and CCI object (with the R bit set to 0 When the PCC receives the BPI and CCI objects (with the R bit set to
in the SRP object) in the PCInitiate message, the PCC SHOULD try to 0 in the SRP object) in the PCInitiate message, the PCC SHOULD try to
establish the BGP session with the indicated Peer as per AS and establish the BGP session with the indicated Peer as per the AS and
Local/Peer IP address. Local/Peer IP Address.
During the establishment procedure, the PCC MUST report to the PCE During the establishment procedure, the PCC MUST report the status of
the status of the BGP session via the PCRpt message, with the status the BGP session to the PCE via the PCRpt message, with the status
field in the BPI object set to the appropriate value and the field in the BPI object set to the appropriate value and the
corresponding SRP and CCI objects included. corresponding SRP and CCI objects included.
When the PCC receives this message with the R bit set to 1 in the SRP When the PCC receives this message with the R bit set to 1 in the SRP
object in the PCInitiate message, the PCC MUST clear the BGP object in the PCInitiate message, the PCC MUST clear the BGP
configuration and tear down the BGP session that is indicated by the configuration and tear down the BGP session that is indicated by the
BPI object. BPI object.
When the PCC clears successfully the specified BGP session When the PCC successfully clears the specified BGP session
configuration, it MUST report the result via the PCRpt message, with configuration, it MUST report the result via the PCRpt message, with
the BPI object included, and the corresponding SRP and CCI objects. the BPI object and the corresponding SRP and CCI objects included.
+------------------+ +------------------+
+-----------> PCE <----------+ +-----------> PCE <----------+
| +--------^---------+ | | +--------^---------+ |
| | | | | |
| PCInitiate/PCRpt | | PCInitiate/PCRpt |
| | | | | |
| +----v--+ | | +----v--+ |
+---------------+ R3(RR)+-----------------+ +---------------+ R3(RR)+-----------------+
| +-------+ | | +-------+ |
PCInitiate/PCRpt PCInitiate/PCRpt PCInitiate/PCRpt PCInitiate/PCRpt
| | | |
+v-+ +--+ +--+ +-v+ +v-+ +--+ +--+ +-v+
|R1+----------+R5+----------+R6+---------+R7| |R1+----------+R5+----------+R6+---------+R7|
++-+ +-++ +--+ +-++ ++-+ +-++ +--+ +-++
| | | | | |
| +--+ +--+ | | +--+ +--+ |
+------------+R2+----------+R4+-----------+ +------------+R2+----------+R4+-----------+
+--+ +--+ +--+ +--+
Figure 1: BGP Session Establishment Procedures(R3 act as RR)
The message peers, message type, message key parameters and Figure 1: BGP Session Establishment Procedures (R3 acts as the RR)
procedures in the above figures are shown below:
The message peers, message types, message key parameters, and
procedures in the above figure are shown below:
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
|PCC | | PCE | |PCC | | PCE |
|R1 | +-------+ |R1 | +-------+
+------| | | +------| | |
| PCC +-------+ | | PCC +-------+ |
| R3 | | (For R1/R3 BGP Session on R1) | | R3 | | (For R1/R3 BGP Session on R1) |
+------| | |<-PCInitiate,CC-ID=X,Symbolic Path Name=Class A-| +------| | |<-PCInitiate,CC-ID=X,Symbolic Path Name=Class A-|
| | | |BPI Object(Peer AS, Local_IP=R1_A, Peer_IP=R3_A)| | | | |BPI Object(Peer AS, Local_IP=R1_A, Peer_IP=R3_A)|
|PCC +--------+ | | |PCC +--------+ | |
skipping to change at page 11, line 35 skipping to change at line 490
| | BPI Object(Peer AS, Local_IP=R3_A, Peer_IP=R7_A) | | | BPI Object(Peer AS, Local_IP=R3_A, Peer_IP=R7_A) |
| |----PCRpt,CC-ID=Y2,Symbolic Path Name=Class A-------->| | |----PCRpt,CC-ID=Y2,Symbolic Path Name=Class A-------->|
| | BPI Object(Peer AS, Local_IP=R3_A, Peer_IP=R7_A) | | | BPI Object(Peer AS, Local_IP=R3_A, Peer_IP=R7_A) |
| | | |
| (For R3/R7 BGP Session on R7) | | (For R3/R7 BGP Session on R7) |
|<--PCInitiate,CC-ID=Z,Symbolic Path Name=Class A--------------| |<--PCInitiate,CC-ID=Z,Symbolic Path Name=Class A--------------|
| BPI Object(Peer AS, Local_IP=R7_A, Peer_IP=R3_A) | | BPI Object(Peer AS, Local_IP=R7_A, Peer_IP=R3_A) |
|---PCRpt,CC-ID=Z,Symbolic Path Name=Class A------------------>| |---PCRpt,CC-ID=Z,Symbolic Path Name=Class A------------------>|
| BPI Object(Peer AS, Local_IP=R7_A, Peer_IP=R3_A) | | BPI Object(Peer AS, Local_IP=R7_A, Peer_IP=R3_A) |
Figure 2: Message Information and Procedures Figure 2: Message Information and Procedures
The Local/Peer IP address MUST be dedicated to the usage of the The Local/Peer IP Address MUST be dedicated to the usage of the
native IP TE solution, and MUST NOT be used by other BGP sessions Native IP TE solution and MUST NOT be used by other BGP sessions that
that are established manually or in other ways. If the Local IP are established manually or in other ways. If the Local IP Address
Address or Peer IP Address within the BPI object is used in other or Peer IP Address within the BPI object is used in other existing
existing BGP sessions, the PCC MUST report such an error situation BGP sessions, the PCC MUST report such an error situation via a PCErr
via a PCErr message with: message with:
Error-type=33 (Native IP TE failure) and Error-value=1 (Local IP * Error-Type=33 (Native IP TE failure) and Error-value=1 (Local IP
is in use), or is in use) or
Error-type=33 (Native IP TE failure )and Error-value=2 (Remote IP * Error-Type=33 (Native IP TE failure) and Error-value=2 (Remote IP
is in use). is in use).
The detailed Error-Types and Error-Values are defined in Section 8 The detailed Error-Types and Error-values are defined in Section 8.
If the established BGP session is broken, the PCC MUST report such If the established BGP session is broken, the PCC MUST report such
information via PCRpt message with the status field set to "BGP information via a PCRpt message with the status field set to "BGP
session down" in the associated BPI Object. The error code field session down" in the associated BPI object. The error code field
within the BPI object SHOULD indicate the reason that leads to the within the BPI object SHOULD indicate the reason that leads to the
BGP session being down. In the future, when the BGP session is up BGP session being down. In the future, when the BGP session is up
again, the PCC MUST report that as well via the PCRpt message with again, the PCC MUST report that as well via the PCRpt message with
the status field set to "BGP Session Established". the status field set to "BGP Session Established".
6.2. Explicit Route Establishment Procedures 6.2. Explicit Route Establishment Procedures
The explicit route establishment procedures can be used by PCE to The explicit route establishment procedures can be used by a PCE to
install a route on the PCC, using the PCInitiate and PCRpt message install a route on the PCC, using the PCInitiate and PCRpt message
pair. Such explicit routes operate the same as static routes pair. Such explicit routes operate the same as static routes
installed by network management protocols (Network Configuration installed by network management protocols (e.g., Network
Protocol (NETCONF)/YANG). The procedures of such explicit route Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) / YANG). The procedures of such
addition and removal MUST be controlled by the PCE in a specific explicit route addition and removal MUST be controlled by the PCE in
order so that the pathways are established without loops. a specific order so that the pathways are established without loops.
For the purpose of explicit route addition, the PCInitiate message For the purpose of explicit route addition, the PCInitiate message
ought to be sent to every router on the explicit path. In the ought to be sent to every router on the explicit path. In the
example, for the explicit route from R1 to R7, the PCInitiate message example, for the explicit route from R1 to R7, the PCInitiate message
is sent to R1, R2 and R4, as shown in Figure 3. For the explicit is sent to R1, R2, and R4, as shown in Figure 3. For the explicit
route from R7 to R1, the PCInitiate message is sent to R7, R4 and R2, route from R7 to R1, the PCInitiate message is sent to R7, R4, and
as shown in Figure 5. R2, as shown in Figure 5.
When the PCC receives the EPR and the CCI object (with the R bit set When the PCC receives the EPR and the CCI object (with the R bit set
to 0 in the SRP object) in the PCInitiate message, the PCC SHOULD to 0 in the SRP object) in the PCInitiate message, the PCC SHOULD
install the explicit route to the peer in the RIB/FIB. install the explicit route to the peer in the RIB/FIB.
When the PCC installs successfully the explicit route to the peer, it When the PCC successfully installs the explicit route to the peer, it
MUST report the result via the PCRpt messages, with the EPR object MUST report the result via the PCRpt message, with the EPR object and
and the corresponding SRP and CCI objects included. the corresponding SRP and CCI objects included.
When the PCC receives the EPR and the CCI object with the R bit set When the PCC receives the EPR and the CCI object with the R bit set
to 1 in the SRP object in the PCInitiate message, the PCC MUST remove to 1 in the SRP object in the PCInitiate message, the PCC MUST remove
the explicit route to the peer that is indicated by the EPR object. the explicit route to the peer that is indicated by the EPR object.
When the PCC has removed the explicit route that is indicated by this When the PCC has removed the explicit route that is indicated by this
object, it MUST report the result via the PCRpt message, with the EPR object, it MUST report the result via the PCRpt message, with the EPR
object included, and the corresponding SRP and CCI object. object and the corresponding SRP and CCI objects included.
+------------------+ +------------------+
+----------> PCE + +----------> PCE +
| +----^-----------^-+ | +----^-----------^-+
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | +------+ | | | +------+ |
+---------------|-+R3(RR)+--|-------------+ +---------------|-+R3(RR)+--|-------------+
PCInitiate/PCRpt | +------+ | | PCInitiate/PCRpt | +------+ | |
| | | | | | | |
+v-+ +--+ | | +--+ +--+ +v-+ +--+ | | +--+ +--+
|R1+------+R5+---+-----------|---+R6+----+R7| |R1+------+R5+---+-----------|---+R6+----+R7|
++-+ +--+ | | +--+ +-++ ++-+ +--+ | | +--+ +-++
| PCInitiate/PCRpt PCInitiate/PCRpt | | PCInitiate/PCRpt PCInitiate/PCRpt |
| | | | | | | |
| +--v--+ +--v-+ | | +--v--+ +--v-+ |
+------------+- R2 +-----+ R4 +-----------+ +------------+- R2 +-----+ R4 +-----------+
+--+--+ +--+-+ +--+--+ +--+-+
Figure 3: Explicit Route Establish Procedures(From R1 to R7)
The message peers, message type, message key parameters and Figure 3: Explicit Route Establish Procedures (from R1 to R7)
procedures in the above figures are shown below:
The message peers, message types, message key parameters, and
procedures in the above figure are shown below:
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
|PCC | | PCE | |PCC | | PCE |
|R4 | +-------+ |R4 | +-------+
+------| | | +------| | |
| PCC +-------+ | | PCC +-------+ |
| R2 | | (EPR route on R4) | | R2 | | (EPR route on R4) |
+------| | |<-PCInitiate,CC-ID=Z,Symbolic Path Name=Class A| +------| | |<-PCInitiate,CC-ID=Z,Symbolic Path Name=Class A|
| | | | EPR Object(Peer Address=R7_A, Next Hop=R7_A)| | | | | EPR Object(Peer Address=R7_A, Next Hop=R7_A)|
|PCC +--------+ | | |PCC +--------+ | |
skipping to change at page 13, line 52 skipping to change at line 596
| |----PCRpt,CC-ID=Y,Symbolic Path Name=Class A-------->| | |----PCRpt,CC-ID=Y,Symbolic Path Name=Class A-------->|
| | EPR Object(Peer Address=R7_A, Next Hop=R4_A) | | | EPR Object(Peer Address=R7_A, Next Hop=R4_A) |
| | | | | |
| | | |
| (EPR route on R1) | | (EPR route on R1) |
|<--PCInitiate,CC-ID=X,Symbolic Path Name=Class A-------------| |<--PCInitiate,CC-ID=X,Symbolic Path Name=Class A-------------|
| EPR Object(Peer Address=R7_A, Next Hop=R2_A) | | EPR Object(Peer Address=R7_A, Next Hop=R2_A) |
|---PCRpt,CC-ID=X1(Symbolic Path Name=Class A)--------------->| |---PCRpt,CC-ID=X1(Symbolic Path Name=Class A)--------------->|
| EPR Object(Peer Address=R7_A, Next Hop=R2_A) | | EPR Object(Peer Address=R7_A, Next Hop=R2_A) |
Figure 4: Message Information and Procedures Figure 4: Message Information and Procedures
+------------------+ +------------------+
+ PCE <-----------+ + PCE <-----------+
+----^-----------^-+ | +----^-----------^-+ |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| +------+ | | | +------+ | |
+-----------------+R3(RR)+--|-------------+ +-----------------+R3(RR)+--|-------------+
| | +------+ | PCInitiate/PCRpt | | +------+ | PCInitiate/PCRpt
| | | | | | | |
+--+ +--+ | | +--+ +-v+ +--+ +--+ | | +--+ +-v+
|R1+------+R5+---+-----------|---+R6+----+R7| |R1+------+R5+---+-----------|---+R6+----+R7|
++-+ +--+ | | +--+ +-++ ++-+ +--+ | | +--+ +-++
| PCInitiate/PCRpt PCInitiate/PCRpt | | PCInitiate/PCRpt PCInitiate/PCRpt |
| | | | | | | |
| +--v--+ +--v-+ | | +--v--+ +--v-+ |
+------------+- R2 +-----+ R4 +-----------+ +------------+- R2 +-----+ R4 +-----------+
+--+--+ +--+-+ +--+--+ +--+-+
Figure 5: Explicit Route Establish Procedures(From R7 to R1)
The message peers, message type, message key parameters and Figure 5: Explicit Route Establish Procedures (from R7 to R1)
procedures in the above figures are shown below:
The message peers, message types, message key parameters, and
procedures in the above figure are shown below:
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
|PCC | | PCE | |PCC | | PCE |
|R2 | +-------+ |R2 | +-------+
+------| | | +------| | |
| PCC +-------+ | | PCC +-------+ |
| R4 | | (EPR route on R2) | | R4 | | (EPR route on R2) |
+------| | |<-PCInitiate,CC-ID=X,Symbolic Path Name=Class A| +------| | |<-PCInitiate,CC-ID=X,Symbolic Path Name=Class A|
| | | | EPR Object(Peer Address=R1_A, Next Hop=R1_A) | | | | | EPR Object(Peer Address=R1_A, Next Hop=R1_A) |
|PCC +--------+ | | |PCC +--------+ | |
skipping to change at page 14, line 51 skipping to change at line 646
| |----PCRpt,CC-ID=Y,Symbolic Path Name=Class A-------->| | |----PCRpt,CC-ID=Y,Symbolic Path Name=Class A-------->|
| | EPR Object(Peer Address=R1_A, Next Hop=R2_A) | | | EPR Object(Peer Address=R1_A, Next Hop=R2_A) |
| | | | | |
| | | |
| (EPR route on R7) | | (EPR route on R7) |
|<--PCInitiate,CC-ID=Z,Symbolic Path Name=Class A-------------| |<--PCInitiate,CC-ID=Z,Symbolic Path Name=Class A-------------|
| EPR Object(Peer Address=R1_A, Next Hop=R4_A) | | EPR Object(Peer Address=R1_A, Next Hop=R4_A) |
|---PCRpt,CC-ID=Z,Symbolic Path Name=Class A----------------->| |---PCRpt,CC-ID=Z,Symbolic Path Name=Class A----------------->|
| EPR Object(Peer Address=R1_A, Next Hop=R4_A) | | EPR Object(Peer Address=R1_A, Next Hop=R4_A) |
Figure 6: Explicit Route Establish Procedures(From R7 to R1) Figure 6: Explicit Route Establish Procedures (from R7 to R1)
To avoid the transient loop while deploying the explicit peer route, To avoid the transient loop while deploying the explicit peer route,
the EPR object MUST be sent to the PCCs in the reverse order of the the EPR object MUST be sent to the PCCs in the reverse order of the
E2E path. To remove the explicit peer route, the EPR object MUST be E2E path. To remove the explicit peer route, the EPR object MUST be
sent to the PCCs in the same order as the E2E path. sent to the PCCs in the same order as the E2E path.
To accomplish ECMP effects, the PCE can send multiple EPR/CCI objects To accomplish ECMP effects, the PCE can send multiple EPR/CCI objects
to the same node, with the same route priority and peer address value to the same node, with the same route priority and peer address value
but a different next-hop address. but a different next-hop address.
The PCC MUST verify that the next hop address is reachable. In case The PCC MUST verify that the next-hop address is reachable. In case
of failure, the PCC MUST send the corresponding error via PCErr of failure, the PCC MUST send the corresponding error via a PCErr
message, with the error information: Error-type=33 (Native IP TE message, with the error information: Error-Type=33 (Native IP TE
failure), Error-value=3 (Explicit Peer Route Error). failure) and Error-value=3 (Explicit Peer Route Error).
When the peer info is not the same as the peer info that is indicated When the peer info is not the same as the peer info that is indicated
in the BPI object in PCC for the same path that is identified by in the BPI object in the PCC for the same path that is identified by
Symbolic Path Name TLV, a PCErr message MUST be reported, with the Symbolic Path Name TLV, a PCErr message MUST be reported, with the
error information: Error-type=33 (Native IP TE failure), Error- error information Error-Type=33 (Native IP TE failure) and Error-
value=4, EPR/BPI Peer Info Mismatch. Note that the same error can be value=4 (EPR/BPI Peer Info mismatch). Note that the same error can
used in case no BPI is received at the PCC. be used in case no BPI is received at the PCC.
If the PCE needs to update the path, it MUST first instruct the new If the PCE needs to update the path, it MUST first instruct the new
CCI with updated EPR corresponding to the new next hop to use and CCI with the updated EPR corresponding to the new next hop to use and
then instruct the removal of the older CCI. then instruct the removal of the older CCI.
6.3. BGP Prefix Advertisement Procedures 6.3. BGP Prefix Advertisement Procedures
The detailed procedures for BGP prefix advertisement are shown below, The detailed procedures for BGP prefix advertisement are shown below,
using the PCInitiate and PCRpt message pair. using the PCInitiate and PCRpt message pair.
The PCInitiate message SHOULD be sent to PCC that acts as a BGP peer The PCInitiate message SHOULD be sent to the PCC that acts as a BGP
edge router only. In the example, it is sent to R1 and R7 peer edge router only. In the example, it is sent to R1 and R7,
respectively. respectively.
When the PCC receives the PPA and the CCI object (with the R bit set When the PCC receives the PPA and the CCI object (with the R bit set
to 0 in the SRP object) in the PCInitiate message, the PCC SHOULD to 0 in the SRP object) in the PCInitiate message, the PCC SHOULD
send the prefixes indicated in this object to the identified BGP peer send the prefixes indicated in this object to the identified BGP peer
via the corresponding BGP session [RFC4271]. via the corresponding BGP session [RFC4271].
When the PCC has successfully sent the prefixes to the appointed BGP When the PCC has successfully sent the prefixes to the appointed BGP
peer, it MUST report the result via the PCRpt messages, with the PPA peer, it MUST report the result via the PCRpt messages, with the PPA
object and the corresponding SRP and CCI objects included. object and the corresponding SRP and CCI objects included.
When the PCC receives the PPA and the CCI object with the R bit set When the PCC receives the PPA and the CCI object with the R bit set
to 1 in the SRP object in the PCInitiate message, the PCC MUST to 1 in the SRP object in the PCInitiate message, the PCC MUST
withdraw the prefixes advertisement to the peer indicated by this withdraw the prefix advertisement to the peer indicated by this
object. object.
When the PCC withdraws successfully the prefixes that are indicated When the PCC successfully withdraws the prefixes that are indicated
by this object, it MUST report the result via the PCRpt message, with by this object, it MUST report the result via the PCRpt message, with
the PPA object included, and the corresponding SRP and CCI objects. the PPA object and the corresponding SRP and CCI objects included.
+------------------+ +------------------+
+----------> PCE <-----------+ +----------> PCE <-----------+
| +------------------+ | | +------------------+ |
| +--+ | | +--+ |
+------------------+R3+-------------------+ +------------------+R3+-------------------+
PCInitiate/PCRpt +--+ PCInitiate/PCRpt PCInitiate/PCRpt +--+ PCInitiate/PCRpt
| | | |
+v-+ +--+ +--+ +-v+ +v-+ +--+ +--+ +-v+
|R1+----------+R5+----------+R6+---------+R7| |R1+----------+R5+----------+R6+---------+R7|
++-+ +--+ +--+ +-++ ++-+ +--+ +--+ +-++
(BGP Router) (BGP Router) (BGP Router) (BGP Router)
| | | |
| | | |
| +--+ +--+ | | +--+ +--+ |
+------------+R2+----------+R4+-----------+ +------------+R2+----------+R4+-----------+
+--+ +--+ +--+ +--+
Figure 7: BGP Prefix Advertisement Procedures
The message peers, message type, message key parameters and Figure 7: BGP Prefix Advertisement Procedures
procedures in the above figures are shown below:
+-------+ +-------+ The message peers, message types, message key parameters, and
|PCC | | PCE | procedures in the above figure are shown below:
|R1 | +-------+
+------| | |
| PCC +-------+ |
| R7 | | (Instruct R1 to advertise Prefix 1_A to R7) |
| | |<-PCInitiate,CC-ID=X,Symbolic Path Name=Class A|
| | | PPA Object(Peer IP=R7_A, Prefix=1_A) |
+--------+ | |
| |----PCRpt,CC-ID=X,Symbolic Path Name=Class A-->|
| | PPA Object(Peer IP=R7_A, Prefix=1_A) |
| |
| (Instruct R7 to advertise Prefix 7_A to R1 ) |
|<--PCInitiate,CC-ID=Z,Symbolic Path Name=Class A-----|
| PPA Object(Peer IP=R1_A, Prefix=7_A) |
|----PCRpt,CC-ID=Z,Symbolic Path Name=Class A-------->|
| PPA Object(Peer IP=R1_A, Prefix=7_A) |
| |
Figure 8: Message Information and Procedures +-------+ +-------+
|PCC | | PCE |
|R1 | +-------+
+------| | |
| PCC +-------+ |
| R7 | | (Instruct R1 to advertise Prefix 1_A to R7) |
| | |<-PCInitiate,CC-ID=X,Symbolic Path Name=Class A|
| | | PPA Object(Peer IP=R7_A, Prefix=1_A) |
+--------+ | |
| |----PCRpt,CC-ID=X,Symbolic Path Name=Class A-->|
| | PPA Object(Peer IP=R7_A, Prefix=1_A) |
| |
| (Instruct R7 to advertise Prefix 7_A to R1 ) |
|<--PCInitiate,CC-ID=Z,Symbolic Path Name=Class A-----|
| PPA Object(Peer IP=R1_A, Prefix=7_A) |
|----PCRpt,CC-ID=Z,Symbolic Path Name=Class A-------->|
| PPA Object(Peer IP=R1_A, Prefix=7_A) |
| |
Figure 8: Message Information and Procedures
The AFI/SAFI for the corresponding BGP session SHOULD match the Peer The AFI/SAFI for the corresponding BGP session SHOULD match the Peer
Prefix Advertisement Object-Type, AFI/SAFI SHOULD be 1/1 for the IPv4 Prefix Advertisement Object-Type, i.e., AFI/SAFI SHOULD be 1/1 for
prefix and 2/1 for the IPv6 prefix. In case of mismatch, an error: the IPv4 prefix and 2/1 for the IPv6 prefix. In case of mismatch, an
Error-type=33 (Native IP TE failure), Error-value=5 (BPI/PPA address error, i.e., Error-Type=33 (Native IP TE failure) and Error-value=5
family mismatch) MUST be reported via PCErr message. (BPI/PPA Address Family mismatch), MUST be reported via the PCErr
message.
When the peer info is not the same as the peer info that is indicated When the peer info is not the same as the peer info that is indicated
in the BPI object in PCC for the same path that is identified by in the BPI object in the PCC for the same path that is identified by
Symbolic Path Name TLV, an error: Error-type=33 (Native IP TE Symbolic Path Name TLV, an error, i.e., Error-Type=33 (Native IP TE
failure), Error-value=6 (PPA/BPI peer info mismatch) MUST be reported failure) and Error-value=6 (PPA/BPI Peer Info mismatch), MUST be
via the PCErr message. Note that the same error can be used in case reported via the PCErr message. Note that the same error can be used
no BPI is received at the PCC. in case no BPI is received at the PCC.
6.4. Selection of Raw Mode and Tunnel Mode Forwarding Strategy 6.4. Selection of the Raw Mode and Tunnel Mode Forwarding Strategy
Normally, when the above procedures are finished, the user traffic Normally, when the above procedures are finished, the user traffic
will be forwarded via the appointed path, but the forwarding will be will be forwarded via the appointed path, but the forwarding will be
based solely on the destination of user traffic. If there is traffic based solely on the destination of user traffic. If traffic is
from different attached points to the same destination coming into coming into the network from different attached points but to the
the network, they could share the priority path which may not be the same destination, they could share the priority path, which may not
initial desire. For example, as illustrated in Figure 1, the initial be the initial desire. For example, as illustrated in Figure 1, the
aim is to ensure traffic that enters the network via R1 and exits the initial aim is to ensure that traffic enters the network via R1 and
network at R7 via R5-R6-R7. If some traffic enters the network via exits the network at R7 via R5-R6-R7. If some traffic enters the
the R2 router, passes through R5 and exits at R7, they may share the network via the R2 router, passes through R5, and exits at R7, they
priority path among R5-R6-R7, which may not be the desired effect. may share the priority path among R5-R6-R7, which may not be the
desired effect.
The above normal traffic forwarding behavior is clarified as a Raw The above normal traffic forwarding behavior is clarified as a Raw
mode forwarding strategy. Such a mode can achieve only the moderate mode forwarding strategy. Such a mode can only achieve the moderate
traffic path control effect. To achieve the strict traffic path traffic path control effect. To achieve the strict traffic path
control effect, the entry point MUST tunnel the user traffic from the control effect, the entry point MUST tunnel the user traffic from the
entry point of the network to the exit point of the network, which is entry point of the network to the exit point of the network, which is
also between the BGP peer established via Section 6.1. Such also between the BGP peer established via Section 6.1. Such
forwarding behavior is called the Tunnel mode forwarding strategy. forwarding behavior is called the Tunnel mode forwarding strategy.
For simplicity, the IPinIP tunnel type [RFC2003] is used between the For simplicity, the IP-in-IP tunnel type [RFC2003] is used between
BGP peers by default. the BGP peers by default.
The selection of Raw mode and Tunnel mode forwarding strategies are The selection of Raw mode and Tunnel mode forwarding strategies are
controlled via the "T" bit in BPI Object that is defined in controlled via the T bit in the BPI object, which is defined in
Section 7.2 Section 7.2
6.5. Clean Up 6.5. Cleanup
To remove the Native-IP state from the PCC, the PCE MUST send To remove the Native IP state from the PCC, the PCE MUST send
explicit CCI cleanup instructions for PPA, EPR and BPI objects explicit CCI cleanup instructions for PPA, EPR, and BPI objects,
respectively with the R flag set in the SRP object. If the PCC respectively, with the R bit set in the SRP object. If the PCC
receives a PCInitiate message but does not recognize the Native-IP receives a PCInitiate message but does not recognize the Native IP
information in the CCI, the PCC MUST generate a PCErr message with information in the CCI, the PCC MUST generate a PCErr message with
Error-Type=19 (Invalid operation) and Error-value=30 (Unknown Native- Error-Type=19 (Invalid Operation) and Error-value=30 (Unknown Native
IP Info) and MUST include the SRP object to specify the error is for IP Info) and MUST include the SRP object to specify the error is for
the corresponding cleanup (via a PCInitiate message). the corresponding cleanup (via a PCInitiate message).
6.6. Other Procedures 6.6. Other Procedures
The handling of the state synchronization, redundant PCEs, re- The handling of the State Synchronization, redundant PCEs,
delegation and clean up is the same as other CCIs as specified in redelegation, and cleanup is the same as other CCIs as specified in
[RFC9050]. [RFC9050].
7. New PCEP Objects 7. New PCEP Objects
One new CCI Object type and three new PCEP objects are defined in One new CCI Object-Type and three new PCEP objects are defined in
this document. All new PCEP objects are as per [RFC5440]. this document. All new PCEP objects are as per [RFC5440].
7.1. CCI Object 7.1. CCI Object
The Central Control Instructions (CCI) Object (defined in [RFC9050]) The Central Control Instructions (CCI) Object (defined in [RFC9050])
is used by the PCE to specify the forwarding instructions. This is used by the PCE to specify the forwarding instructions. This
document defines another object type for Native-IP procedures. document defines another Object-Type for Native IP procedures.
CCI Object-Type is 2 for Native-IP as below: The CCI Object-Type is 2 for Native IP, as follows:
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Flags | | Reserved | Flags |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------------------------------+
| | | |
// Optional TLVs // // Optional TLVs //
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 9: CCI Object for Native IP Figure 9: CCI Object for Native IP
The field CC-ID is as described in [RFC9050]. The following fields The CC-ID field is as described in [RFC9050]. The following fields
are defined for CCI Object-Type 2 are defined for CCI Object-Type 2.
Reserved: 2 bytes, is set to zero while sending and ignored on Reserved: 2 bytes. Set to zero while sending and ignored on
receipt. receipt.
Flags: 2 bytes, is used to carry any additional information about Flags: 2 bytes. Used to carry any additional information about the
the Native-IP CCI. Currently, no flag bits are defined. Native IP CCI. Currently, no flag bits are defined. Unassigned
Unassigned flags are set to zero while sending and ignored on flags are set to zero while sending and ignored on receipt.
receipt.
Optional TLVs may be included within the CCI object body. The Optional TLVs may be included within the CCI object body. The
Symbolic Path Name TLV [RFC8231] MUST be included in the CCI Object- Symbolic Path Name TLV [RFC8231] MUST be included in the CCI Object-
Type 2 to identify the E2E TE path in the Native IP environment. Type 2 to identify the E2E TE path in the Native IP environment.
7.2. BGP Peer Info Object 7.2. BGP Peer Info Object
The BGP Peer Info object is used to specify the information about the The BGP Peer Info (BPI) object is used to specify the information
peer with which the PCC want to establish the BGP session. This about the peer with which the PCC wants to establish the BGP session.
object is included and sent to the source and destination router of This object is included and sent to the source and destination router
the E2E path in case there is no Route Reflection (RR) involved. If of the E2E path in case there is no Route Reflection (RR) involved.
the RR is used between the source and destination routers, then such If the RR is used between the source and destination routers, then
information is sent to the source router, RR and destination router such information is sent to the source router, RR, and destination
respectively. router, respectively.
By default, the Local/Peer IP address MUST be a unicast address and By default, the Local/Peer IP Address MUST be a unicast address and
dedicated to the usage of the native IP TE solution, and MUST NOT be dedicated to the usage of the Native IP TE solution and MUST NOT be
used by other BGP sessions that are established by manual or other used by other BGP sessions that are established by manual or other
configuration mechanisms. configuration mechanisms.
BGP Peer Info Object-Class is 46 The BGP Peer Info Object-Class is 46.
BGP Peer Info Object-Type is 1 for IPv4 and 2 for IPv6 The BGP Peer Info Object-Type is 1 for IPv4 and 2 for IPv6.
The format of the BGP Peer Info object body for IPv4 (Object-Type=1) The format of the BGP Peer Info object body for IPv4 (Object-Type=1)
is as follows: is as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer AS Number | | Peer AS Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ETTL | Status | Error Code | Flag |T| | ETTL | Status | Error Code | Flag |T|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local IP Address | | Local IP Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer IP Address | | Peer IP Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Optional TLVs // // Optional TLVs //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 10: BGP Peer Info Object Body Format for IPv4
Figure 10: BGP Peer Info Object Body Format for IPv4
The format of the BGP Peer Info object body for IPv6 (Object-Type=2) The format of the BGP Peer Info object body for IPv6 (Object-Type=2)
is as follows: is as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer AS Number | | Peer AS Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ETTL | Status | Error Code | Flag |T| | ETTL | Status | Error Code | Flag |T|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
| Local IP Address (16 bytes) | | Local IP Address (16 bytes) |
| | | |
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
| Peer IP Address (16 bytes) | | Peer IP Address (16 bytes) |
| | | |
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Optional TLVs // // Optional TLVs //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 11: BGP Peer Info Object Body Format for IPv6
Peer AS Number: 4 bytes, to indicate the AS number of Remote Peer. Figure 11: BGP Peer Info Object Body Format for IPv6
Note that if 2-byte AS numbers are in use, the low-order bits (16
through 31) is used, and the high-order bits (0 through 15) is set
to zero.
ETTL: 1 byte, EBGP Time To Live, to indicate the multi-hop count Peer AS Number: 4 bytes. Indicates the AS number of the Remote
for the EBGP session. It should be 0 and ignored when Local AS Peer. Note that if 2-byte AS numbers are in use, the low-order
and Peer AS are the same. bits (16 through 31) are used, and the high-order bits (0 through
15) are set to zero.
Status: 1 byte, Indicate BGP session status between the peers. ETTL: 1 byte. EBGP Time To Live. Indicates the multi-hop count for
the EBGP session. It should be 0 and ignored when Local AS and
Peer AS are the same.
Status: 1 byte. Indicates the BGP session status between the peers.
Its values are defined below: Its values are defined below:
- 0: Reserved 0: Reserved
- 1: BGP Session Established 1: BGP Session Established
- 2: BGP Session Establishment In Progress 2: BGP Session Establishment In Progress
- 3: BGP Session Down 3: BGP Session Down
- 4-255: Reserved 4-255: Reserved
Error Code: 1 byte, Indicate the reason that the BGP session can't Error Code: 1 byte. Indicates the reason that the BGP session can't
be established. be established.
- 0: Unspecific 0: Unspecific
- 1: ASes do not match, BGP Session Failure
- 2: Peer IP can't be reached, BGP Session Failure 1: ASes do not match, BGP Session Failure
- 3-255: Reserved 2: Peer IP can't be reached, BGP Session Failure
Flag: 1 byte. 3-255: Reserved
- Currently, only bit 7 (T bit) is defined. When the T bit is Flag: 1 byte.
set, the traffic SHOULD be sent in the IPinIP tunnel (Tunnel
source is Local IP Address, tunnel destination is Peer IP
Address). When the T bit is cleared, the traffic is sent via
its original source and destination address. The Tunnel mode(T
bit is set) is used when the operator wants to ensure only the
traffic from the specified (entry, exit) pair, and the Raw mode
(T bit is clear) is used when the operator wants to ensure
traffic from any entry to the specified destination.
Unassigned flags are set to zero while sending and ignored on
receipt.
Local IP Address(4/16 bytes): Unicast IP address of the local Currently, only bit 7 (T bit) is defined. When the T bit is set,
router, used to peer with another end router. When Object-Type is the traffic SHOULD be sent in the IP-in-IP tunnel (the tunnel
1, the length is 4 bytes; when Object-Type is 2, the length is 16 source is the Local IP Address, and the tunnel destination is the
bytes. Peer IP Address). When the T bit is cleared, the traffic is sent
via its original source and destination address. The Tunnel mode
(i.e., the T bit is set) is used when the operator wants to ensure
only the traffic from the specified (entry, exit) pair, and the
Raw mode (i.e., the T bit is clear) is used when the operator
wants to ensure traffic from any entry to the specified
destination. Unassigned flags are set to zero while sending and
ignored on receipt.
Peer IP Address(4/16 bytes): Unicast IP address of the peer Local IP Address(4/16 bytes): Unicast IP address of the local
router, used to peer with the local router. When Object-Type is router, used to peer with another end router. When the Object-
1, the length is 4 bytes; when Object-Type is 2, the length is 16 Type is 1, the length is 4 bytes; when the Object-Type is 2, the
bytes; length is 16 bytes.
Optional TLVs: TLVs that are associated with this object, can be Peer IP Address(4/16 bytes): Unicast IP address of the peer router,
used to peer with the local router. When the Object-Type is 1,
the length is 4 bytes; when the Object-Type is 2, the length is 16
bytes.
Optional TLVs: TLVs that are associated with this object; can be
used to convey other necessary information for dynamic BGP session used to convey other necessary information for dynamic BGP session
establishment. No TLVs are currently defined. establishment. No TLVs are currently defined.
When the PCC receives a BPI object, with Object-Type=1, it SHOULD try When the PCC receives a BPI object, with Object-Type=1, it SHOULD try
to establish a BGP session with the peer in AFI/SAFI=1/1. to establish a BGP session with the peer in AFI/SAFI=1/1.
When the PCC receives a BPI object with Object-Type=2, it SHOULD try When the PCC receives a BPI object, with Object-Type=2, it SHOULD try
to establish a BGP session with the peer in AFI/SAFI=2/1. to establish a BGP session with the peer in AFI/SAFI=2/1.
7.3. Explicit Peer Route Object 7.3. Explicit Peer Route Object
The Explicit Peer Route object is defined to specify the explicit The Explicit Peer Route (EPR) object is defined to specify the
peer route to the corresponding peer address on each device that is explicit peer route to the corresponding peer address on each device
on the E2E Native-IP TE path. This Object ought to be sent to all that is on the E2E Native IP TE path. This Object ought to be sent
the devices on the path that is calculated by the PCE. Although the to all the devices on the path that are calculated by the PCE.
object is named as “Explicit Peer Route”, it can be seen that the Although the object is named "Explicit Peer Route", it can be seen
routes it installs are simply host routes. The use of this object to that the routes it installs are simply host routes. The use of this
install host routes for any purpose other than reaching the object to install host routes for any purpose other than reaching the
corresponding peer address on each device that is on the E2E Native- corresponding peer address on each device that is on the E2E Native
IP TE path is outside the scope of this specification. IP TE path is outside the scope of this specification.
By default, the path established by this object MUST have higher By default, the path established by this object MUST have higher
priority than the other paths calculated by dynamic IGP protocol, and priority than the other paths calculated by the dynamic IGP protocol
MUST have lower priority than the static route configured by manual and MUST have lower priority than the static route configured by
or NETCONF or any other static means. manual, NETCONF, or any other static means.
Explicit Peer Route Object-Class is 47. The Explicit Peer Route Object-Class is 47.
Explicit Peer Route Object-Type is 1 for IPv4 and 2 for IPv6 The Explicit Peer Route Object-Type is 1 for IPv4 and 2 for IPv6.
The format of the Explicit Peer Route object body for IPv4 (Object- The format of the Explicit Peer Route object body for IPv4 (Object-
Type=1) is as follows: Type=1) is as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Route Priority | Reserved | | Route Priority | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer IPv4 Address | | Peer IPv4 Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Next Hop IPv4 Address to the Peer | | Next Hop IPv4 Address to the Peer |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Optional TLVs // // Optional TLVs //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 12: Explicit Peer Route Object Body Format for IPv4
Figure 12: Explicit Peer Route Object Body Format for IPv4
The format of the Explicit Peer Route object body for IPv6 (Object- The format of the Explicit Peer Route object body for IPv6 (Object-
Type=2) is as follows: Type=2) is as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Route Priority | Reserved | | Route Priority | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
| Peer IPv6 Address | | Peer IPv6 Address |
| | | |
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
| Next Hop IPv6 Address to the Peer | | Next Hop IPv6 Address to the Peer |
| | | |
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Optional TLVs // // Optional TLVs //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 13: Explicit Peer Route Object Body Format for IPv6
Route Priority: 2 bytes; the priority of this explicit route. The Figure 13: Explicit Peer Route Object Body Format for IPv6
Route Priority: 2 bytes. The priority of this explicit route. The
higher priority SHOULD be preferred by the device. This field is higher priority SHOULD be preferred by the device. This field is
used to indicate the preferred path at each hop. used to indicate the preferred path at each hop.
Reserved: is set to zero while sending, ignored on receipt. Reserved: Set to zero while sending and ignored on receipt.
Peer (IPv4/IPv6) Address: Peer Address for the BGP session (4/16 Peer (IPv4/IPv6) Address: Peer address for the BGP session (4/16
bytes). bytes).
Next Hop (IPv4/IPv6) Address to the Peer: To indicate the next hop Next Hop (IPv4/IPv6) Address to the Peer: Indicates the next-hop
address (4/16 bytes) to the corresponding peer address. address (4/16 bytes) to the corresponding peer address.
Optional TLVs: TLVs that are associated with this object, can be Optional TLVs: TLVs that are associated with this object; can be
used to convey other necessary information for explicit peer path used to convey other necessary information for explicit peer path
establishment. No TLVs are currently defined. establishment. No TLVs are currently defined.
7.4. Peer Prefix Advertisement Object 7.4. Peer Prefix Advertisement Object
The Peer Prefix Advertisement object is defined to specify the IP The Peer Prefix Advertisement (PPA) object is defined to specify the
prefixes that are advertised to the corresponding peer. This object IP prefixes that are advertised to the corresponding peer. This
needs only be included and sent to the source/destination router of object only needs to be included and sent to the source/destination
the E2E path. router of the E2E path.
The prefix information included in this object MUST only be The prefix information included in this object MUST only be
advertised to the indicated peer, and SHOULD NOT be advertised to advertised to the indicated peer and SHOULD NOT be advertised to
other BGP peers. other BGP peers.
Peer Prefix Advertisement Object-Class is 48 The Peer Prefix Advertisement Object-Class is 48.
Peer Prefix Advertisement Object-Type is 1 for IPv4 and 2 for IPv6
The format of the Peer Prefix Advertisement object body is as The Peer Prefix Advertisement Object-Type is 1 for IPv4 and 2 for
follows: IPv6.
0 1 2 3 The format of the Peer Prefix Advertisement object body for IPv4 is
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 as follows:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer IPv4 Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| No. of Prefix | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Prefix #1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Prefix #1 Len | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| : |
| : |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Prefix #n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Prefix #n Len | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Optional TLVs //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 14: Peer Prefix Advertisement Object Body Format for IPv4
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Peer IPv6 Address |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| No. of Prefix | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 Prefix #1 |
| |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Prefix #1 Len | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| : |
| : |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 Prefix #n |
| |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Prefix #n Len | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Optional TLVs //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 15: Peer Prefix Advertisement Object Body Format for IPv6
Common Fields: 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer IPv4 Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| No. of Prefix | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Prefix #1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Prefix #1 Len | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| : |
| : |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Prefix #n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Prefix #n Len | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Optional TLVs //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
No. of Prefix: 1 byte. Identifies the number of prefixes that Figure 14: Peer Prefix Advertisement Object Body Format for IPv4
The format of the Peer Prefix Advertisement object body for IPv6 is
as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Peer IPv6 Address |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| No. of Prefix | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 Prefix #1 |
| |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Prefix #1 Len | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| : |
| : |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 Prefix #n |
| |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Prefix #n Len | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Optional TLVs //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 15: Peer Prefix Advertisement Object Body Format for IPv6
Common Fields:
No. of Prefix: 1 byte. Identifies the number of prefixes that
are advertised to the peer in the PPA object. are advertised to the peer in the PPA object.
Reserved: 3 bytes. Ought to be set to zero while sending and Reserved: 3 bytes. Ought to be set to zero while sending and
be ignored on receipt. ignored on receipt.
Prefix Len: 1 byte. Identifies the length of the prefix. Prefix Len: 1 byte. Identifies the length of the prefix.
Optional TLVs: TLVs that are associated with this object, can Optional TLVs: TLVs that are associated with this object; can be
be used to convey other necessary information for prefix used to convey other necessary information for prefix
advertisement. No TLVs are currently defined. advertisement. No TLVs are currently defined.
For IPv4: For IPv4:
Peer IPv4 Address: 4 bytes. Identifies the Peer IPv4 Address
Peer IPv4 Address: 4 bytes. Identifies the peer IPv4 address
that the associated prefixes will be sent to. that the associated prefixes will be sent to.
IPv4 Prefix: 4 bytes. Identifies the prefix that will be sent IPv4 Prefix: 4 bytes. Identifies the prefix that will be sent to
to the peer identified by Peer IPv4 Address. the peer identified by the Peer IPv4 Address.
For IPv6:
Peer IPv6 Address: 16 bytes. Identifies the peer IPv6 address For IPv6:
Peer IPv6 Address: 16 bytes. Identifies the Peer IPv6 Address
that the associated prefixes will be sent to. that the associated prefixes will be sent to.
IPv6 Prefix: Identifies the prefix that will be sent to the IPv6 Prefix: Identifies the prefix that will be sent to the peer
peer identified by Peer IPv6 Address. identified by the Peer IPv6 Address.
If in the future, a requirement is identified to advertise IPv4 If in the future a requirement is identified to advertise IPv4
prefixes toward an IPv6 peering address, or IPv6 prefixes towards prefixes towards an IPv6 peering address or IPv6 prefixes towards an
an IPv4 peering address, then a new Peer Prefix Advertisement IPv4 peering address, then a new Peer Prefix Advertisement Object-
Object-Types can be defined for these purposes. Type can be defined for these purposes.
8. New Error-Types and Error-Values Defined 8. New Error-Type and Error-Values Defined
A PCEP-ERROR object is used to report a PCEP error and is A PCEP-ERROR object is used to report a PCEP error and is
characterized by an Error-Type that specifies that type of error and characterized by an Error-Type that specifies that type of error and
an Error-value that provides additional information about the error. an Error-value that provides additional information about the error.
An additional Error-Type and several Error-values are defined to An additional Error-Type and several Error-values are defined to
represent the errors related to the newly defined objects that are represent the errors related to the newly defined objects that are
related to Native IP TE procedures. related to Native IP TE procedures. See Table 4 for the newly
defined Error-Type and Error-values.
+============+==========+=====================================+
| Error-Type | Meaning | Error-value |
+=======+===============+=====================================+
| 33 | Native IP TE failure |
| | |
+-------+---------------+-------------------------------------+
| | |0:Unassigned |
+-------+---------------+-------------------------------------+
| | |1:Local IP is in use |
+-------+---------------+-------------------------------------+
| | |2:Remote IP is in use |
+-------+---------------+-------------------------------------+
| | |3:Explicit Peer Route Error |
+-------+---------------+-------------------------------------+
| | |4:EPR/BPI Peer Info mismatch |
+-------+---------------+-------------------------------------+
| | |5:BPI/PPA Address Family mismatch |
+-------+---------------+-------------------------------------+
| | |6:PPA/BPI Peer Info mismatch |
+-------+---------------+-------------------------------------+
| 6 | Mandatory Object missing |
| | |
+-------+---------------+-------------------------------------+
| | |19:Native IP object missing |
+-------+---------------+-------------------------------------+
| 10 | Reception of an invalid object |
| | |
+-------+---------------+-------------------------------------+
| | |39:PCECC NATIVE-IP-TE-CAPABILITY bit |
| | |is not set |
+-------+---------------+-------------------------------------+
| 19 | Invalid Operation |
| | |
+-------+---------------+-------------------------------------+
| | |22:Only one BPI, EPR or PPA object |
| | |can be included in this message |
+-------+---------------+-------------------------------------+
| | |29:Attempted Native-IP operations |
| | |when the capability was not |
| | | advertised |
+-------+---------------+-------------------------------------+
| | |30:Unknown Native-IP Info |
+-------+---------------+-------------------------------------+
Figure 16: Newly defined Error-Type and Error-Value
9. BGP Considerations 9. BGP Considerations
This document defines the procedures and objects to create the BGP This document defines procedures and objects to create the BGP
sessions and advertise the associated prefixes dynamically. Only the sessions and to advertise the associated prefixes dynamically. Only
key information, for example, peer IP addresses, and peer AS numbers the key information, for example, Peer IP Addresses, and Peer AS
are exchanged via the PCEP protocol. Other parameters that are numbers are exchanged via the PCEP. Other parameters that are needed
needed for the BGP session setup SHOULD be derived from their default for the BGP session setup SHOULD be derived from their default
values. values.
When the PCE sends out the PCInitiate message with the BPI object When the PCE sends out the PCInitiate message with the BPI object
embedded to establish the BGP session between the PCC peers, the PCC embedded to establish the BGP session between the PCC peers, the PCC
SHOULD report the BGP session status. For instance, the PCC could SHOULD report the BGP session status. For instance, the PCC could
respond with "BGP Session Establishment In Progress" initially and on respond with "BGP Session Establishment In Progress" initially and,
session establishment send another PCRpt message with the state on session establishment, send another PCRpt message with the state
updated to "BGP Session Established". If there is any error during updated to "BGP Session Established". If there is any error during
the BGP session establishment, the PCC SHOULD indicate the reason the BGP session establishment, the PCC SHOULD indicate the reason
with the appropriate status value set in the BPI object. with the appropriate status value set in the BPI object.
Upon receiving such key information, the BGP module on the PCC SHOULD Upon receiving such key information, the BGP module on the PCC SHOULD
try to accomplish the task appointed by the PCEP protocol and report try to accomplish the task appointed by the PCEP and report the
the successful status to the PCEP modules after the session is set successful status to the PCEP modules after the session is set up.
up.
There is no influence on the current implementation of BGP Finite There is no influence on the current implementation of the BGP Finite
State Machine (FSM). The PCEP focuses only on the success and State Machine (FSM). PCEP focuses only on the success and failure
failure status of the BGP session and acts upon such information status of the BGP session and acts upon such information accordingly.
accordingly.
The error-handling procedures related to incorrect BGP parameters are The error-handling procedures related to incorrect BGP parameters are
specified in Section 6.1, Section 6.2, and Section 6.3. specified in Sections 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3.
10. Deployment Considerations 10. Deployment Considerations
The information transferred in this document is mainly used for the The information transferred in this document is mainly used for the
BGP session setup, explicit route deployment and the prefix BGP session setup, explicit route deployment, and prefix
distribution. The planning, allocation and distribution of the peer distribution. The planning, allocation, and distribution of the peer
addresses within IGP needs to be accomplished in advance and they are addresses within IGP need to be accomplished in advance, and they are
out of the scope of this document. out of the scope of this document.
The communication of PCE and PCC described in this document MUST The communication of PCE and PCC described in this document MUST
follow the state synchronization procedures described in [RFC8232], follow the State Synchronization procedures described in [RFC8232],
treat the three newly defined objects (BPI, EPR and PPA) associated i.e., treat the three newly defined objects (BPI, EPR, and PPA)
with the same symbolic path name as the attribute of the same path in associated with the same Symbolic Path Name as the attribute of the
the LSP-DB (LSP State Database). same path in the LSP Database (LSP-DB).
When PCE detects one or some of the PCCs are out of its control, it When the PCE detects that one or some of the PCCs are out of its
MUST recompute and redeploy the traffic engineering path for native control, it MUST recompute and redeploy the traffic engineering path
IP on the currently active PCCs. The PCE MUST ensure the avoidance for Native IP on the currently active PCCs. The PCE MUST ensure the
of the possible transient loop in such node failure when it deploys avoidance of the possible transient loop in such node failure when it
the explicit peer route on the PCCs. deploys the explicit peer route on the PCCs.
In case of a PCE failure, a new PCE can gain control over the central In case of a PCE failure, a new PCE can gain control over the Central
controller instructions as described in [RFC9050]. Controller Instructions as described in [RFC9050].
As per the PCEP procedures in [RFC8281], the State Timeout Interval As per the PCEP procedures in [RFC8281], the State Timeout Interval
timer is used to ensure that a PCE failure does not result in timer is used to ensure that a PCE failure does not result in
automatic and immediate disruption for the services. Similarly, as automatic and immediate disruption for the services. Similarly, as
per [RFC9050], the central controller instructions are not removed per [RFC9050], the Central Controller Instructions are not removed
immediately upon PCE failure. Instead, they could be re-delegated to immediately upon PCE failure. Instead, they could be redelegated to
the new PCE before the expiration of this timer, or be cleaned up on the new PCE before the expiration of this timer or be cleaned up on
the expiration of this timer. This allows for network clean up the expiration of this timer. This allows for network cleanup
without manual intervention. The PCC supports the removal of CCI as without manual intervention. The PCC supports the removal of CCI as
one of the behaviors applied on the expiration of the State Timeout one of the behaviors applied on the expiration of the State Timeout
Interval timer. Interval timer.
11. Manageability Considerations 11. Manageability Considerations
11.1. Control of Function and Policy 11.1. Control of Function and Policy
A PCE or PCC implementation SHOULD allow the PCECC Native-IP A PCE or PCC implementation SHOULD allow the PCECC Native IP
capability to be enabled/disabled as part of the global capability to be enabled/disabled as part of the global
configuration. configuration.
11.2. Information and Data Models 11.2. Information and Data Models
[RFC7420] describes the PCEP MIB; this MIB could be extended to get [RFC7420] describes the PCEP MIB; this MIB could be extended to get
the PCECC Native-IP capability status. The PCEP YANG the PCECC Native IP capability status. The PCEP YANG module
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] module could be extended to enable/disable [YANG-PCEP] could be extended to enable/disable the PCECC Native IP
the PCECC Native-IP capability. capability.
11.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring 11.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness
detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already detection and monitoring requirements beyond those already listed in
listed in [RFC5440]. The operator relies on existing IP liveness [RFC5440]. The operator relies on existing IP liveness detection and
detection and monitoring. monitoring.
11.4. Verify Correct Operations 11.4. Verify Correct Operations
Verification of the mechanisms defined in this document can be built Verification of the mechanisms defined in this document can be built
on those already listed in [RFC5440], [RFC8231] and [RFC9050]. on those already listed in [RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC9050].
Further, the operator needs to be able to verify the status of BGP Further, the operator needs to be able to verify the status of BGP
sessions and prefix advertisements. sessions and prefix advertisements.
11.5. Requirements on Other Protocols 11.5. Requirements on Other Protocols
Mechanisms defined in this document require the interaction with BGP. Mechanisms defined in this document require the interaction with BGP.
Section 9 describes in detail the considerations regarding the BGP. Section 9 describes in detail the considerations regarding the BGP.
During the BGP session establishment, the Local/Peer IP address MUST During the BGP session establishment, the Local/Peer IP Address MUST
be dedicated to the usage of the native IP TE solution, and MUST NOT be dedicated to the usage of the Native IP TE solution and MUST NOT
be used by other BGP sessions that are established manually or in be used by other BGP sessions that are established manually or in
other ways. other ways.
11.6. Impact on Network Operations 11.6. Impact on Network Operations
[RFC8821] describes the various deployment considerations in CCDR [RFC8821] describes the various deployment considerations in CCDR
architecture and their impact on network operations. architecture and their impact on network operations.
12. Security Considerations 12. Security Considerations
In this setup, the BGP sessions, prefix advertisement, and explicit In this setup, the BGP sessions, prefix advertisement, and explicit
peer route establishment are all controlled by the PCE. See peer route establishment are all controlled by the PCE. See
[RFC4271] for security consideration of classical BGP implementation, [RFC4271] for classical BGP implementation security considerations
and [RFC4272] for classical BGP vulnerabilities analysis. Security and [RFC4272] for classical BGP vulnerabilities analysis. Security
considerations in [RFC5440]for basic PCEP protocol, [RFC8231] for considerations in [RFC5440] for the basic PCEP, [RFC8231] for PCEP
PCEP extension for stateful PCE and [RFC8281] for PCE-Initiated LSP extension for stateful PCE, and [RFC8281] for PCE-initiated LSP setup
setup SHOULD be considered. To prevent a bogus PCE from sending SHOULD be considered. To prevent a bogus PCE from sending harmful
harmful messages to the network nodes, the network devices SHOULD messages to the network nodes, the network devices SHOULD
authenticate the PCE and ensure a secure communication channel authenticate the PCE and ensure a secure communication channel
between them. Thus, the mechanisms described in [RFC8253] for the between them. Thus, the mechanisms described in [RFC8253] for the
usage of TLS for PCEP and [RFC9050] for protection against malicious usage of TLS for PCEP and [RFC9050] for protection against malicious
PCEs SHOULD be used. PCEs SHOULD be used.
If suitable default values as discussed in Section 9 aren't enough If the default values discussed in Section 9 aren't enough and
and securing the BGP transport is required(for example, the TCP-AO securing the BGP transport is required (for example, by using TCP
[RFC5925], it can be provided through the addition of optional TLVs Authentication Option (TCP-AO) [RFC5925]), a suitable value can be
to the BGP Peer Info object that conveys the necessary additional provided through the addition of optional TLVs to the BGP Peer Info
information (for example, a key chain [RFC8177]name). object that conveys the necessary additional information (for
example, a key chain [RFC8177] name).
13. IANA Considerations 13. IANA Considerations
13.1. Path Setup Type Registry 13.1. PCEP Path Setup Types
[RFC8408] created a registry within the "Path Computation Element
Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry group called "PCEP Path Setup
Types". IANA is requested to allocate a new code point within this
registry, as follows:
Value Description Reference
4 Native IP TE Path This document
13.2. PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV's Flag field
Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor): This experimental track [RFC8408] created the "PCEP Path Setup Types" registry within the
document is allocating a code point in the registry under the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry group.
standards action registry which is not allowed. IANA has allocated a new codepoint within this registry, as follows:
[I-D.ietf-pce-iana-update] updates the registration policy to IETF
review allowing for this allocation. Note that an early allocation
was made when the document was being progressed in the standards
track. At the time of publication, please remove this note and the
reference to [I-D.ietf-pce-iana-update].
[RFC9050] created a registry within the "Path Computation Element +=======+===================+===========+
Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry group to manage the value of the | Value | Description | Reference |
PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV's 32-bit Flag field. IANA is requested to +=======+===================+===========+
allocate a new bit position within this registry, as follows: | 4 | Native IP TE Path | RFC 9757 |
+-------+-------------------+-----------+
Bit Name Reference Table 1: PCEP Path Setup Types Registry
30 NATIVE IP This document
13.3. PCEP Object 13.2. PCECC-CAPABILITY Sub-TLV Flag Field
IANA is requested to allocate new codepoints in the "PCEP Objects" [RFC9050] created the "PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV" registry within the
registry as follows: "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry group to
manage the value of the PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV's 32-bit Flag field.
IANA has allocated a new bit position within this registry, as
follows:
Object-Class Value Name Reference +=====+===========+===========+
44 CCI Object This document | Bit | Name | Reference |
Object-Type +=====+===========+===========+
2: Native IP | 30 | Native IP | RFC 9757 |
+-----+-----------+-----------+
46 BGP Peer Info This document Table 2: PCECC-CAPABILITY
Object-Type Sub-TLV Registry
1: IPv4 address
2: IPv6 address
47 Explicit Peer Route This document 13.3. PCEP Objects
Object-Type
1: IPv4 address
2: IPv6 address
48 Peer Prefix Advertisement This document IANA has allocated new codepoints in the "PCEP Objects" registry, as
Object-Type follows:
1: IPv4 address
2: IPv6 address
13.4. PCEP-Error Object +==============+===================+=============+===========+
| Object-Class | Name | Object-Type | Reference |
| Value | | | |
+==============+===================+=============+===========+
| 44 | CCI Object-Type | 2: Native | RFC 9757 |
| | | IP | |
+--------------+-------------------+-------------+-----------+
| 46 | BGP Peer Info | 0: Reserved | RFC 9757 |
| | Object-Type | | |
| | +-------------+-----------+
| | | 1: IPv4 | RFC 9757 |
| | | address | |
| | +-------------+-----------+
| | | 2: IPv6 | RFC 9757 |
| | | address | |
+--------------+-------------------+-------------+-----------+
| 47 | Explicit Peer | 0: Reserved | RFC 9757 |
| | Route Object-Type | | |
| | +-------------+-----------+
| | | 1: IPv4 | RFC 9757 |
| | | address | |
| | +-------------+-----------+
| | | 2: IPv6 | RFC 9757 |
| | | address | |
+--------------+-------------------+-------------+-----------+
| 48 | Peer Prefix | 0: Reserved | RFC 9757 |
| | Advertisement | | |
| | Object-Type | | |
| | +-------------+-----------+
| | | 1: IPv4 | RFC 9757 |
| | | address | |
| | +-------------+-----------+
| | | 2: IPv6 | RFC 9757 |
| | | address | |
+--------------+-------------------+-------------+-----------+
IANA is requested to allocate new error types and error values within Table 3: PCEP Objects Registry
the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" registry of the "Path
Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry group for the
following errors:
Error-Type Meaning Error-value 13.4. PCEP-Error Objects
6 Mandatory Object missing
19:Native IP object missing
10 Reception of an invalid object IANA has allocated a new Error-Type and several Error-values in the
39:PCECC NATIVE-IP-TE-CAPABILITY bit "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" registry within the "Path
is not set Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry group, as
follows:
19 Invalid Operation +============+==============+==========================+===========+
22:Only one BPI, EPR or PPA object can | Error-Type | Meaning | Error-value | Reference |
be included in this message +============+==============+==========================+===========+
29:Attempted Native-IP operations | 6 | Mandatory | 19: Native IP object | RFC 9757 |
when the capability was not advertised | | Object | missing | |
30:Unknown Native-IP Info | | missing | | |
+------------+--------------+--------------------------+-----------+
| 10 | Reception of | 39: PCECC NATIVE-IP-TE- | RFC 9757 |
| | an invalid | CAPABILITY bit is not | |
| | object | set | |
+------------+--------------+--------------------------+-----------+
| 19 | Invalid | 22: Only one BPI, EPR, | RFC 9757 |
| | Operation | or PPA object can be | |
| | | included in this message | |
| | +--------------------------+-----------+
| | | 29: Attempted Native IP | RFC 9757 |
| | | operations when the | |
| | | capability was not | |
| | | advertised | |
| | +--------------------------+-----------+
| | | 30: Unknown Native IP | RFC 9757 |
| | | Info | |
+------------+--------------+--------------------------+-----------+
| 33 | Native IP TE | 0: Unassigned | RFC 9757 |
| | failure | | |
| | +--------------------------+-----------+
| | | 1: Local IP is in use | RFC9757 |
| | +--------------------------+-----------+
| | | 2: Remote IP is in use | RFC 9757 |
| | +--------------------------+-----------+
| | | 3: Explicit Peer Route | RFC 9757 |
| | | Error | |
| | +--------------------------+-----------+
| | | 4: EPR/BPI Peer Info | RFC 9757 |
| | | mismatch | |
| | +--------------------------+-----------+
| | | 5: BPI/PPA Address | RFC 9757 |
| | | Family mismatch | |
| | +--------------------------+-----------+
| | | 6: PPA/BPI Peer Info | RFC 9757 |
| | | mismatch | |
+------------+--------------+--------------------------+-----------+
33 Native IP TE failure Table 4: PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values Registry
1:Local IP is in use
2:Remote IP is in use
3:Explicit Peer Route Error
4:EPR/BPI Peer Info mismatch
5:BPI/PPA Address Family mismatch
6:PPA/BPI Peer Info mismatch
The reference for the new Error-type/value should be set to this The reference for each new Error-Type/Error-value should be set to
document. this document.
13.5. CCI Object Flag Field 13.5. CCI Object Flag Field
IANA is requested to create a new registry to manage the 16-bits Flag IANA has created the "CCI Object Flag Field for Native IP" registry
field of the new CCI Object called "CCI Object Flag Field for Native- to manage the 16-bit Flag field of the new CCI object. New values
IP". New values are to be assigned by IETF review [RFC8126]. Each are to be assigned by IETF Review [RFC8126]. Each bit should be
bit should be tracked with the following qualities: tracked with the following qualities:
bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit, and * bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit and
bit 15 as the lest significant bit) bit 15 as the least significant bit)
capability description * capability description
defining RFC * defining RFC
Currently, no flags are assigned. Currently, no flags are assigned.
13.6. BPI Object Status Code 13.6. BPI Object Status Codes
IANA is requested to create a new registry "BPI Object Status Code
Field" within the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers"
registry group. New values are assigned by IETF review [RFC8126].
Each value should be tracked with the following qualities: value,
meaning, and defining RFC. The following values are defined in this
document:
Value Meaning Reference
0 Reserved This document
1 BGP Session Established This document
2 BGP Session Establishment In Progress This document
3 BGP Session Down This document
4-255 Unassigned This document
13.7. BPI Object Error Code IANA has created the "BPI Object Status Code Field" registry within
the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry
group. New values are assigned by IETF Review [RFC8126]. Each value
should be tracked with the following qualities: value, meaning, and
defining RFC. The following values are defined in this document:
IANA is requested to create a new registry "BPI Object Error Code +=======+=======================================+===========+
Field" within the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" | Value | Meaning | Reference |
registry group. New values are assigned by IETF review [RFC8126]. +=======+=======================================+===========+
Each value should be tracked with the following qualities: value, | 0 | Reserved | RFC 9757 |
meaning, and defining RFC. The following values are defined in this +-------+---------------------------------------+-----------+
document: | 1 | BGP Session Established | RFC 9757 |
+-------+---------------------------------------+-----------+
| 2 | BGP Session Establishment In Progress | RFC 9757 |
+-------+---------------------------------------+-----------+
| 3 | BGP Session Down | RFC 9757 |
+-------+---------------------------------------+-----------+
| 4-255 | Unassigned | RFC 9757 |
+-------+---------------------------------------+-----------+
Value Meaning Reference Table 5: BPI Object Status Code Field Registry
0 Reserved This document
1 ASes does not match, BGP Session Failure This document
2 Peer IP can't be reached, BGP Session Failure This document
3-255 Unassigned This document
13.8. BPI Object Flag Field 13.7. BPI Object Error Codes
IANA is requested to create a new registry "BPI Object Flag Field" IANA has created the "BPI Object Error Code Field" registry within
within the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry
registry group. New values are to be assigned by IETF review group. New values are assigned by IETF Review [RFC8126]. Each value
[RFC8126]. Each bit should be tracked with the following qualities: should be tracked with the following qualities: value, meaning, and
defining RFC. The following values are defined in this document:
bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit) +=======+=========================================+===========+
| Value | Meaning | Reference |
+=======+=========================================+===========+
| 0 | Reserved | RFC 9757 |
+-------+-----------------------------------------+-----------+
| 1 | ASes do not match - BGP Session Failure | RFC 9757 |
+-------+-----------------------------------------+-----------+
| 2 | Peer IP can't be reached - BGP Session | RFC 9757 |
| | Failure | |
+-------+-----------------------------------------+-----------+
| 3-255 | Unassigned | RFC 9757 |
+-------+-----------------------------------------+-----------+
capability description Table 6: BPI Object Error Code Field Registry
defining RFC 13.8. BPI Object Flag Field
The following values are defined in this document: IANA has created the "BPI Object Flag Field" registry within the
"Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry group.
New values are to be assigned by IETF Review [RFC8126]. Each bit
should be tracked with the following qualities:
Bit Meaning Reference * bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit)
0-6 Unassigned
7 T (IPnIP) bit This document
14. Contributor * capability description
Dhruv Dhody has contributed to this document. * defining RFC
15. Acknowledgement The following values are defined in this document:
Thanks Mike Koldychev, Susan Hares, Siva Sivabalan and Adam Simpson +=====+==================+===========+
for their valuable suggestions and comments. | Bit | Meaning | Reference |
+=====+==================+===========+
| 0-6 | Unassigned |
+-----+------------------+-----------+
| 7 | T (IP-in-IP) bit | RFC 9757 |
+-----+------------------+-----------+
16. References Table 7: BPI Object Flag Field
Registry
16.1. Normative References 14. References
[I-D.ietf-pce-iana-update] 14.1. Normative References
Dhody, D. and A. Farrel, "Update to the IANA PCEP
Registration Procedures and Allowing Experimental Error
Codes", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pce-
iana-update-01, 27 August 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-
iana-update-01>.
[RFC2003] Perkins, C., "IP Encapsulation within IP", RFC 2003, [RFC2003] Perkins, C., "IP Encapsulation within IP", RFC 2003,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2003, October 1996, DOI 10.17487/RFC2003, October 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2003>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2003>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
skipping to change at page 36, line 12 skipping to change at line 1600
Protocol (PCEP) Messages", RFC 8408, DOI 10.17487/RFC8408, Protocol (PCEP) Messages", RFC 8408, DOI 10.17487/RFC8408,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8408>. July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8408>.
[RFC9050] Li, Z., Peng, S., Negi, M., Zhao, Q., and C. Zhou, "Path [RFC9050] Li, Z., Peng, S., Negi, M., Zhao, Q., and C. Zhou, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Procedures and Extensions for Using the PCE as a Central Procedures and Extensions for Using the PCE as a Central
Controller (PCECC) of LSPs", RFC 9050, Controller (PCECC) of LSPs", RFC 9050,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9050, July 2021, DOI 10.17487/RFC9050, July 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9050>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9050>.
16.2. Informative References 14.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]
Dhody, D., Beeram, V. P., Hardwick, J., and J. Tantsura,
"A YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element
Communications Protocol (PCEP)", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-25, 21 May 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-
pcep-yang-25>.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001, Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
[RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis", [RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis",
RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006, RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4272>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4272>.
[RFC5036] Andersson, L., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., and B. Thomas, Ed., [RFC5036] Andersson, L., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., and B. Thomas, Ed.,
"LDP Specification", RFC 5036, DOI 10.17487/RFC5036, "LDP Specification", RFC 5036, DOI 10.17487/RFC5036,
October 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5036>. October 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5036>.
[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.
[RFC8177] Lindem, A., Ed., Qu, Y., Yeung, D., Chen, I., and J. [RFC8177] Lindem, A., Ed., Qu, Y., Yeung, D., Chen, I., and J.
Zhang, "YANG Data Model for Key Chains", RFC 8177, Zhang, "YANG Data Model for Key Chains", RFC 8177,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8177, June 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8177, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8177>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8177>.
[RFC8283] Farrel, A., Ed., Zhao, Q., Ed., Li, Z., and C. Zhou, "An [RFC8283] Farrel, A., Ed., Zhao, Q., Ed., Li, Z., and C. Zhou, "An
Architecture for Use of PCE and the PCE Communication Architecture for Use of PCE and the PCE Communication
Protocol (PCEP) in a Network with Central Control", Protocol (PCEP) in a Network with Central Control",
RFC 8283, DOI 10.17487/RFC8283, December 2017, RFC 8283, DOI 10.17487/RFC8283, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8283>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8283>.
skipping to change at page 37, line 15 skipping to change at line 1636
[RFC8735] Wang, A., Huang, X., Kou, C., Li, Z., and P. Mi, [RFC8735] Wang, A., Huang, X., Kou, C., Li, Z., and P. Mi,
"Scenarios and Simulation Results of PCE in a Native IP "Scenarios and Simulation Results of PCE in a Native IP
Network", RFC 8735, DOI 10.17487/RFC8735, February 2020, Network", RFC 8735, DOI 10.17487/RFC8735, February 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8735>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8735>.
[RFC8821] Wang, A., Khasanov, B., Zhao, Q., and H. Chen, "PCE-Based [RFC8821] Wang, A., Khasanov, B., Zhao, Q., and H. Chen, "PCE-Based
Traffic Engineering (TE) in Native IP Networks", RFC 8821, Traffic Engineering (TE) in Native IP Networks", RFC 8821,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8821, April 2021, DOI 10.17487/RFC8821, April 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8821>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8821>.
[YANG-PCEP]
Dhody, D., Beeram, V. P., Hardwick, J., and J. Tantsura,
"A YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element
Communications Protocol (PCEP)", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-30, 26 January
2025, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-
pce-pcep-yang-30>.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Mike Koldychev, Susan Hares, Siva Sivabalan, and Adam
Simpson for their valuable suggestions and comments.
Contributors
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
Beijing, 102209 102209
China China
Email: wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn Email: wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn
Boris Khasanov Boris Khasanov
MTS Web Services (MWS) MTS Web Services (MWS)
Andropova av.,18/9 115432 Andropova av., 18/9
Moscow Moscow
115432
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. 234 change blocks. 
829 lines changed or deleted 857 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48.