<?xmlversion="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?> <?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?> <?rfc strict="yes" ?> <?rfc toc="yes"?> <?rfc tocompact="yes"?> <?rfc tocdepth="3"?> <?rfc tocindent="yes"?> <?rfc symrefs="yes"?> <?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?> <?rfc comments="yes"?> <?rfc inline="yes"?> <?rfc compact="no"?> <?rfc subcompact="no"?> <!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [ <!-- One method to get references from the online citation libraries. There has to be one entity for each item to be referenced. An alternate method (rfc include) is described in the references. --> ]>version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?> <rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" version="3" category="std" consensus="true" docName="draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-16" indexInclude="true" ipr="trust200902">number="8779" prepTime="2020-07-21T15:46:04" scripts="Common,Latin" sortRefs="true" submissionType="IETF" symRefs="true" tocDepth="3" tocInclude="true" xml:lang="en"> <link href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-16" rel="prev"/> <link href="https://dx.doi.org/10.17487/rfc8779" rel="alternate"/> <link href="urn:issn:2070-1721" rel="alternate"/> <front> <title abbrev="PCEPExtExtensions forGMPLS">PCEP extensionsGMPLS">Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for GMPLS</title> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8779" stream="IETF"/> <author fullname="Cyril Margaria"initials="C.M."initials="C." role="editor" surname="Margaria"><organization>Juniper</organization><organization showOnFrontPage="true">Juniper</organization> <address> <email>cmargaria@juniper.net</email><!-- uri and facsimile elements may also be added --></address> </author> <author fullname="Oscar Gonzalez de Dios"initials="O.G."initials="O." role="editor" surname="Gonzalez deDios" > <organization>TelefonicaDios"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true">Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo</organization> <address> <postal> <street>C/ Ronda de la Comunicacion</street> <city>Madrid</city><region></region><region/> <code>28050</code> <country>Spain</country> </postal> <phone>+34 91 4833441</phone> <email>oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com</email> </address> </author> <author fullname="Fatai Zhang" role="editor"initials="F.Z."initials="F." surname="Zhang"><organization>Huawei<organization showOnFrontPage="true">Huawei Technologies</organization> <address> <postal> <street>F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base</street><street>Bantian,<cityarea>Bantian, LonggangDistrict </street>District</cityarea> <city>Shenzhen</city><region></region><region/> <code>518129</code><country>P.R.China</country><country>China</country> </postal> <email>zhangfatai@huawei.com</email> </address> </author><!-- Meta-data Declarations --> <date day="12" month="December" year="2019" /><date month="07" year="2020"/> <area>Routing</area> <workgroup>Network Working Group</workgroup> <keyword>RSVP-TE</keyword> <keyword>GMPLS</keyword> <keyword>PCE</keyword><abstract> <t>A<abstract pn="section-abstract"> <t pn="section-abstract-1">A Path Computation Element (PCE) provides path computation functions for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks. Additional requirements for GMPLS are identified inRFC7025.RFC 7025. </t><t><t pn="section-abstract-2"> This memo provides extensions to the Path Computation ElementcommunicationCommunication Protocol (PCEP) for the support of the GMPLS control plane to address those requirements. </t> </abstract></front> <middle><boilerplate> <sectiontitle="Introduction"> <t>Although <xref target="RFC4655" /> defines the PCE architecture and framework for both MPLS and GMPLS networks, most preexisting PCEP RFCs <xref target="RFC5440" />, <xref target="RFC5521" />, <xref target="RFC5541" />, <xref target="RFC5520" /> are focused on MPLS networks, and do not cover the wide rangeanchor="status-of-memo" numbered="false" removeInRFC="false" toc="exclude" pn="section-boilerplate.1"> <name slugifiedName="name-status-of-this-memo">Status ofGMPLS networks.This Memo</name> <t pn="section-boilerplate.1-1"> This is an Internet Standards Track document. </t> <t pn="section-boilerplate.1-2"> This documentcomplements these RFCs by addressingis a product of theextensions required for GMPLS applicationsInternet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review androuting requests, for examplehas been approved forOptical Transport Network (OTN) and Wavelength Switched Optical Network (WSON) networks.</t> <t>The functional requirements to be addressedpublication by thePCEP extensions to support these applications are fully describedInternet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in<xref target="RFC7025" />Section 2 of RFC 7841. </t> <t pn="section-boilerplate.1-3"> Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and<xref target='RFC7449' />.how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at <eref target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8779" brackets="none"/>. </t> </section> <sectiontitle ="Terminology"> <t> This document uses terminologies fromanchor="copyright" numbered="false" removeInRFC="false" toc="exclude" pn="section-boilerplate.2"> <name slugifiedName="name-copyright-notice">Copyright Notice</name> <t pn="section-boilerplate.2-1"> Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and thePCE architecture document <xref target="RFC4655"/>,persons identified as thePCEP documents including <xref target="RFC5440"/>, <xref target="RFC5521"/>, <xref target="RFC5541"/>, <xref target="RFC5520"/>, <xref target="RFC7025"/> and <xref target="RFC7449"/>,document authors. All rights reserved. </t> <t pn="section-boilerplate.2-2"> This document is subject to BCP 78 and theGMPLSIETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (<eref target="https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info" brackets="none"/>) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documentssuchcarefully, as<xref target="RFC3471"/>, <xref target="RFC3473"/>they describe your rights andso on. Note that it is expected the reader is familiarrestrictions withthese documents. The following abbreviations are used inrespect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document<list style="hanging" hangIndent="6"> <t hangText="ODU"> ODU Optical Channel Data Unit <xref target="G.709-v3" /></t> <t hangText="OTN"> Optical Transport Network <xref target="G.709-v3" /></t>must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. </t> </section> </boilerplate> <toc> <section anchor="toc" numbered="false" removeInRFC="false" toc="exclude" pn="section-toc.1"> <name slugifiedName="name-table-of-contents">Table of Contents</name> <ul bare="true" empty="true" indent="2" spacing="compact" pn="section-toc.1-1"> <li pn="section-toc.1-1.1"> <thangText="L2SC"> Layer-2 Switch Capable <xref target="RFC3471" /></t>pn="section-toc.1-1.1.1"><xref derivedContent="1" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-1"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-introduction">Introduction</xref></t> <ul bare="true" empty="true" indent="2" spacing="compact" pn="section-toc.1-1.1.2"> <li pn="section-toc.1-1.1.2.1"> <thangText="TDM"> Time-Division Multiplex Capable <xref target="RFC3471" /></t>keepWithNext="true" pn="section-toc.1-1.1.2.1.1"><xref derivedContent="1.1" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-1.1"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-terminology">Terminology</xref></t> </li> <li pn="section-toc.1-1.1.2.2"> <thangText="LSC"> Lambda Switch Capable <xref target="RFC3471" /></t>keepWithNext="true" pn="section-toc.1-1.1.2.2.1"><xref derivedContent="1.2" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-1.2"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-pcep-requirements-for-gmpls">PCEP Requirements for GMPLS</xref></t> </li> <li pn="section-toc.1-1.1.2.3"> <thangText="SONET"> Synchronous Optical Networking </t>pn="section-toc.1-1.1.2.3.1"><xref derivedContent="1.3" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-1.3"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-requirements-applicability">Requirements Applicability</xref></t> <ul bare="true" empty="true" indent="2" spacing="compact" pn="section-toc.1-1.1.2.3.2"> <li pn="section-toc.1-1.1.2.3.2.1"> <thangText="SDH"> Synchronous Digital Hierarchy </t>keepWithNext="true" pn="section-toc.1-1.1.2.3.2.1.1"><xref derivedContent="1.3.1" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-1.3.1"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-requirements-on-the-path-co">Requirements on the Path Computation Request</xref></t> </li> <li pn="section-toc.1-1.1.2.3.2.2"> <thangText="PCC">pn="section-toc.1-1.1.2.3.2.2.1"><xref derivedContent="1.3.2" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-1.3.2"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-requirements-on-the-path-com">Requirements on the Path ComputationClient</t>Response</xref></t> </li> </ul> </li> <li pn="section-toc.1-1.1.2.4"> <thangText="RSVP-TE"> Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering</t>pn="section-toc.1-1.1.2.4.1"><xref derivedContent="1.4" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-1.4"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-existing-support-and-limita">Existing Support and Limitations for GMPLS in Base PCEP Objects</xref></t> </li> </ul> </li> <li pn="section-toc.1-1.2"> <thangText="LSP"> Label Switched Path</t>pn="section-toc.1-1.2.1"><xref derivedContent="2" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-2"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-pcep-objects-and-extensions">PCEP Objects and Extensions</xref></t> <ul bare="true" empty="true" indent="2" spacing="compact" pn="section-toc.1-1.2.2"> <li pn="section-toc.1-1.2.2.1"> <thangText="TE-LSP">Traffic Engineering LSP</t>pn="section-toc.1-1.2.2.1.1"><xref derivedContent="2.1" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-2.1"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-gmpls-capability-advertisem">GMPLS Capability Advertisement</xref></t> <ul bare="true" empty="true" indent="2" spacing="compact" pn="section-toc.1-1.2.2.1.2"> <li pn="section-toc.1-1.2.2.1.2.1"> <thangText="IRO">Include Route Object</t>pn="section-toc.1-1.2.2.1.2.1.1"><xref derivedContent="2.1.1" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-2.1.1"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-gmpls-computation-tlv-in-th">GMPLS Computation TLV in the Existing PCE Discovery Protocol</xref></t> </li> <li pn="section-toc.1-1.2.2.1.2.2"> <thangText="ERO">Explicit Route Object</t>pn="section-toc.1-1.2.2.1.2.2.1"><xref derivedContent="2.1.2" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-2.1.2"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-open-object-extension-gmpls">OPEN Object Extension GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV</xref></t> </li> </ul> </li> <li pn="section-toc.1-1.2.2.2"> <thangText="XRO"> eXclude Route Object</t>pn="section-toc.1-1.2.2.2.1"><xref derivedContent="2.2" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-2.2"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-rp-object-extension">RP Object Extension</xref></t> </li> <li pn="section-toc.1-1.2.2.3"> <thangText="RRO"> Record Route Object</t>pn="section-toc.1-1.2.2.3.1"><xref derivedContent="2.3" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-2.3"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-bandwidth-object-extensions">BANDWIDTH Object Extensions</xref></t> </li> <li pn="section-toc.1-1.2.2.4"> <thangText="LSPA"> LSP Attribute</t>pn="section-toc.1-1.2.2.4.1"><xref derivedContent="2.4" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-2.4"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-load-balancing-object-exten">LOAD-BALANCING Object Extensions</xref></t> </li> <li pn="section-toc.1-1.2.2.5"> <thangText="SRLG">Shared Risk Link Group</t>pn="section-toc.1-1.2.2.5.1"><xref derivedContent="2.5" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-2.5"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-end-points-object-extension">END-POINTS Object Extensions</xref></t> <ul bare="true" empty="true" indent="2" spacing="compact" pn="section-toc.1-1.2.2.5.2"> <li pn="section-toc.1-1.2.2.5.2.1"> <thangText="NVC">Number of Virtual Components <xref target="RFC4328" /><xref target="RFC4606" /></t>pn="section-toc.1-1.2.2.5.2.1.1"><xref derivedContent="2.5.1" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-2.5.1"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-generalized-endpoint-object">Generalized Endpoint Object Type</xref></t> </li> <li pn="section-toc.1-1.2.2.5.2.2"> <thangText="NCC">Number of Contiguous Components <xref target="RFC4328" /><xref target="RFC4606" /></t>pn="section-toc.1-1.2.2.5.2.2.1"><xref derivedContent="2.5.2" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-2.5.2"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-end-points-tlv-extensions">END-POINTS TLV Extensions</xref></t> </li> </ul> </li> <li pn="section-toc.1-1.2.2.6"> <thangText="MT">Multiplier <xref target="RFC4328" /><xref target="RFC4606" /></t>pn="section-toc.1-1.2.2.6.1"><xref derivedContent="2.6" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-2.6"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-iro-extension">IRO Extension</xref></t> </li> <li pn="section-toc.1-1.2.2.7"> <thangText="RCC">Requested Contiguous Concatenation <xref target="RFC4606" /></t>pn="section-toc.1-1.2.2.7.1"><xref derivedContent="2.7" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-2.7"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-xro-extension">XRO Extension</xref></t> </li> <li pn="section-toc.1-1.2.2.8"> <thangText="PCReq">Path Computation Request <xref target="RFC5440" /></t>pn="section-toc.1-1.2.2.8.1"><xref derivedContent="2.8" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-2.8"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-lspa-extensions">LSPA Extensions</xref></t> </li> <li pn="section-toc.1-1.2.2.9"> <thangText="PCRep">Path Computation Reply <xref target="RFC5440" /></t>pn="section-toc.1-1.2.2.9.1"><xref derivedContent="2.9" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-2.9"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-no-path-object-extension">NO-PATH Object Extension</xref></t> <ul bare="true" empty="true" indent="2" spacing="compact" pn="section-toc.1-1.2.2.9.2"> <li pn="section-toc.1-1.2.2.9.2.1"> <thangText="MEF">Metro Ethernet Forum</t>pn="section-toc.1-1.2.2.9.2.1.1"><xref derivedContent="2.9.1" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-2.9.1"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-extensions-to-no-path-vecto">Extensions to NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV</xref></t> </li> </ul> </li> </ul> </li> <li pn="section-toc.1-1.3"> <thangText="SSON">Spectrum-Switched Optical Network</t>pn="section-toc.1-1.3.1"><xref derivedContent="3" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-3"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-additional-error-types-and-">Additional Error-Types and Error-Values Defined</xref></t> </li> <li pn="section-toc.1-1.4"> <thangText="P2MP">Point to Multi-Point</t> </list> </t> <t> The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY",pn="section-toc.1-1.4.1"><xref derivedContent="4" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-4"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-manageability-consideration">Manageability Considerations</xref></t> <ul bare="true" empty="true" indent="2" spacing="compact" pn="section-toc.1-1.4.2"> <li pn="section-toc.1-1.4.2.1"> <t pn="section-toc.1-1.4.2.1.1"><xref derivedContent="4.1" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-4.1"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-control-of-function-through">Control of Function through Configuration and"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when,Policy</xref></t> </li> <li pn="section-toc.1-1.4.2.2"> <t pn="section-toc.1-1.4.2.2.1"><xref derivedContent="4.2" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-4.2"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-information-and-data-models">Information andonly when, they appearData Models</xref></t> </li> <li pn="section-toc.1-1.4.2.3"> <t pn="section-toc.1-1.4.2.3.1"><xref derivedContent="4.3" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-4.3"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-liveness-detection-and-moni">Liveness Detection and Monitoring</xref></t> </li> <li pn="section-toc.1-1.4.2.4"> <t pn="section-toc.1-1.4.2.4.1"><xref derivedContent="4.4" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-4.4"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-verifying-correct-operation">Verifying Correct Operation</xref></t> </li> <li pn="section-toc.1-1.4.2.5"> <t pn="section-toc.1-1.4.2.5.1"><xref derivedContent="4.5" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-4.5"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-requirements-on-other-proto">Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components</xref></t> </li> <li pn="section-toc.1-1.4.2.6"> <t pn="section-toc.1-1.4.2.6.1"><xref derivedContent="4.6" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-4.6"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-impact-on-network-operation">Impact on Network Operation</xref></t> </li> </ul> </li> <li pn="section-toc.1-1.5"> <t pn="section-toc.1-1.5.1"><xref derivedContent="5" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-5"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-iana-considerations">IANA Considerations</xref></t> <ul bare="true" empty="true" indent="2" spacing="compact" pn="section-toc.1-1.5.2"> <li pn="section-toc.1-1.5.2.1"> <t pn="section-toc.1-1.5.2.1.1"><xref derivedContent="5.1" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-5.1"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-pcep-objects">PCEP Objects</xref></t> </li> <li pn="section-toc.1-1.5.2.2"> <t pn="section-toc.1-1.5.2.2.1"><xref derivedContent="5.2" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-5.2"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-endpoint-type-field-in-the-">Endpoint Type Field inall capitals, as shown here. </t> </section> <section title="PCEP Requirements for GMPLS"> <t>The document <xref target="RFC7025" /> describestheset ofGeneralized END-POINTS Object</xref></t> </li> <li pn="section-toc.1-1.5.2.3"> <t pn="section-toc.1-1.5.2.3.1"><xref derivedContent="5.3" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-5.3"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-new-pcep-tlvs">New PCEPrequirements to support GMPLS TE-LSPs. This document assumes a significant familiarity with <xref target="RFC7025" /> and existingTLVs</xref></t> </li> <li pn="section-toc.1-1.5.2.4"> <t pn="section-toc.1-1.5.2.4.1"><xref derivedContent="5.4" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-5.4"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-rp-object-flag-field">RP Object Flag Field</xref></t> </li> <li pn="section-toc.1-1.5.2.5"> <t pn="section-toc.1-1.5.2.5.1"><xref derivedContent="5.5" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-5.5"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-new-pcep-error-codes">New PCEPextensions. As a short overview, those requirements can be broken down intoError Codes</xref></t> </li> <li pn="section-toc.1-1.5.2.6"> <t pn="section-toc.1-1.5.2.6.1"><xref derivedContent="5.6" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-5.6"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-new-bits-in-no-path-vector-">New Bits in NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV</xref></t> </li> <li pn="section-toc.1-1.5.2.7"> <t pn="section-toc.1-1.5.2.7.1"><xref derivedContent="5.7" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-5.7"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-new-subobject-for-the-inclu">New Subobject for thefollowing categories. </t> <t> <list style="symbols"> <t>Which data flow is switched byInclude Route Object</xref></t> </li> <li pn="section-toc.1-1.5.2.8"> <t pn="section-toc.1-1.5.2.8.1"><xref derivedContent="5.8" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-5.8"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-new-subobject-for-the-exclu">New Subobject for theLSP: a combination of Switching type (for instance L2SC or TDM ), LSP Encoding type (e.g., Ethernet, SONET/SDH) and sometimesExclude Route Object</xref></t> </li> <li pn="section-toc.1-1.5.2.9"> <t pn="section-toc.1-1.5.2.9.1"><xref derivedContent="5.9" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-5.9"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-new-gmpls-capability-tlv-fl">New GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV Flag Field</xref></t> </li> </ul> </li> <li pn="section-toc.1-1.6"> <t pn="section-toc.1-1.6.1"><xref derivedContent="6" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-6"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-security-considerations">Security Considerations</xref></t> </li> <li pn="section-toc.1-1.7"> <t pn="section-toc.1-1.7.1"><xref derivedContent="7" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-7"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-references">References</xref></t> <ul bare="true" empty="true" indent="2" spacing="compact" pn="section-toc.1-1.7.2"> <li pn="section-toc.1-1.7.2.1"> <t pn="section-toc.1-1.7.2.1.1"><xref derivedContent="7.1" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-7.1"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-normative-references">Normative References</xref></t> </li> <li pn="section-toc.1-1.7.2.2"> <t pn="section-toc.1-1.7.2.2.1"><xref derivedContent="7.2" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-7.2"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-informative-references">Informative References</xref></t> </li> </ul> </li> <li pn="section-toc.1-1.8"> <t pn="section-toc.1-1.8.1"><xref derivedContent="Appendix A" format="default" sectionFormat="of" target="section-appendix.a"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-load-balancing-usage-for-sd">LOAD-BALANCING Usage for SDH Virtual Concatenation</xref></t> </li> <li pn="section-toc.1-1.9"> <t pn="section-toc.1-1.9.1"><xref derivedContent="" format="none" sectionFormat="of" target="section-appendix.b"/><xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-acknowledgments">Acknowledgments</xref></t> </li> <li pn="section-toc.1-1.10"> <t pn="section-toc.1-1.10.1"><xref derivedContent="" format="none" sectionFormat="of" target="section-appendix.c"/><xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-contributors">Contributors</xref></t> </li> <li pn="section-toc.1-1.11"> <t pn="section-toc.1-1.11.1"><xref derivedContent="" format="none" sectionFormat="of" target="section-appendix.d"/><xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-authors-addresses">Authors' Addresses</xref></t> </li> </ul> </section> </toc> </front> <middle> <section numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-1"> <name slugifiedName="name-introduction">Introduction</name> <t pn="section-1-1">Although theSignal Type (e.g., in case of TDM/LSC switching capability).</t> <t>Data flow specific traffic parameters, whichPCE architecture and framework for both MPLS and GMPLS networks aretechnology specific. For instance,defined inSDH/SONET<xref target="RFC4655" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC4655"/>, most pre-existing PCEP RFCs, such as <xref target="RFC5440" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5440"/>, <xref target="RFC5521" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5521"/>, <xref target="RFC5541" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5541"/>, and <xreftarget="G.709-v3" /> OTNtarget="RFC5520" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5520"/>, are focused on MPLS networksthe Concatenation Typeand do not cover theConcatenation Number have an influence onwide range of GMPLS networks. This document complements these RFCs by addressing theswitched dataextensions required for GMPLS applications andon which link it can be supported</t> <t>Supportrouting requests, forasymmetric bandwidth requests.</t> <t>Supportexample, forunnumbered interface identifiers, as defined in <xref target="RFC3477"></xref></t> <t>Label informationOptical Transport Networks (OTNs) andtechnology specific label(s) such as wavelength labels as defined in <xref target="RFC6205" />. A PCC should also be able to specify a label restriction similarWavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs).</t> <t pn="section-1-2">The functional requirements tothe one supportedbe addressed byRSVP-TE in <xref target="RFC3473" />.</t> <t>Ability to indicate the requested granularity for the path ERO: node, link or label. This is to allowtheuse of the explicit label control feature of RSVP-TE.</t> </list> The requirements of <xref target="RFC7025" /> applyPCEP extensions toseveral objects conveyed by PCEP, this issupport these applications are fully described in <xreftarget="requirement-map" />. Some of the requirements of <xreftarget="RFC7025"/> are already supported in existing documents, as described informat="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC7025"/> and <xreftarget="existing-support" />.target="RFC7449" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC7449"/>. </t><t><section numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-1.1"> <name slugifiedName="name-terminology">Terminology</name> <t pn="section-1.1-1"> This documentdescribes a set ofuses terminologies from the PCE architecture document <xref target="RFC4655" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC4655"/>; the PCEPextensions,documents includingnew object types, TLVs, encodings, error codes and procedures, in order to fulfill the aforementioned requirements not covered in existing RFCs.</t> </section> <section title="Requirements Applicability" anchor="requirement-map"> <t> This section follows the organization of<xref target="RFC5440" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5440"/>, <xref target="RFC5521" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5521"/>, <xref target="RFC5541" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5541"/>, <xref target="RFC5520" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5520"/>, <xref target="RFC7025"/> Section 3format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC7025"/>, andindicates, for each requirement, the affected piece of information carried by PCEP<xref target="RFC7449" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC7449"/>; andits scope.</t> <section title="Requirements on Path Computation Request"> <t> <list style="hanging" hangIndent="6"><t hangText="(1)"> Switching capability/type:the GMPLS documents such asdescribed in<xref target="RFC3471"/> this piece of information is used with the Encoding Type and Signal Type to fully describe the switching technologyformat="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC3471"/>, <xref target="RFC3473" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC3473"/>, anddata carried byso on. Note that theTE-LSP. Thisreader isapplicable to the TE-LSP itself and alsoexpected tothe TE-LSP endpoint (Carried in the END-POINTS object for MPLS networksbe familiar with these documents. The following abbreviations are used in this document: </t> <dl newline="false" spacing="normal" indent="10" pn="section-1.1-2"> <dt pn="section-1.1-2.1">ERO:</dt> <dd pn="section-1.1-2.2">Explicit Route Object</dd> <dt pn="section-1.1-2.3">IRO:</dt> <dd pn="section-1.1-2.4">Include Route Object</dd> <dt pn="section-1.1-2.5">L2SC:</dt> <dd pn="section-1.1-2.6">Layer 2 Switch Capable <xref target="RFC3471" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC3471"/></dd> <dt pn="section-1.1-2.7">LSC:</dt> <dd pn="section-1.1-2.8">Lambda Switch Capable <xref target="RFC3471" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC3471"/></dd> <dt pn="section-1.1-2.9">LSP:</dt> <dd pn="section-1.1-2.10">Label Switched Path</dd> <dt pn="section-1.1-2.11">LSPA:</dt> <dd pn="section-1.1-2.12">LSP Attribute</dd> <dt pn="section-1.1-2.13">MEF:</dt> <dd pn="section-1.1-2.14">Metro Ethernet Forum</dd> <dt pn="section-1.1-2.15">MT:</dt> <dd pn="section-1.1-2.16">Multiplier <xref target="RFC4328" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC4328"/> <xref target="RFC4606" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC4606"/></dd> <dt pn="section-1.1-2.17">NCC:</dt> <dd pn="section-1.1-2.18">Number of Contiguous Components <xref target="RFC4606" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC4606"/></dd> <dt pn="section-1.1-2.19">NVC:</dt> <dd pn="section-1.1-2.20">Number of Virtual Components <xref target="RFC4328" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC4328"/> <xref target="RFC4606" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC4606"/></dd> <dt pn="section-1.1-2.21">ODU:</dt> <dd pn="section-1.1-2.22">Optical Data Unit <xref target="G.709-v3" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="G.709-v3"/></dd> <dt pn="section-1.1-2.23">OTN:</dt> <dd pn="section-1.1-2.24">Optical Transport Network <xref target="G.709-v3" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="G.709-v3"/></dd> <dt pn="section-1.1-2.25">P2MP:</dt> <dd pn="section-1.1-2.26">Point-to-Multipoint</dd> <dt pn="section-1.1-2.27">PCC:</dt> <dd pn="section-1.1-2.28">Path Computation Client</dd> <dt pn="section-1.1-2.29">PCRep:</dt> <dd pn="section-1.1-2.30">Path Computation Reply <xref target="RFC5440"/>) when considering multiple network layers. Inter-layer path computation requirements are addressed in informat="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5440"/></dd> <dt pn="section-1.1-2.31">PCReq:</dt> <dd pn="section-1.1-2.32">Path Computation Request <xreftarget="RFC8282" /> which addressing the TE-LSP itself, but the TE-LSP endpoints are not addressed. </t> <t hangText="(2)"> Encoding type: see (1). </t> <t hangText="(3)"> Signal type: see (1). </t> <t hangText="(4)">target="RFC5440" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5440"/></dd> <dt pn="section-1.1-2.33">RCC:</dt> <dd pn="section-1.1-2.34">Requested Contiguous Concatenationtype: this parameter<xref target="RFC4606" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC4606"/></dd> <dt pn="section-1.1-2.35">RRO:</dt> <dd pn="section-1.1-2.36">Record Route Object</dd> <dt pn="section-1.1-2.37">RSVP-TE:</dt> <dd pn="section-1.1-2.38">Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering</dd> <dt pn="section-1.1-2.39">SDH:</dt> <dd pn="section-1.1-2.40">Synchronous Digital Hierarchy </dd> <dt pn="section-1.1-2.41">SONET:</dt> <dd pn="section-1.1-2.42">Synchronous Optical Network</dd> <dt pn="section-1.1-2.43">SRLG:</dt> <dd pn="section-1.1-2.44">Shared Risk Link Group</dd> <dt pn="section-1.1-2.45">SSON:</dt> <dd pn="section-1.1-2.46">Spectrum-Switched Optical Network</dd> <dt pn="section-1.1-2.47">TDM:</dt> <dd pn="section-1.1-2.48">Time-Division Multiplex Capable <xref target="RFC3471" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC3471"/></dd> <dt pn="section-1.1-2.49">TE-LSP:</dt> <dd pn="section-1.1-2.50">Traffic Engineered LSP</dd> <dt pn="section-1.1-2.51">XRO:</dt> <dd pn="section-1.1-2.52">Exclude Route Object</dd> </dl> <t pn="section-1.1-3"> The key words "<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>", andthe Concatenation Number (5)"<bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14>" in this document arespecifictosome TDM (SDH and ODU) switching technology. They MUSTbe interpreted as describedtogetherin BCP 14 <xref target="RFC2119" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC8174"/> when, andare used to derive the requested resource allocationonly when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. </t> </section> <section numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-1.2"> <name slugifiedName="name-pcep-requirements-for-gmpls">PCEP Requirements for GMPLS</name> <t pn="section-1.2-1"><xref target="RFC7025" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC7025"/> describes theTE-LSP. Itset of PCEP requirements that support GMPLS TE-LSPs. This document assumes a significant familiarity with <xref target="RFC7025" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC7025"/> and existing PCEP extensions. As a short overview, those requirements can be broken down into the following categories. </t> <ul spacing="normal" bare="false" empty="false" pn="section-1.2-2"> <li pn="section-1.2-2.1">Which data flow isscoped toswitched by theTE-LSPLSP: a combination of a switching type (for instance, L2SC or TDM), an LSP encoding type (e.g., Ethernet, SONET/SDH), andis related tosometimes the<xref target="RFC5440" /> BANDWIDTH objectsignal type (e.g., inMPLS networks. See <xref target="RFC4606" />case of a TDM or an LSC switching capability).</li> <li pn="section-1.2-2.2">Data-flow-specific traffic parameters, which are technology specific. For instance, in SDH/SONET and OTN networks <xreftarget="RFC4328" /> abouttarget="G.709-v3" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="G.709-v3"/>, the concatenationinformation. </t> <t hangText="(5)"> Concatenation number: see (4). </t> <t hangText="(6)"> Technology-specific label(s): as described in <xref target="RFC3471" />type and theGMPLS Labels are specific to each switching technology. They can be specifiedconcatenation number have an influence oneach linkthe switched data andalsoonthe TE-LSP endpoints , in WSON networkswhich link it can be supported.</li> <li pn="section-1.2-2.3">Support forinstance,asymmetric bandwidth requests.</li> <li pn="section-1.2-2.4">Support for unnumbered interface identifiers, asdescribeddefined in <xreftarget="RFC6163" />. Thetarget="RFC3477" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC3477"/>.</li> <li pn="section-1.2-2.5">Label information and technology-specific label(s) such as wavelength labels as defined in <xref target="RFC6205" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC6205"/>. A PCC should also be able to specify a label restrictioncan applysimilar toendpoints and on each hop,therelated PCEP objects are END-POINTS, IRO, XRO and RRO. </t> <t hangText="(7)"> End-to-End (E2E) path protection type: as definedone supported by RSVP-TE in <xreftarget="RFC4872"/>, this is applicabletarget="RFC3473" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC3473"/>.</li> <li pn="section-1.2-2.6">Ability to indicate theTE-LSP. In MPLS networksrequested granularity for therelated PCEP objectpath ERO: node, link, or label. This isLSPA (carrying local protection information). </t> <t hangText="(8)"> Administrative group: as defined in <xref target="RFC3630"/>, this information is already carried into allow theLSPA object. </t>use of the explicit label control feature of RSVP-TE.</li> </ul> <thangText="(9)"> Link protection type: as defined inpn="section-1.2-3"> The requirements of <xreftarget="RFC4872"/>, this is applicabletarget="RFC7025" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC7025"/> apply tothe TE-LSP andseveral objects conveyed by PCEP; this iscarrieddescribed inassociation with<xref target="requirement-map" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 1.3"/>. Some of theE2E path protection type. </t> <t hangText="(10)"> Support for unnumbered interfaces: as defined inrequirements of <xreftarget="RFC3477"/>. Its scope and related objectstarget="RFC7025" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC7025"/> arethe same as labels </t> <t hangText="(11)"> Support for asymmetric bandwidth requests:already supported in existing documents, asdefineddescribed in <xreftarget="RFC6387"/>, the scope is similar to (4)target="existing-support" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 1.4"/>. </t> <thangText="(12)"> Support for explicit label control during the path computation.pn="section-1.2-4"> Thisaffects the TE-LSP and amountdocument describes a set ofinformation returnedPCEP extensions, including new object types, TLVs, encodings, error codes, and procedures, in order to fulfill theERO. </t>aforementioned requirements not covered in existing RFCs.</t> </section> <section anchor="requirement-map" numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-1.3"> <name slugifiedName="name-requirements-applicability">Requirements Applicability</name> <thangText="(13)"> Supportpn="section-1.3-1"> This section follows the organization oflabel restrictions in<xref target="RFC7025" sectionFormat="comma" section="3" format="default" derivedLink="https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7025#section-3" derivedContent="RFC7025"/> and indicates, for each requirement, therequests/responses: This is described in (6). </t> </list> </t> </section>affected piece of information carried by PCEP and its scope.</t> <sectiontitle="Requirementsnumbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-1.3.1"> <name slugifiedName="name-requirements-on-the-path-co">Requirements on the Path ComputationResponse"> <t><list style="hanging" hangIndent="5"><t hangText="(1)"> Path computation with concatenation: This is related to Path Computation request requirement (4). In addition thereRequest</name> <ol spacing="normal" type="(%d)" start="1" pn="section-1.3.1-1"> <li pn="section-1.3.1-1.1" derivedCounter="(1)">Switching capability/type: As described in <xref target="RFC3471" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC3471"/>, this piece of information isa specificused with the encoding type and signal typeof concatenation called virtual concatenation that allows different routestobe used betweenfully describe theendpoints. Itswitching technology and data carried by the TE-LSP. This issimilarapplicable to thesemanticTE-LSP itself andscope ofalso to theLOAD-BALANCINGTE-LSP endpoint (carried in the END-POINTS object for MPLSnetworks. </t> <t hangText="(2)"> Label constraint: The PCE shouldnetworks in <xref target="RFC5440" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5440"/>) when considering multiple network layers. Inter-layer path computation requirements are addressed in <xref target="RFC8282" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC8282"/>, which focuses on the TE-LSP itself but does not address the TE-LSP endpoints. </li> <li pn="section-1.3.1-1.2" derivedCounter="(2)">Encoding type: See (1). </li> <li pn="section-1.3.1-1.3" derivedCounter="(3)">Signal type: See (1). </li> <li pn="section-1.3.1-1.4" derivedCounter="(4)">Concatenation type: This parameter and the concatenation number (see (5)) are specific to some TDM (SDH and ODU) switching technologies. They <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> beabledescribed together and are used toinclude Labelsderive the requested resource allocation for the TE-LSP. It is scoped to the TE-LSP and is related to the BANDWIDTH object <xref target="RFC5440" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5440"/> in MPLS networks. See concatenation information in <xref target="RFC4606" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC4606"/> and <xref target="RFC4328" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC4328"/>. </li> <li pn="section-1.3.1-1.5" derivedCounter="(5)">Concatenation number: See (4). </li> <li pn="section-1.3.1-1.6" derivedCounter="(6)">Technology-specific label(s): As described in <xref target="RFC3471" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC3471"/>, the GMPLS labels are specific to each switching technology. They can be specified on each link and also on the TE-LSP endpoints, in WSON networks, for instance, as described in <xref target="RFC6163" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC6163"/>. The label restriction can apply to endpoints, and on each hop, the related PCEP objects are END-POINTS, IRO, XRO, and RRO. </li> <li pn="section-1.3.1-1.7" derivedCounter="(7)">End-to-End (E2E) pathreturnedprotection type: As defined in <xref target="RFC4872" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC4872"/>, this is applicable to thePCC,TE-LSP. In MPLS networks, the related PCEP object is LSPA (carrying local protection information). </li> <li pn="section-1.3.1-1.8" derivedCounter="(8)">Administrative group: As defined in <xref target="RFC3630" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC3630"/>, this information is already carried in theEROLSPA object.</t> <t hangText="(3)"> Roles of the routes: as</li> <li pn="section-1.3.1-1.9" derivedCounter="(9)">Link protection type: As defined in <xreftarget="RFC4872"/>,target="RFC4872" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC4872"/>, this is applicable to the TE-LSP and is carried in association with the E2E path protection type.</t> </list> </t> </section> </section> <!-- End Requirements on Protocol Objects --> <section title="Existing Support</li> <li pn="section-1.3.1-1.10" derivedCounter="(10)">Support forGMPLS in Base PCEP Objects and its Limitations" anchor="existing-support"> <t> The support provided by specificationsunnumbered interfaces: As defined in <xreftarget="RFC8282" />target="RFC3477" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC3477"/>. Its scope and<xref target="RFC5440" /> forrelated objects are therequirements listed in <xref target="RFC7025" /> is summarized insame as labels. </li> <li pn="section-1.3.1-1.11" derivedCounter="(11)">Support for asymmetric bandwidth requests: As defined in <xref target="RFC6387" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC6387"/>, the scope is similar to (4). </li> <li pn="section-1.3.1-1.12" derivedCounter="(12)">Support for explicit label control during the path computation: This affects the TE-LSP and the amount of information returned in the ERO. </li> <li pn="section-1.3.1-1.13" derivedCounter="(13)"> Support of label restrictions in the requests/responses: This is described in (6). </li> </ol> </section> <section numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-1.3.2"> <name slugifiedName="name-requirements-on-the-path-com">Requirements on the Path Computation Response</name> <ol spacing="normal" type="(%d)" start="1" pn="section-1.3.2-1"> <li pn="section-1.3.2-1.1" derivedCounter="(1)">Path computation with concatenation: This is related to the Path Computation request requirement (4). In addition, there is a specific type of concatenation, called virtual concatenation, that allows different routes to be used between the endpoints. It is similar to the semantic and scope of the LOAD-BALANCING in MPLS networks. </li> <li pn="section-1.3.2-1.2" derivedCounter="(2)">Label constraint: The PCE should be able to include labels in the path returned to the PCC; the related object is the ERO object. </li> <li pn="section-1.3.2-1.3" derivedCounter="(3)">Roles of the routes: As defined in <xref target="RFC4872" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC4872"/>, this is applicable to the TE-LSP and is carried in association with the E2E path protection type. </li> </ol> </section> </section> <section anchor="existing-support" numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-1.4"> <name slugifiedName="name-existing-support-and-limita">Existing Support and Limitations for GMPLS in Base PCEP Objects</name> <t pn="section-1.4-1"> The support provided by specifications in <xref target="RFC8282" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC8282"/> and <xref target="RFC5440" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5440"/> for the requirements listed in <xref target="RFC7025" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC7025"/> is summarized in Tables <xref target="rfc7025_pcreq_reqss"/>format="counter" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="1"/> and <xreftarget="rfc7025_pcrep_reqss"/>.target="rfc7025_pcrep_reqss" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="2"/>. In somecasescases, the support may not be complete, as noted, and additional supportneedneeds to be provided as indicated in this specification. </t><texttable anchor='rfc7025_pcreq_reqss' suppress-title='false' style='none' title='RFC7025 Section 3.1 requirements support'> <ttcol align='left'></ttcol> <ttcol align='left'></ttcol> <ttcol align='left'></ttcol> <c>Req. </c><c> Name </c><c><table anchor="rfc7025_pcreq_reqss" align="center" pn="table-1"> <name slugifiedName="name-requirements-support-per-rf">Requirements Support</c> <c>per RFC 7025, Section 3.1</name> <thead> <tr> <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Req.</th> <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Name</th> <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Support</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"> 1</c><c></td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"> Switching capability/type</c><c></td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"> SWITCH-LAYER(RFC8282) </c> <c>(RFC 8282) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"> 2</c><c></td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"> Encoding type</c><c></td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"> SWITCH-LAYER(RFC8282) </c> <c>(RFC 8282) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"> 3</c><c></td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"> Signal type</c><c></td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"> SWITCH-LAYER(RFC8282) </c> <c>(RFC 8282) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"> 4</c><c></td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"> Concatenation type</c><c></td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"> No</c> <c></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"> 5</c><c></td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"> Concatenation number</c><c></td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"> No</c> <c></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"> 6</c><c></td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"> Technology-specific label</c><c></td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"> (Partial) ERO(RFC5440)</c> <c>(RFC 5440)</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"> 7</c><c></td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"> End-to-End (E2E) path protection type</c><c></td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"> No</c> <c></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"> 8</c><c></td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"> Administrative group</c><c></td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"> LSPA(RFC5440) </c> <c>(RFC 5440) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"> 9</c><c></td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"> Link protection type</c><c></td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"> No</c> <c></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"> 10</c><c></td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"> Support for unnumbered interfaces</c><c></td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"> (Partial) ERO(RFC5440)</c> <c>(RFC 5440)</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"> 11</c><c></td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"> Support for asymmetric bandwidth requests</c><c></td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"> No</c> <c></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"> 12</c><c></td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"> Support for explicit label control during the path computation</c><c> No </c> <c></td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"> No</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"> 13</c><c></td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"> Support of label restrictions in the requests/responses</c><c></td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"> No</c> </texttable> <t><vspace blankLines="2"/></t> <texttable anchor='rfc7025_pcrep_reqss' suppress-title='false' style='none' title='RFC7025 Section 3.2 requirements support'> <ttcol align='left'></ttcol> <ttcol align='left'></ttcol> <ttcol align='left'></ttcol> <c>Req. </c><c> Name </c><c></td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <table anchor="rfc7025_pcrep_reqss" align="center" pn="table-2"> <name slugifiedName="name-requirements-support-per-rfc">Requirements Support</c> <c>1</c><c>Pathper RFC 7025, Section 3.2</name> <thead> <tr> <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Req.</th> <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Name</th> <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Support</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">1</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Path computation with concatenation</c><c></td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"> No</c> <c>2</c><c>Label</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">2</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Label constraint</c><c></td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"> No</c> <c>3</c><c>Roles</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">3</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Roles of the routes</c><c></td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"> No</c> </texttable> <t> As described in</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <t pn="section-1.4-4">Per <xref target="requirement-map"/>format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 1.3"/>, PCEPas of(as described in <xreftarget="RFC5440"></xref>,target="RFC5440" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5440"/>, <xreftarget="RFC5521"></xref>target="RFC5521" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5521"/>, and <xref target="RFC8282"/>,format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC8282"/>) supports the following objects, included in requests and responses, that are related to the described requirements.</t><t>From<t pn="section-1.4-5">From <xreftarget="RFC5440"></xref>: <list style='symbols'> <t>END-POINTS: relatedtarget="RFC5440" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5440"/>: </t> <ul spacing="normal" empty="true" bare="false" pn="section-1.4-6"> <li pn="section-1.4-6.1"> <dl newline="false" spacing="normal" pn="section-1.4-6.1.1"> <dt pn="section-1.4-6.1.1.1">END-POINTS:</dt> <dd pn="section-1.4-6.1.1.2">related to requirements(1,1, 2, 3, 6,1010, and13).13. The object only supports numbered endpoints. The context specifies whether they are node identifiers or numberedinterfaces.</t> <t>BANDWIDTH: relatedinterfaces.</dd> <dt pn="section-1.4-6.1.1.3">BANDWIDTH:</dt> <dd pn="section-1.4-6.1.1.4">related to requirements(4, 54, 5, and11).11. The data rate is encoded in thebandwidthBANDWIDTH object (as an IEEE32 bit32-bit float). <xref target="RFC5440"/>format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5440"/> does not include the ability to convey an encoding proper to all GMPLS-controllednetworks.</t> <t>ERO: relatednetworks.</dd> <dt pn="section-1.4-6.1.1.5">ERO:</dt> <dd pn="section-1.4-6.1.1.6">related to requirements(6,6, 10,1212, and13).13. The ERO content is defined in RSVP in <xref target="RFC3209"/><xrefformat="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC3209"/>, <xref target="RFC3473"/><xrefformat="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC3473"/>, <xref target="RFC3477"/><xrefformat="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC3477"/>, and <xref target="RFC7570"/>format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC7570"/> and already supports all of therequirements already. </t> <t>LSPA: relatedrequirements. </dd> <dt pn="section-1.4-6.1.1.7">LSPA:</dt> <dd pn="section-1.4-6.1.1.8">related to requirements(7, 87, 8, and9). The requirement9. Requirement 8(setup and holding priorities)(Administrative group) is alreadysupported.</t> </list></t> <t>From <xref target="RFC5521"></xref>: <list style='symbols'> <t>XRO: <list style='symbols'> <t>Thissupported.</dd> </dl> </li> </ul> <t pn="section-1.4-7">From <xref target="RFC5521" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5521"/>:</t> <ul spacing="normal" empty="true" bare="false" pn="section-1.4-8"> <li pn="section-1.4-8.1"> <t pn="section-1.4-8.1.1">XRO: </t> <ul spacing="normal" bare="false" empty="false" pn="section-1.4-8.1.2"> <li pn="section-1.4-8.1.2.1">This object allows excluding (strict or not) resources and is related to requirements(6, 106, 10, and13).13. It also includes the requested diversity (node,linklink, orSRLG).</t> <t>WhenSRLG).</li> <li pn="section-1.4-8.1.2.2">When the F bit is set, the request indicates that the existing path hasfailedfailed, and the resources present in the RRO can be reused.</t></list> </t> </list> </t> <t>From</li> </ul> </li> </ul> <t pn="section-1.4-9">From <xreftarget="RFC8282"></xref>:<list style='symbols'> <t>SWITCH-LAYER: addressestarget="RFC8282" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC8282"/>:</t> <ul spacing="normal" empty="true" bare="false" pn="section-1.4-10"> <li pn="section-1.4-10.1"> <dl newline="false" spacing="normal" pn="section-1.4-10.1.1"> <dt pn="section-1.4-10.1.1.1">SWITCH-LAYER:</dt> <dd pn="section-1.4-10.1.1.2">addresses requirements(1, 21, 2, and3)3 for the TE-LSP and indicates which layer(s) should be considered. The object can be used to represent the RSVP-TEgeneralized label request.Generalized Label Request. It does not address the endpoints case of requirements(1, 21, 2, and3).</t> <t>REQ-ADAP-CAP: indicates3.</dd> <dt pn="section-1.4-10.1.1.3">REQ-ADAP-CAP:</dt> <dd pn="section-1.4-10.1.1.4">indicates the adaptation capabilitiesrequested,requested; it can also be used for the endpoints in case of mono-layercomputation</t> </list></t> <t>computation.</dd> </dl> </li> </ul> <t pn="section-1.4-11"> The gaps in functional coverage of the base PCEP objects are:<list> <t>The</t> <ul empty="false" spacing="normal" bare="false" pn="section-1.4-12"> <li pn="section-1.4-12.1">The BANDWIDTH and LOAD-BALANCING objects do not describe the details of the traffic request (requirements 4 and 5, forexample NVC,example, NVC and multiplier) in the context of GMPLS networks, forinstanceinstance, in TDM or OTNnetworks.</t> <t>Thenetworks.</li> <li pn="section-1.4-12.2">The END-POINTS object does not allow specifying an unnumbered interface, nor potential label restrictions on the interface (requirements 6,1010, and 13). Those parameters are of interest in case of switchingconstraints.</t> <t>The Include/eXclude Route Objects (IRO/XRO)constraints.</li> <li pn="section-1.4-12.3">The IROs/XROs do not allow the inclusion/exclusion of labels (requirements 6,1010, and13).</t> <t>Base13).</li> <li pn="section-1.4-12.4">Base attributes do not allow expressing the requested link protection level and/or the end-to-end protectionattributes.</t> </list> </t> <t>The PCEP extensionsattributes.</li> </ul> <t pn="section-1.4-13">As defined later in thisdocument todocument, the PCEP extensions that cover the gaps are:<list> <t>Two</t> <ul empty="false" spacing="normal" bare="false" pn="section-1.4-14"> <li pn="section-1.4-14.1">Two new object types are defined for the BANDWIDTH object (Generalizedbandwidth,bandwidth and Generalized bandwidth of an existing TE-LSP for which a reoptimization isrequested).</t> <t>Arequested).</li> <li pn="section-1.4-14.2">A new object type is defined for the LOAD-BALANCING object (Generalized LoadBalancing).</t> <t>ABalancing).</li> <li pn="section-1.4-14.3">A new object type is defined for the END-POINTS object (GeneralizedEndpoint).</t> <t>AEndpoint).</li> <li pn="section-1.4-14.4">A new TLV is added to the Open message for capabilitynegotiation.</t> <t>Anegotiation.</li> <li pn="section-1.4-14.5">A new TLV is added to the LSPA object.</t> <t>The</li> <li pn="section-1.4-14.6">The LabelTLVsubobject is now allowed in the IRO and XROobjects.</t> <t>Inobjects.</li> <li pn="section-1.4-14.7">In order to indicate theusedrouting granularity used in the response, a new flag is added in the RPobject is added.</t> </list> </t>object.</li> </ul> </section> </section> <sectiontitle="PCEPnumbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-2"> <name slugifiedName="name-pcep-objects-and-extensions">PCEP Objects andExtensions"> <t>Extensions</name> <t pn="section-2-1"> This section describes the necessary PCEP objects and extensions. The PCReq and PCRep messages are defined in <xreftarget="RFC5440"></xref>.target="RFC5440" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5440"/>. This document does not change the existinggrammars.</t>grammar.</t> <sectiontitle="GMPLSanchor="capability" numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-2.1"> <name slugifiedName="name-gmpls-capability-advertisem">GMPLS CapabilityAdvertisement" anchor="capability"> <t> </t>Advertisement</name> <sectiontitle="GMPLSanchor="IGP-discovery" numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-2.1.1"> <name slugifiedName="name-gmpls-computation-tlv-in-th">GMPLS Computation TLV in the Existing PCE DiscoveryProtocol" anchor="IGP-discovery"> <t>Protocol</name> <t pn="section-2.1.1-1"> IGP-based PCE Discovery (PCED) is defined in <xref target="RFC5088"/>format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5088"/> and <xref target="RFC5089"/>format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5089"/> for the OSPF and IS-IS protocols. Those documents have defined bit 0 in the PCE-CAP-FLAGS Sub-TLV of the PCED TLV as "Path computation with GMPLS link constraints". This capability is optional and can be used to detect GMPLS-capable PCEs. PCEs that set the bit to indicate support of GMPLS path computationMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> follow the procedures inSection 2.1.2<xref target="open-extensions" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 2.1.2"/> to further qualify the level of support during PCEP session establishment.</t> </section> <sectiontitle="OPENanchor="open-extensions" numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-2.1.2"> <name slugifiedName="name-open-object-extension-gmpls">OPEN Object Extension GMPLS-CAPABILITYTLV" anchor="open-extensions"> <t>TLV</name> <t pn="section-2.1.2-1"> In addition to the IGP advertisement, a PCEP speakerMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be able to discover the other peer GMPLS capabilities during the Open message exchange. This capability is also useful to avoid misconfigurations. This document defines a GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV for use in the OPEN object to negotiate the GMPLS capability. The inclusion of this TLV in the Open message indicates that the PCEP speakersupportsupports the PCEP extensions defined in the document. A PCEP speaker that is able to support the GMPLS extensions defined in this documentMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> include the GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLVonin the Open message. If one of the PCEP peers does not include the GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV in the Open message, the peersMUST NOT<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> make use of the objects and TLVs defined in this document. </t><t><t pn="section-2.1.2-2"> If the PCEP speaker supports the extensions of this specification but did not advertise the GMPLS-CAPABILITY capability, upon receipt of a message from the PCE including an extension defined in this document, itMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> generate a PCEP Error (PCErr) with Error-Type=10 (Reception of an invalid object) andError-value=TBA-42Error-value=31 (Missing GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV), and itSHOULD<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> terminate the PCEP session. </t><t><t pn="section-2.1.2-3"> As documented in <xref target="iana-tlvs" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 5.3"/> ("New PCEP TLVs"), IANA has allocated valueTBA-145 (GMPLS-CAPABILITY) from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators"sub-registry, as documented in <xref target="iana-tlvs" /> ("New PCEP TLVs").sub-registry. Thedescription is "GMPLS-CAPABILITY". Itsformat for the GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV is shown in the following figure. </t><figure > <artwork><![CDATA[<artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt="" pn="section-2.1.2-4"> 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Type=TBA-1Type=45 | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Flags | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+]]></artwork> </figure> <t></artwork> <t pn="section-2.1.2-5"> NoFlagsflags are defined in thisdocument,document; they are reserved for future use. Unassigned flags <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be set to zero on transmission and <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be ignored on receipt. </t> </section> </section> <sectiontitle="RPanchor="rp-extensions" numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-2.2"> <name slugifiedName="name-rp-object-extension">RP ObjectExtension" anchor="rp-extensions"> <t>Extension</name> <t pn="section-2.2-1"> Explicitlabel controlLabel Control (ELC) is a procedure supported by RSVP-TE, where the outgoing labels are encoded in the ERO. As a consequence, the PCE can provide such labels directly in the path ERO. Depending on the policies or switching layer, itcanmight be necessary for the PCC to use explicit label control or explicit linkids, thusids; thus, it needs to indicate in the PCReq which granularity it is expecting in the ERO. This corresponds to requirement 12ofin <xref target="RFC7025"/>.sectionFormat="of" section="3.1" format="default" derivedLink="https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7025#section-3.1" derivedContent="RFC7025"/>. The possible granularities can be node,linklink, or label. The granularities areinter-dependent,interdependent, in the sense that link granularity implies the presence of node information in the ERO; similarly, a label granularity implies that the ERO contains node,linklink, and label information. </t><t>A<t pn="section-2.2-2">A new 2-bitrouting granularityRouting Granularity (RG) flag(Bits TBA-13)(bits 15-16) is defined in the RP object. The values are defined asfollows</t> <texttable anchor='rp_bits' suppress-title='false' style='none' title='RG flag'> <ttcol align='center'></ttcol> <ttcol align='left'></ttcol> <c>0:</c><c>reserved </c> <c>1:</c><c>node </c> <c>2:</c><c>link </c> <c>3:</c><c>label </c> </texttable> <t>Thefollows:</t> <ul empty="true" spacing="normal" bare="false" pn="section-2.2-3"> <li pn="section-2.2-3.1"> <dl spacing="normal" newline="false" pn="section-2.2-3.1.1"> <dt pn="section-2.2-3.1.1.1">0:</dt> <dd pn="section-2.2-3.1.1.2">reserved</dd> <dt pn="section-2.2-3.1.1.3">1:</dt> <dd pn="section-2.2-3.1.1.4">node</dd> <dt pn="section-2.2-3.1.1.5">2:</dt> <dd pn="section-2.2-3.1.1.6">link</dd> <dt pn="section-2.2-3.1.1.7">3:</dt> <dd pn="section-2.2-3.1.1.8">label</dd> </dl> </li> </ul> <t pn="section-2.2-4">The RG flag in the RP object indicates the requested route granularity. The PCESHOULD<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> follow this granularity andMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> return a NO-PATH if the requested granularity cannot be provided. The PCEMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> return any granularity on the route based on its policy. The PCC can decide if the ERO is acceptable based on its content. </t><t><t pn="section-2.2-5"> If a PCE honored the requested routing granularity for a request, itMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> indicate the selected routing granularity in the RP object included in the response. Otherwise, the PCEMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> use the reserved RG to leave the check of the ERO to the PCC. The RG flag isbackward-compatiblebackward compatible with <xref target="RFC5440"/>:format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5440"/>: the value sent by an implementation (PCC or PCE) not supporting it will indicate a reserved value. </t> </section> <sectiontitle="BANDWIDTHanchor="generalized-bandwidth" numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-2.3"> <name slugifiedName="name-bandwidth-object-extensions">BANDWIDTH ObjectExtensions" anchor="generalized-bandwidth"> <t> FromExtensions</name> <t pn="section-2.3-1"> Per <xreftarget="RFC5440"/>target="RFC5440" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5440"/>, the object carrying the requested size for the TE-LSP is the BANDWIDTH object.The objectObject types 1 and 2 defined in <xreftarget="RFC5440"/>target="RFC5440" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5440"/> do notdescribeprovide enough information to describe the TE-LSP bandwidth in GMPLS networks. The BANDWIDTH object encoding has to be extended to allow the object to express the bandwidth as described in <xref target="RFC7025"/>.format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC7025"/>. RSVP-TE extensions for GMPLS provide a set of encodingsallowingthat allow such representation in an unambiguousway,way; this is encoded in the RSVP-TETSpecTraffic Specification (TSpec) andFlowSpecFlow Specification (FlowSpec) objects. This document extends the BANDWIDTH object with new object types reusing the RSVP-TE encoding. </t><t>The<t pn="section-2.3-2">The following possibilities are supported by the extended encoding:<list style='symbols'> <t>Asymmetric</t> <ul spacing="normal" bare="false" empty="false" pn="section-2.3-3"> <li pn="section-2.3-3.1">Asymmetric bandwidth (different bandwidth in forward and reverse direction), as described in <xreftarget="RFC6387"></xref></t> <t>GMPLStarget="RFC6387" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC6387"/>.</li> <li pn="section-2.3-3.2">GMPLS (SDH/SONET, G.709, ATM, MEF, etc.)parameters.</t> </list>parameters.</li> </ul> <t pn="section-2.3-4"> This corresponds to requirements 3, 4,55, and 11ofin <xref target="RFC7025"/> Section 3.1.sectionFormat="of" section="3.1" format="default" derivedLink="https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7025#section-3.1" derivedContent="RFC7025"/>. </t><t><t pn="section-2.3-5"> This document defines twoObject Typesobject types for the BANDWIDTH object:<list style='hanging'> <t hangText="TBA-2">Generalized bandwidth</t> <t hangText="TBA-3">Generalized</t> <ul spacing="normal" empty="true" bare="false" pn="section-2.3-6"> <li pn="section-2.3-6.1"> <dl newline="false" spacing="normal" pn="section-2.3-6.1.1"> <dt pn="section-2.3-6.1.1.1">3:</dt> <dd pn="section-2.3-6.1.1.2">Generalized bandwidth</dd> <dt pn="section-2.3-6.1.1.3">4:</dt> <dd pn="section-2.3-6.1.1.4">Generalized bandwidth of an existing TE-LSP for which a reoptimization isrequested</t> </list>requested</dd> </dl> </li> </ul> <t pn="section-2.3-7"> The definitions below apply forObject Type TBA-2object types 3 andTBA-3.4. The body is as follows: </t><figure> <artwork><![CDATA[<artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt="" pn="section-2.3-8"> 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Bandwidth Spec Length | Rev. Bandwidth Spec Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Bw Spec Type | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Generalized Bandwidth ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~Optional:Reverse Generalized Bandwidth (optional) ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Optional TLVs ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+]]></artwork> </figure> <t>The BANDWIDTH</artwork> <t pn="section-2.3-9">BANDWIDTH objecttype TBA-2types 3 andTBA-34 have a variable length. The 16-bit Bandwidth Spec Length field indicates the length of the Generalized Bandwidth field. The Bandwidth Spec LengthMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be strictly greater than 0. The 16-bit Reverse Bandwidth Spec Length field indicates the length of the Reverse Generalized Bandwidth field. The Reverse Bandwidth Spec LengthMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> be equal to 0.</t><t>The<t pn="section-2.3-10">The Bw Spec Type field determines which type of bandwidth is represented by the object.</t><t>The<t pn="section-2.3-11">The Bw Spec Type corresponds to the RSVP-TE SENDER_TSPEC (Object Class 12)C-Types</t> <t>C-Types.</t> <t pn="section-2.3-12"> The encoding of thefieldsGeneralized Bandwidth and Reverse Generalized Bandwidth fields is the same as theTraffic Parameterstraffic parameters carried inRSVP-TE, itRSVP-TE; they can be found in the following references.It is to be notedNote that the RSVP-TE traffic specificationMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> also include TLVs(e.g., <xref target="RFC6003" />that are different from the PCEPTLVs).</t> <texttable anchor='TSpec_encoding' suppress-title='false' style='none' title='GeneralizedTLVs (e.g., the TLVs defined in <xref target="RFC6003" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC6003"/>).</t> <table anchor="TSpec_encoding" align="center" pn="table-3"> <name slugifiedName="name-generalized-bandwidth-and-r">Generalized Bandwidth and Reverse Generalized Bandwidthfield encoding'> <ttcol align='left'>BwField Encoding</name> <thead> <tr> <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Bw SpecType</ttcol> <ttcol align='left'>Name </ttcol> <ttcol align='left'>Reference</ttcol> <c>2</c><c>Intserv</c><c><xref target="RFC2210"></xref></c> <c>4</c><c>SONET/SDH</c><c><xref target="RFC4606"></xref></c> <c>5</c><c>G.709</c><c><xref target="RFC4328"></xref></c> <c>6</c><c>Ethernet</c><c><xref target="RFC6003"></xref></c> <c>7</c><c>OTN-TDM</c><c><xref target="RFC7139"></xref></c> <c>8</c><c>SSON</c><c><xref target="RFC7792"></xref></c> </texttable> <t>Type</th> <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Name </th> <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Reference</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">2</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Intserv</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"> <xref target="RFC2210" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC2210"/></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">4</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">SONET/SDH</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"> <xref target="RFC4606" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC4606"/></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">5</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">G.709</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"> <xref target="RFC4328" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC4328"/></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">6</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Ethernet</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"> <xref target="RFC6003" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC6003"/></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">7</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">OTN-TDM</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"> <xref target="RFC7139" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC7139"/></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">8</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">SSON</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"> <xref target="RFC7792" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC7792"/></td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <t pn="section-2.3-14"> When a PCC requests abi-directionalbidirectional path with symmetric bandwidth, itSHOULD<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> only specify the Generalized Bandwidthfield,field and set the Reverse Bandwidth Spec Length to 0. When a PCC needs to request abi-directionalbidirectional path with asymmetric bandwidth, itSHOULD<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> specify the different bandwidth in the forward and reverse directions withaGeneralized Bandwidth and Reverse Generalized Bandwidth fields. </t><t>The<t pn="section-2.3-15">The procedure described in <xref target="RFC5440"/>format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5440"/> for the PCRep is unchanged: a PCEMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> include the BANDWIDTH objects in the response to indicate the BANDWIDTH of the path.</t><t>As<t pn="section-2.3-16">As specified in <xref target="RFC5440"/>format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5440"/>, in the case of the reoptimization of a TE-LSP, the bandwidth of the existing TE-LSPMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> also be included in addition to the requested bandwidth if and only if the two values differ. TheObject Type TBA-3 MAYobject type 4 <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> be used instead of the previously specified object type 2 to indicate the existing TE-LSPbandwidthbandwidth, which was originally specified with object typeTBA-2.3. A PCC that requested a path with a BANDWIDTH object of object type 1MUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> use object type 2 to represent the existing TE-LSPBANDWIDTH.bandwidth. </t><t>OPTIONAL<t pn="section-2.3-17">Optional TLVsMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> be included within the object body to specify more specific bandwidth requirements. No TLVs forthe Object Type TBA-2object types 3 andTBA-34 are defined by this document. </t> </section><!-- Generalized BW--><sectiontitle="LOAD-BALANCINGanchor="generalized-load-balancing" numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-2.4"> <name slugifiedName="name-load-balancing-object-exten">LOAD-BALANCING ObjectExtensions" anchor="generalized-load-balancing"> <t>Extensions</name> <t pn="section-2.4-1"> The LOAD-BALANCING object <xref target="RFC5440"/>format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5440"/> is used to request a set of at most Max-LSPTE-LSPTE-LSPs having in total the bandwidth specified in BANDWIDTH, with each TE-LSP having at least a specified minimum bandwidth. The LOAD-BALANCING object follows the bandwidth encoding of the BANDWIDTHobject, and thusobject; thus, the existing definition from <xref target="RFC5440"/>format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5440"/> does not describe enough details for the bandwidth specification expected by GMPLS. </t><t> Similarly<t pn="section-2.4-2"> Similar to the BANDWIDTH object, a new object type is defined to allow a PCC to represent the bandwidth types supported by GMPLS networks. </t><t><t pn="section-2.4-3"> This document definesthe Generalized Load Balancingobject typeTBA-42 (Generalized Load Balancing) for the LOAD-BALANCING object. The Generalized Load Balancing object type has a variable length. </t><t>The<t pn="section-2.4-4">The format of the Generalized Load Balancing object type is as follows:</t><figure> <artwork><![CDATA[<artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt="" pn="section-2.4-5"> 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Bandwidth Spec Length | Reverse Bandwidth Spec Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Bw Spec Type | Max-LSP | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Min Bandwidth Spec | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Min Reverse Bandwidth Spec (optional) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Optional TLVs ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+]]></artwork> </figure> <t>Bandwidth</artwork> <dl spacing="normal" newline="false" pn="section-2.4-6"> <dt pn="section-2.4-6.1">Bandwidth Spec Length (16bits): thebits):</dt> <dd pn="section-2.4-6.2">the total length of the Min Bandwidth Spec field. The lengthMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be strictly greater than0.</t> <t>Reverse0.</dd> <dt pn="section-2.4-6.3">Reverse Bandwidth Spec Length (16bits): thebits):</dt> <dd pn="section-2.4-6.4">the total length of the Min Reverse Bandwidth Spec field. ItMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> be equal to0.</t> <t>Bw0.</dd> <dt pn="section-2.4-6.5">Bw Spec Type (8bits): thebits):</dt> <dd pn="section-2.4-6.6">the bandwidth specificationtype,type; it corresponds totheRSVP-TE SENDER_TSPEC (Object Class 12)C-Types.</t> <t>Max-LSPC-Types.</dd> <dt pn="section-2.4-6.7">Max-LSP (8bits):bits):</dt> <dd pn="section-2.4-6.8">the maximum number of TE-LSPs in theset.</t> <t>Minset.</dd> <dt pn="section-2.4-6.9">Min Bandwidth Spec(variable): specifies(variable):</dt> <dd pn="section-2.4-6.10">specifies the minimum bandwidth specification of each element of the TE-LSPset.</t> <t>Minset.</dd> <dt pn="section-2.4-6.11">Min Reverse Bandwidth Spec(variable): specifies(variable):</dt> <dd pn="section-2.4-6.12">specifies the minimum reverse bandwidth specification of each element of the TE-LSPset.</t> <t>Theset.</dd> </dl> <t pn="section-2.4-7">The encoding of thefieldsMin Bandwidth Spec and Min Reverse Bandwidth Spec fields is the same as in the RSVP-TE SENDER_TSPECobject,object; it can be found in <xreftarget="TSpec_encoding"/> fromtarget="TSpec_encoding" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Table 3"/> in <xref target="generalized-bandwidth"/> fromformat="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 2.3"/> of this document.</t><t><t pn="section-2.4-8"> When a PCC requests abi-directionalbidirectional path with symmetric bandwidth while specifyingload balancing constraintsload-balancing constraints, itSHOULD<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> specify the Min Bandwidth Specfield,field and set the Reverse Bandwidth Spec Length to 0. When a PCC needs to request abi-directionalbidirectional path with asymmetric bandwidth while specifyingload balancingload-balancing constraints, itMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> specify the different bandwidth in forward and reverse directions throughaMin Bandwidth Spec and Min Reverse Bandwidth Spec fields. </t><t>OPTIONAL<t pn="section-2.4-9">Optional TLVsMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> be included within the object body to specify more specific bandwidth requirements. No TLVs for the Generalized Load Balancing object type are defined by this document. </t><t>The<t pn="section-2.4-10">The semantic of the LOAD-BALANCING object is not changed. If a PCC requests the computation of a set of TE-LSPs with at most N TE-LSPs so that it can carrygeneralizedGeneralized bandwidthX ,X, each TE-LSP must at least transport bandwidthB,B; it inserts a BANDWIDTH object specifying X as the required bandwidth and a LOAD-BALANCING object with the Max-LSP and Min Bandwidth Spec fields set to N and B, respectively. When the BANDWIDTH and Min Bandwidth Spec can be summarized as scalars, the sum of the bandwidth for all TE-LSPsbandwithin the set is greater than X. The mapping of the X over N path with (at least) bandwidth B is technology and possibly node specific. Each standard definition of the transport technology is defining those mappings and are not repeated in this document. A simplified example for SDH is described in <xref target="appendix"/> </t> <t>format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Appendix A"/>.</t> <t pn="section-2.4-11"> In all other cases, includingfortechnologies based on statistical multiplexing (e.g.,InterServ,InterServ and Ethernet), the exact bandwidth management (e.g., the Ethernet's Excessive Rate) is left to the PCE's policies, according to the operator's configuration. If required, further documents may introduce a new mechanism to finely express complexload balancingload-balancing policies within PCEP. </t><t>The BANDWITH<t pn="section-2.4-12">The BANDWIDTH and LOAD-BALANCING Bw Spec Type can be different depending on the architecture of the endpointnodes architecture.node. When the PCE is not able to handle those two Bw SpecType,Types, itMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> return a NO-PATH with the bit "LOAD-BALANCING could not be performed with the bandwidthconstraits "constraints" set in the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV.</t> </section><!-- Generalized BW--><sectiontitle="END-POINTSanchor="endpoints_extensions" numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-2.5"> <name slugifiedName="name-end-points-object-extension">END-POINTS ObjectExtensions" anchor='endpoints_extensions'> <t>Extensions</name> <t pn="section-2.5-1"> The END-POINTS object is used in a PCEP request message to specify the source and the destination of the path for which a path computation is requested.FromPer <xreftarget="RFC5440"/>,target="RFC5440" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5440"/>, the source IP address and the destination IP address are used to identify those. A newObject Typeobject type is defined to address the following possibilities:<list style='symbols'> <t>Different</t> <ul spacing="normal" bare="false" empty="false" pn="section-2.5-2"> <li pn="section-2.5-2.1">Different source and destination endpointtypes.</t> <t>Labeltypes.</li> <li pn="section-2.5-2.2">Label restrictions on theendpoint.</t> <t>Specificationendpoint.</li> <li pn="section-2.5-2.3">Specification of unnumbered endpoints type as seen in GMPLSnetworks.</t> </list>networks.</li> </ul> <t pn="section-2.5-3"> TheObjectobject encoding is described in the following sections. </t><t>In<t pn="section-2.5-4">In path computation within a GMPLScontextcontext, the endpoints can:<list style='symbols'> <t>Be</t> <ul spacing="normal" bare="false" empty="false" pn="section-2.5-5"> <li pn="section-2.5-5.1">Be unnumbered as described in <xref target="RFC3477"/>.</t> <t>Haveformat="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC3477"/>.</li> <li pn="section-2.5-5.2">Have labels associated to them, specifying a set of constraints on the allocation oflabels.</t> <t>Havelabels.</li> <li pn="section-2.5-5.3">Have different switchingcapabilities</t> </list>capabilities.</li> </ul> <t pn="section-2.5-6"> The IPv4 and IPv6 endpoints are used to represent the source and destination IP addresses. The scope of the IP address(Node(node or numberedLink)link) is not explicitly stated. It is also possible to request aPathpath between a numbered link and an unnumbered link, or a P2MP path between differenttypetypes of endpoints. </t><t><t pn="section-2.5-7"> This document definesthe Generalized Endpointobject typeTBA-55 (Generalized Endpoint) for the END-POINTS object. This new type also supports the specification of constraints on the endpoint label to be used. The PCE might know the interfacerestrictionsrestrictions, but this is not a requirement. This corresponds to requirements 6 and 10ofin <xref target="RFC7025"/>.sectionFormat="of" section="3.1" format="default" derivedLink="https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7025#section-3.1" derivedContent="RFC7025"/>. </t> <section anchor="endpoints_generalized"title="Generalizednumbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-2.5.1"> <name slugifiedName="name-generalized-endpoint-object">Generalized Endpoint ObjectType "> <t>Type</name> <t pn="section-2.5.1-1"> The Generalized Endpoint object type format consists of a body and a list of TLVs scoped to this object. The TLVs give the details of the endpoints and are described in <xref target="endpoints_tlvs"/>.format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 2.5.2"/>. For eachEndpoint Type,endpoint type, a different grammar is defined. The TLVs defined to describe an endpoint are:<list style='numbers'> <t>IPv4 address endpoint.</t> <t>IPv6 address endpoint.</t> <t>Unnumbered endpoint.</t> <t>Label request.</t> <t>Label set.</t> </list></t> <ol spacing="normal" type="1" start="1" pn="section-2.5.1-2"> <li pn="section-2.5.1-2.1" derivedCounter="1.">IPV4-ADDRESS</li> <li pn="section-2.5.1-2.2" derivedCounter="2.">IPV6-ADDRESS</li> <li pn="section-2.5.1-2.3" derivedCounter="3.">UNNUMBERED-ENDPOINT</li> <li pn="section-2.5.1-2.4" derivedCounter="4.">LABEL-REQUEST</li> <li pn="section-2.5.1-2.5" derivedCounter="5.">LABEL-SET</li> </ol> <t pn="section-2.5.1-3"> TheLabel setLABEL-SET TLV is used to restrict or suggest the label allocation in the PCE. This TLV expresses the set of restrictionswhichthat may apply to signaling. Label restriction support can be an explicit or a suggested value(Label set(LABEL-SET describing one label, with the L bitrespectivelycleared orset),set, respectively), mandatory range restrictions(Label set(LABEL-SET with the L bitcleared)cleared), and optional range restriction(Label set(LABEL-SET with the L bit set). Endpoints label restriction may not be part of the RRO or IRO. They can be included when following <xref target="RFC4003"/>format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC4003"/> in signaling for the egress endpoint, but ingress endpoint properties can be local to the PCC and not signaled. To support thiscasecase, thelabel setLABEL-SET allows indication of whichlabellabels are used in case of reoptimization. The label range restrictions are valid in GMPLS-controlled networks, depending on eitherbythe PCC policy ordepending onthe switching technology used, forinstanceinstance, on a given Ethernet or ODU equipment having limited hardware capabilities restricting the label range. Label set restriction also applies to WSON networks where the optical senders and receivers are limited in their frequency tunability ranges, consequently restricting the possible label ranges on the interface in GMPLS. The END-POINTSObjectobject with the Generalized Endpoint object type is encoded asfollow:follows: </t><figure> <artwork><![CDATA[<artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt="" pn="section-2.5.1-4"> 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Reserved | Endpoint Type | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ TLVs ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+]]></artwork></figure> <t>Reserved<t pn="section-2.5.1-5">Reserved bitsSHOULD<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> be set to 0 when a message is sent and ignored when the message is received.</t><t>The<t pn="section-2.5.1-6">The values for the Endpoint Typeisfield are defined asfollow:</t> <texttable anchor='endpoints_generalized_endpoint-type' suppress-title='false' style='none' title='Generalizedfollows:</t> <table anchor="endpoints_generalized_endpoint-type" align="center" pn="table-4"> <name slugifiedName="name-generalized-endpoint-types">Generalized Endpointendpoint types'> <ttcol align='left'>Value</ttcol> <ttcol align='left'>Type</ttcol> <ttcol align='left'>Meaning</ttcol> <c>0</c><c>Point-to-Point</c><c></c> <c>1</c><c>Point-to-Multipoint</c><c>New leaves to add</c> <c>2</c><c></c><c>Old leaves to remove</c> <c>3</c><c></c><c>Old leaves whose path can be modified/reoptimized</c> <c>4</c><c></c><c>Old leaves whose path has to be</c> <c></c><c></c><c>left unchanged</c> <c>5-244</c><c>Reserved </c><c></c> <c>245-255</c><c>Experimental range</c><c></c> </texttable> <t>Types</name> <thead> <tr> <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Value</th> <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Type</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">0</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Point-to-Point</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">1</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Point-to-Multipoint with leaf type 1</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">2</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Point-to-Multipoint with leaf type 2</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">3</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Point-to-Multipoint with leaf type 3</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">4</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Point-to-Multipoint with leaf type 4</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">5-244</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Unassigned</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">245-255</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Experimental Use</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <t pn="section-2.5.1-8"> The Endpoint Type field is used to cover both point-to-point and different point-to-multipoint endpoints. A PCE mayacceptonlyEndpoint Type 0: Endpoint Typesaccept endpoint type 0; endpoint types 1-4 apply if the PCE implementation supports P2MP path calculation. The leaf types for P2MP are as per <xref target="RFC8306" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC8306"/>. A PCE not supporting a givenEndpoint Type SHOULDendpoint type <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> respond with a PCErr with Error-Type=4 (Not supportedobject), Error-value=TBA-15object) and Error-value=7 (Unsupported endpoint type in END-POINTS Generalized Endpoint object type). As per <xref target="RFC5440"/>,format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5440"/>, a PCE unable to process Generalized Endpoints may respond with Error-Type=3 (UnknownObject),Object) and Error-value=2 (Unrecognized objectType)type) or with Error-Type=4 (Not supportedobject),object) and Error-value=2 (Not supported object Type). The TLVs present in the request object bodyMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> follow thefollowinggrammar per <xreftarget='RFC5511' /> grammar: </t> <figure> <artwork><![CDATA[ <generalized-endpoint-tlvs>::= <p2p-endpoints>target="RFC5511" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5511"/>: </t> <sourcecode type="rbnf" markers="false" pn="section-2.5.1-9"> <generalized-endpoint-tlvs>::= <p2p-endpoints> |<p2mp-endpoints> <p2p-endpoints><p2mp-endpoints> <p2p-endpoints> ::=<endpoint> [<endpoint-restriction-list>] <endpoint> [<endpoint-restriction-list>] <p2mp-endpoints><endpoint> [<endpoint-restriction-list>] <endpoint> [<endpoint-restriction-list>] <p2mp-endpoints> ::=<endpoint> [<endpoint-restriction-list>] <endpoint> [<endpoint-restriction-list>] [<endpoint> [<endpoint-restriction-list>]]... ]]> </artwork> </figure> <t>For<endpoint> [<endpoint-restriction-list>] <endpoint> [<endpoint-restriction-list>] [<endpoint> [<endpoint-restriction-list>]]... </sourcecode> <t pn="section-2.5.1-10">For endpoint type Point-to-Point,2two endpoint TLVsMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be present in the message. The first endpoint is thesourcesource, and the second is the destination. </t><t>For<t pn="section-2.5.1-11">For endpoint type Point-to-Multipoint, severalEND-POINTEND-POINTS objectsMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> be present in themessagemessage, and the exact meaningdependingdepends on the endpoint type defined for the object. The first endpoint TLV is therootroot, and otherendpointsendpoint TLVs are the leaves. The root endpointMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be the same for all END-POINTS objects for that P2MP tree request. If the root endpoint is not the same for all END-POINTS, a PCErr with Error-Type=17 (P2MP END-POINTSError),Error) and Error-value=4 (The PCE cannot satisfy the request due to inconsistent END-POINTS)MUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be returned. The procedure defined in <xref target="RFC8306"/> Section 3.10sectionFormat="comma" section="3.10" format="default" derivedLink="https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8306#section-3.10" derivedContent="RFC8306"/> alsoapplyapplies to the Generalized Endpoint with Point-to-Multipoint endpoint types. </t><t>An<t pn="section-2.5.1-12">An endpoint is defined as follows:</t><figure> <artwork><![CDATA[ <endpoint>::=<IPV4-ADDRESS>|<IPV6-ADDRESS>|<UNNUMBERED-ENDPOINT> <endpoint-restriction-list><sourcecode type="" markers="false" pn="section-2.5.1-13"> <endpoint>::=<IPV4-ADDRESS>|<IPV6-ADDRESS>|<UNNUMBERED-ENDPOINT> <endpoint-restriction-list> ::=<endpoint-restriction> [<endpoint-restriction-list>] <endpoint-restriction><endpoint-restriction> [<endpoint-restriction-list>] <endpoint-restriction> ::=[<LABEL-REQUEST>][<label-restriction-list>] <label-restriction-list>[<LABEL-REQUEST>][<label-restriction-list>] <label-restriction-list> ::=<label-restriction> [<label-restriction-list>] <label-restriction><label-restriction> [<label-restriction-list>] <label-restriction> ::=<LABEL-SET> ]]></artwork> </figure> <t>The<LABEL-SET> </sourcecode> <t pn="section-2.5.1-14">The different TLVs are described in the following sections. A PCEMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> support any or all of the IPV4-ADDRESS, IPV6-ADDRESS, and UNNUMBERED-ENDPOINT TLVs. When receiving a PCReq, a PCE unable to resolve the identifier in one of those TLVsMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> respond by using a PCRep with NO-PATH andsetsetting the bit "Unknown destination" or "Unknown source" in the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV. The responseSHOULD<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> include the END-POINTS object with only the unsupported TLV(s). </t><t><t pn="section-2.5.1-15"> A PCEMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> support either or both of the LABEL-REQUEST and LABEL-SET TLVs. If a PCE finds a non-supported TLV in theEND-POINTSEND-POINTS, the PCEMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> respond with a PCErr message with Error-Type=4 (Not supported object) andError-value=TBA-15Error-value=8 (Unsupported TLV present in END-POINTS Generalized Endpoint objecttype)type), and the messageSHOULD<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> include the END-POINTS object in the response with only the endpoint and endpoint restriction TLV it did not understand. A PCE supporting those TLVs but not being able tofulfilfulfill the label restrictionMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> send a response with a NO-PATH objectwhichthat has the bit "No endpoint label resource" or "No endpoint label resource in range" set in the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV. The responseSHOULD<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> include an END-POINTS object containing only the TLV(s) related to the constraints the PCE could not meet. </t> </section><!--New ENDPOINTS ObjType : generalized --><sectiontitle="END-POINTSanchor="endpoints_tlvs" numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-2.5.2"> <name slugifiedName="name-end-points-tlv-extensions">END-POINTS TLVExtensions" anchor="endpoints_tlvs"> <t>AllExtensions</name> <t pn="section-2.5.2-1">All endpoint TLVs have the standard PCEP TLV header as defined in <xreftarget="RFC5440"/> Section 7.1.target="RFC5440" sectionFormat="comma" section="7.1" format="default" derivedLink="https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5440#section-7.1" derivedContent="RFC5440"/>. For the Generalized EndpointObject Typeobject type, the TLVsMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> follow the ordering defined in <xref target="endpoints_generalized"/>.format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 2.5.1"/>. </t> <sectiontitle="IPV4-ADDRESS TLV" anchor="endpoints_tlvs_ipv4"> <t>Thisanchor="endpoints_tlvs_ipv4" numbered="true" toc="exclude" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-2.5.2.1"> <name slugifiedName="name-ipv4-address-tlv">IPV4-ADDRESS TLV</name> <t pn="section-2.5.2.1-1">The IPV4-ADDRESS TLV (Type 39) represents a numbered endpoint using IPv4numbering, thenumbering. The format of theIPv4-ADDRESSTLV value(TLV-Type=TBA-6)is as follows: </t><figure> <artwork><![CDATA[<artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt="" pn="section-2.5.2.1-2"> 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IPv4 address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+]]></artwork> </figure> <t></artwork> <t pn="section-2.5.2.1-3"> This TLVMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> be ignored, in which case a PCRep with NO-PATHSHOULD<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> be returned, as described in <xref target="endpoints_generalized"/>.format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 2.5.1"/>. </t> </section> <sectiontitle="IPV6-ADDRESS TLV" anchor="endpoints_tlvs_ipv6"> <t>Thisanchor="endpoints_tlvs_ipv6" numbered="true" toc="exclude" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-2.5.2.2"> <name slugifiedName="name-ipv6-address-tlv">IPV6-ADDRESS TLV</name> <t pn="section-2.5.2.2-1">The IPv6-ADDRESS TLV (Type 40) represents a numbered endpoint using IPV6numbering, thenumbering. The format of theIPv6-ADDRESSTLV value(TLV-Type=TBA-7)is as follows: </t><figure> <artwork><![CDATA[<artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt="" pn="section-2.5.2.2-2"> 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IPv6 address (16 bytes) | | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+]]></artwork> </figure> <t></artwork> <t pn="section-2.5.2.2-3"> This TLVMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> be ignored, in which case a PCRep with NO-PATHSHOULD<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> be returned, as described in <xref target="endpoints_generalized"/>.format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 2.5.1"/>. </t> </section> <sectiontitle="UNNUMBERED-ENDPOINT TLV" anchor="endpoints_tlvs_unnumbered-if"> <t>Thisanchor="endpoints_tlvs_unnumbered-if" numbered="true" toc="exclude" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-2.5.2.3"> <name slugifiedName="name-unnumbered-endpoint-tlv">UNNUMBERED-ENDPOINT TLV</name> <t pn="section-2.5.2.3-1">The UNNUMBERED-ENDPOINT TLV (Type 41) represents an unnumbered interface. This TLV has the same semantic as in <xreftarget="RFC3477"/>.target="RFC3477" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC3477"/>. The TLV value is encoded asfollows (TLV-Type=TBA-8)follows: </t><figure> <artwork><![CDATA[<artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt="" pn="section-2.5.2.3-2"> 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | LSR's Router ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Interface ID (32 bits) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+]]></artwork> </figure> <t></artwork> <t pn="section-2.5.2.3-3"> This TLVMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> be ignored, in which case a PCRep with NO-PATHSHOULD<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> be returned, as described in <xref target="endpoints_generalized"/>.format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 2.5.1"/>. </t> </section> <sectiontitle="LABEL-REQUEST TLV" anchor="endpoints_tlvs_label-request"> <t>Theanchor="endpoints_tlvs_label-request" numbered="true" toc="exclude" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-2.5.2.4"> <name slugifiedName="name-label-request-tlv">LABEL-REQUEST TLV</name> <t pn="section-2.5.2.4-1">The LABEL-REQUEST TLV (Type 42) indicates the switching capability and encoding type of the following label restriction list for the endpoint. The value format and encoding is the same as described in <xreftarget="RFC3471"></xref> Section 3.1target="RFC3471" sectionFormat="of" section="3.1" format="default" derivedLink="https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3471#section-3.1" derivedContent="RFC3471"/> for the Generalizedlabel request. The LABEL-REQUEST TLV uses TLV-Type=TBA-9.Label Request. The LSP Encoding Type field indicates the encoding type, e.g.,SONET/SDH/GigESONET, SDH, GigE, etc., of the LSP with which the data is associated. The SwitchingtypeType field indicates the type of switching that is being requested on the endpoint.G-PIDThe Generalized Protocol Identifier (G-PID) field identifies the payload. This TLV and the following one are defined to satisfy requirement 13ofin <xreftarget="RFC7025"/>target="RFC7025" sectionFormat="of" section="3.1" format="default" derivedLink="https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7025#section-3.1" derivedContent="RFC7025"/> for the endpoint. It is not directly related to the TE-LSP label request, which is expressed by the SWITCH-LAYER object.</t><t><t pn="section-2.5.2.4-2"> On the path calculationrequestrequest, only the GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH and SWITCH-LAYER need to becoherent,coherent; the endpoint labels could be different (supporting a different LABEL-REQUEST).HenceHence, the label restrictions include a Generalizedlabel requestLabel Request in order to interpret the labels. This TLVMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> be ignored, in which case a PCRep with NO-PATHSHOULD<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> be returned, as described in <xref target="endpoints_generalized"/>.format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 2.5.1"/>. </t> </section> <sectiontitle="LABEL-SET TLV" anchor="endpoints_tlvs_labels"> <t>Labelanchor="endpoints_tlvs_labels" numbered="true" toc="exclude" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-2.5.2.5"> <name slugifiedName="name-label-set-tlv">LABEL-SET TLV</name> <t pn="section-2.5.2.5-1">Label or label range restrictions can be specified for the TE-LSP endpoints. Those are encoded using the LABEL-SET TLV. The label valueneedneeds to be interpreted with a description on theEncodingencoding and switching type. The REQ-ADAP-CAP objectfrom<xreftarget="RFC8282"></xref>target="RFC8282" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC8282"/> can be used in case of a mono-layerrequest, howeverrequest; however, in case ofmultilayera multi-layer request, it is possible to have more than one object, so it is better to have a dedicated TLV for the label and label request. These TLVsMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> be ignored, in which case a response with NO-PATHSHOULD<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> be returned, as described in <xref target="endpoints_generalized"/>. TLVs areformat="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 2.5.1"/>. Per <xref target="RFC5440" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5440"/>, the LABEL-SET TLV is encoded asfollows (following <xref target="RFC5440"></xref>): </t> <t><list style='symbols'> <t>LABEL-SET TLV, Type=TBA-10.follows. The type of the LABEL-SET TLV is 43. The TLV Length is variable,Encodingand the value encoding follows <xreftarget="RFC3471"></xref> Section 3.5 "Label set"target="RFC3471" sectionFormat="of" section="3.5" format="default" derivedLink="https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3471#section-3.5" derivedContent="RFC3471"/>, with the addition of a U bit, Obitbit, and L bit. The L bit is used to represent a suggested set of labels, following the semantic ofSUGGESTED_LABELSuggested Label as defined by <xreftarget="RFC3471"></xref>. <figure> <artwork><![CDATA[target="RFC3471" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC3471"/>. </t> <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt="" pn="section-2.5.2.5-2"> 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Action | Reserved |L|O|U| Label Type | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Subchannel 1 | | ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ : : : : : : +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Subchannel N | | ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+]]></artwork> </figure></t> </list> </t> <t></artwork> <t pn="section-2.5.2.5-3"> A LABEL-SET TLV represents a set of possible labels that can be used on an interface. If the L bit is cleared, the label allocated on the first endpointMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be within the label set range. TheactionAction parameter in theLabel setLABEL-SET indicates the type of list provided. These parameters are described by <xreftarget="RFC3471"></xref> Section 3.5.1.target="RFC3471" sectionFormat="comma" section="3.5.1" format="default" derivedLink="https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3471#section-3.5.1" derivedContent="RFC3471"/>. </t><t><t pn="section-2.5.2.5-4"> The U,OO, and L bitshave the following meaning:are defined as follows: </t><texttable anchor='endpoints_tlvs_labels_bits' suppress-title='true' style='none' title='Labels TLV bits'> <ttcol align='center'></ttcol> <ttcol align='left'></ttcol> <c>U:</c><c>Upstream direction: The U bit is set<ul spacing="normal" empty="true" bare="false" pn="section-2.5.2.5-5"> <li pn="section-2.5.2.5-5.1"> <dl spacing="normal" newline="false" pn="section-2.5.2.5-5.1.1"> <dt pn="section-2.5.2.5-5.1.1.1">U:</dt> <dd pn="section-2.5.2.5-5.1.1.2">Upstream direction. Set for the upstream(revers)(reverse) direction in case of bidirectionalLSP.</c> <c>O:</c><c>Old Label: setLSP.</dd> <dt pn="section-2.5.2.5-5.1.1.3">O:</dt> <dd pn="section-2.5.2.5-5.1.1.4">Old label. Set when the TLVrepresentrepresents the old (previously allocated) label in case ofre-optimization.reoptimization. The R bit of the RP objectMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be set to 1. If the L bit is set, this bitSHOULD<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> be set to 0 and ignored on receipt. When this bit is set, the Action fieldMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be set to 0 (InclusiveList)List), and theLabel Set MUSTLABEL-SET <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> contain onesubchannel.</c> <c>L:</c><c>Loose Label: setsubchannel.</dd> <dt pn="section-2.5.2.5-5.1.1.5">L:</dt> <dd pn="section-2.5.2.5-5.1.1.6">Loose label. Set when the TLV indicates to the PCE that a set of preferred (ordered) labels are to be used. The PCEMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> use those labels for label allocation.</c> </texttable> <t></dd> </dl> </li> </ul> <t pn="section-2.5.2.5-6"> Several LABEL_SET TLVsMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> be present with the O bitcleared,cleared; LABEL_SET TLVs with the L bit set can be combined with a LABEL_SET TLV with the L bit cleared. ThereMUST NOT<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> be more than two LABEL_SET TLVs present with the O bit set. If there are two LABEL_SET TLVs present, thereMUST NOT<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> be more than one with the U bit set, and thereMUST NOT<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> be more than one with the U bit cleared. For a given U bit value, if more than one LABEL_SET TLV with the O bit set is present, the first TLVMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> beprocessedprocessed, and the following TLVswiththat have the same U and Obit MUSTbits <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be ignored. </t><t><t pn="section-2.5.2.5-7"> A LABEL-SET TLV with the O and Lbitbits setMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> trigger a PCErr message with Error-Type=10 (Reception of an invalid object)Error-value=TBA-25and Error-value=29 (Wrong LABEL-SET TLV present with O and Lbitbits set). </t><t><t pn="section-2.5.2.5-8"> A LABEL-SET TLVwiththat has the O bit set and an ActionFieldfield not set to 0 (Inclusivelist)List) orcontainingthat contains more than one subchannelMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> trigger a PCErr message with Error-Type=10 (Reception of an invalid object)Error-value=TBA-26and Error-value=30 (Wrong LABEL-SET TLV present with O bit set and wrong format). </t><t>If<t pn="section-2.5.2.5-9">If a LABEL-SET TLV is present with the O bit set, the R bit of the RP objectMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> beset, otherwiseset; otherwise, a PCErr messageMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be sent with Error-Type=10 (Reception of an invalid object)Error-value=TBA-24and Error-value=28 (LABEL-SET TLV present with O bit set but without R bit set in RP).</t> </section><!-- end Label TLV --></section><!-- ENDPOINTS TLVs extensions --></section><!-- ENDPOINTS extensions --> <!-- IRO extension --><sectiontitle="IRO Extension" anchor="iro-label"> <t>Theanchor="iro-label" numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-2.6"> <name slugifiedName="name-iro-extension">IRO Extension</name> <t pn="section-2.6-1">The IRO as defined in <xref target="RFC5440"/>format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5440"/> is used to include specific objects in the path. RSVP-TE allows the inclusion of a label definition. In order to fulfill requirement 13ofin <xreftarget="RFC7025"/>target="RFC7025" sectionFormat="of" section="3.1" format="default" derivedLink="https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7025#section-3.1" derivedContent="RFC7025"/>, the IRO needs to support the new subobject type as defined in <xref target="RFC3473"/>: </t> <texttable suppress-title='true' style='none' > <ttcol align='left'></ttcol> <ttcol align='left'></ttcol> <c>Type</c><c>Sub-object </c> <c>TBA-38</c><c> LABEL</c> </texttable> <t>Theformat="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC3473"/>: </t> <table align="center" pn="table-5"> <thead> <tr> <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Type</th> <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Subobject</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">10</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Label</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <t pn="section-2.6-3">The Label subobjectMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> follow a subobject identifying a link, currently an IP address subobject (Type 1 or 2) or an interface ID(type(Type 4) subobject. If an IP address subobject is used, then the given IP addressMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be associated with a link. More than onelabelLabel subobjectMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> follow eachlink subobject.subobject identifying a link. The procedure associated with this subobject is as follows. </t><t><t pn="section-2.6-4"> If the PCE is able to allocate labels (e.g., via explicit labelcontrol)control), the PCEMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> allocate one label from within the set of label values for the given link. If the PCE does not assign labels, then it sends a response with a NO-PATH object, containing a NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV with the bit'No"No label resource inrange'range" set. </t> </section><!-- End IRO --> <!-- XRO extension --><sectiontitle="XRO Extension" anchor="xro-label"> <t>Theanchor="xro-label" numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-2.7"> <name slugifiedName="name-xro-extension">XRO Extension</name> <t pn="section-2.7-1">The XRO as defined in <xref target="RFC5521"/>format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5521"/> is used to exclude specific objects in the path. RSVP-TE allows the exclusion of certain labels(<xref target="RFC6001"/>).<xref target="RFC6001" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC6001"/>. In order to fulfill requirement 13ofin <xref target="RFC7025"/> Section 3.1,sectionFormat="of" section="3.1" format="default" derivedLink="https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7025#section-3.1" derivedContent="RFC7025"/>, the PCEP's XRO needs to support a new subobject to enable label exclusion.</t><t><t pn="section-2.7-2"> The encoding of the XRO Label subobject follows the encoding of theLabelERO Label subobject defined in <xref target="RFC3473"/>format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC3473"/> and the XRO subobject defined in <xref target="RFC5521"/>.format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5521"/>. The XRO Label subobjectrepresent(Type 10) represents oneLabellabel and is defined as follows: </t><figure> <preamble>XRO Subobject Type TBA-39: Label Subobject.</preamble> <artwork><![CDATA[<artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt="" pn="section-2.7-3"> 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |X|Type=TBA-39Type=10 | Length |U| Reserved | C-Type | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Label | | ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+]]></artwork> </figure> <t> <list style='empty'> <t>X</artwork> <dl newline="false" spacing="normal" pn="section-2.7-4"> <dt pn="section-2.7-4.1">X (1bit): as perbit):</dt> <dd pn="section-2.7-4.2">See <xref target="RFC5521"/>.format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5521"/>. TheX-bitX bit indicates whether the exclusion is mandatory or desired. 0 indicates that the resource specifiedMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be excluded from the path computed by the PCE. 1 indicates that the resource specifiedSHOULD<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> be excluded from the path computed by the PCE, butMAYit <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> be included subject to the PCE policy and the absence of a viable path that meets the other constraints and excludes theresource. </t> <t>Typeresource.</dd> <dt pn="section-2.7-4.3">Type (7bits): The Typebits):</dt> <dd pn="section-2.7-4.4">The type of the XRO Label subobject isTBA-39<!--, suggested value 3-->.</t> <t>Length10.</dd> <dt pn="section-2.7-4.5">Length (8bits): seebits):</dt> <dd pn="section-2.7-4.6">See <xref target="RFC5521"/>, theformat="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5521"/>. The total length of the subobject in bytes (including the Type and Length fields). TheLengthlength is always divisible by4.</t> <t>U4.</dd> <dt pn="section-2.7-4.7">U (1bit): seebit):</dt> <dd pn="section-2.7-4.8">See <xref target="RFC3471"/> Section 6.1.</t> <t>C-TypesectionFormat="comma" section="6.1" format="default" derivedLink="https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3471#section-6.1" derivedContent="RFC3471"/>.</dd> <dt pn="section-2.7-4.9">C-Type (8bits): thebits):</dt> <dd pn="section-2.7-4.10">The C-Type of the included LabelObjectobject as defined in <xref target="RFC3473"/>.</t> <t>Label: seeformat="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC3473"/>.</dd> <dt pn="section-2.7-4.11">Label:</dt> <dd pn="section-2.7-4.12">See <xref target="RFC3471"/>.</t> </list>format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC3471"/>.</dd> </dl> <t pn="section-2.7-5"> The Label subobjectMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> follow a subobject identifying a link, currently an IP address subobject (Type 1 or 2) or an interface ID(type(Type 4) subobject. If an IP address subobject is used,thenthe given IP addressMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be associated with a link. More than one label subobjectMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> followeach link subobject.a subobject identifying a link. </t><texttable suppress-title='true' style='none' > <ttcol align='left'></ttcol> <ttcol align='left'></ttcol> <c>Type</c><c>Sub-object </c> <c>3</c><c>LABEL</c> </texttable> </section> <!-- End XRO--><table align="center" pn="table-6"> <thead> <tr> <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Type</th> <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Subobject</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">10</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Label</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </section> <sectiontitle="LSPA Extensions" anchor="lspa"> <t>anchor="lspa" numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-2.8"> <name slugifiedName="name-lspa-extensions">LSPA Extensions</name> <t pn="section-2.8-1"> The LSPA carries the LSP attributes. In the end-to-end recovery context, this also includes the protection state information. A new TLV is defined tofulfilfulfill requirement 7ofin <xref target="RFC7025"/> Section 3.1sectionFormat="of" section="3.1" format="default" derivedLink="https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7025#section-3.1" derivedContent="RFC7025"/> and requirement 3ofin <xref target="RFC7025"/> Section 3.2.sectionFormat="of" section="3.2" format="default" derivedLink="https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7025#section-3.2" derivedContent="RFC7025"/>. This TLV contains the information of the PROTECTION object defined by <xreftarget="RFC4872"/>target="RFC4872" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC4872"/> and can be used as a policy input. The LSPA objectMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> carry a PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV (Type 44), which is definedas: Type TBA-12: PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE</t> <figure> <artwork><![CDATA[as follows:</t> <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt="" pn="section-2.8-2"> 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |S|P|N|O| Reserved | LSP Flags | Reserved | Link Flags| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |I|R| Reserved | Seg.Flags | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+]]></artwork> <postamble>The</artwork> <t pn="section-2.8-3">The content is as defined in <xreftarget="RFC4872"></xref> Section 14,target="RFC4872" sectionFormat="comma" section="14" format="default" derivedLink="https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4872#section-14" derivedContent="RFC4872"/> and <xreftarget="RFC4873"></xref> Section 6.1.</postamble> </figure> <t>LSPtarget="RFC4873" sectionFormat="comma" section="6.1" format="default" derivedLink="https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4873#section-6.1" derivedContent="RFC4873"/>.</t> <t pn="section-2.8-4">The LSP (protection) Flags field or the LinkflagsFlags field can be used by a PCE implementation for routing policy input. The other attributes are only meaningful for a stateful PCE.</t><t>This<t pn="section-2.8-5">This TLV isOPTIONAL<bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14> andMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> be ignored by the PCE. If ignored by the PCE, itMUST NOT<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> include the TLV in the LSPA of the response. When the TLV is used by the PCE,aan LSPA object and the PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLVMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be included in the response. Fields that were not consideredMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be set to 0. </t> </section> <sectiontitle="NO-PATHnumbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-2.9"> <name slugifiedName="name-no-path-object-extension">NO-PATH ObjectExtension"> <t>Extension</name> <t pn="section-2.9-1"> The NO-PATH object is used in PCRep messages in response to an unsuccessfulpath computation requestPath Computation Request (the PCE could not find a path satisfying the set of constraints). In this scenario, the PCEMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> include a NO-PATH object in the PCRep message. The NO-PATH objectMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> carry the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV that specifies more information on the reasons that led to a negative reply. In case of GMPLSnetworksnetworks, there could be some additional constraints that led to the failure such as protection mismatch, lack of resources, and so on. Several new flags have been defined in the 32-bitflagFlag field of the NO-PATH-VECTORTLVTLV, but no modifications have been made in the NO-PATH object. </t> <sectiontitle="Extensionsanchor="no-path_bits" numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-2.9.1"> <name slugifiedName="name-extensions-to-no-path-vecto">Extensions to NO-PATH-VECTORTLV" anchor="no-path_bits"> <t>TLV</name> <t pn="section-2.9.1-1"> The modified NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV carrying the additional information is as follows:<list> <t>Bit</t> <ul empty="true" spacing="normal" bare="false" pn="section-2.9.1-2"> <li pn="section-2.9.1-2.1"> <dl spacing="normal" newline="false" pn="section-2.9.1-2.1.1"> <dt pn="section-2.9.1-2.1.1.1">Bit numberTBA-32 - Protection18:</dt> <dd pn="section-2.9.1-2.1.1.2">Protection Mismatch(1-bit).(1 bit). Specifies the mismatch of the protection type in the PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV in the request.</t> <t>Bit</dd> <dt pn="section-2.9.1-2.1.1.3">Bit numberTBA-33 - No17:</dt> <dd pn="section-2.9.1-2.1.1.4">No Resource(1-bit).(1 bit). Specifies that the resources are not currently sufficient to provide the path.</t> <t>Bit</dd> <dt pn="section-2.9.1-2.1.1.5">Bit numberTBA-34 - Granularity16:</dt> <dd pn="section-2.9.1-2.1.1.6">Granularity not supported(1-bit).(1 bit). Specifies that the PCE is not able to provide a path with the requested granularity.</t> <t>Bit</dd> <dt pn="section-2.9.1-2.1.1.7">Bit numberTBA-35 - No15:</dt> <dd pn="section-2.9.1-2.1.1.8">No endpoint label resource(1-bit).(1 bit). Specifies that the PCE is not able to provide a path because of the endpoint labelrestriction. </t> <t>Bitrestriction.</dd> <dt pn="section-2.9.1-2.1.1.9">Bit numberTBA-36 - No14:</dt> <dd pn="section-2.9.1-2.1.1.10">No endpoint label resource in range(1-bit).(1 bit). Specifies that the PCE is not able to provide a path because of the endpoint label set restriction.</t> <t>Bit</dd> <dt pn="section-2.9.1-2.1.1.11">Bit numberTBA-37 - No13:</dt> <dd pn="section-2.9.1-2.1.1.12">No label resource in range(1-bit).(1 bit). Specifies that the PCE is not able to provide a path because of the label setrestriction. </t> </list> </t>restriction.</dd> <dt pn="section-2.9.1-2.1.1.13">Bit number 12:</dt> <dd pn="section-2.9.1-2.1.1.14">LOAD-BALANCING could not be performed with the bandwidth constraints (1 bit). Specifies that the PCE is not able to provide a path because it could not map the BANDWIDTH into the parameters specified by the LOAD-BALANCING.</dd> </dl> </li> </ul> </section><!-- NO-Path vector TLV --></section><!-- end NO-PATH --></section><!-- End PCEP Object and Extensions--><sectiontitle="Additionalanchor="error-codes" numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-3"> <name slugifiedName="name-additional-error-types-and-">Additional Error-Types and Error-ValuesDefined" anchor="error-codes"> <t>Defined</name> <t pn="section-3-1"> A PCEP-ERROR object is used to report a PCEP error and is characterized by an Error-Type that specifies the type of errorwhileand an Error-value that provides additional information about the error. An additionalerror typeError-Type and severalerror valuesError-values are defined to represent some of the errors related to the newly identifiedobjectsobjects, which are related to GMPLS networks. For each PCEP error, an Error-Type and an Error-value are defined.Error-TypeError-Types 1 to 10 are already defined in <xreftarget="RFC5440"></xref>.target="RFC5440" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5440"/>. Additional Error-values are defined for Error-Types 4 and 10. A new Error-Type 29 (Path computation failure) is defined(value TBA-27).in this document. </t><t> The<t pn="section-3-2"> Error-TypeTBA-27 (path29 (Path computation failure) is used to reflect constraints not understood by the PCE, forinstanceinstance, when the PCE is not able to understand thegeneralizedGeneralized bandwidth. If the constraints are understood, but the PCE is unable to findwiththose constraints,theNO-PATH is to be used. </t><texttable suppress-title='true' style='none'> <ttcol align='center' width="4%">Error-Type</ttcol> <ttcol align='left' width="14%">Error-value</ttcol> <ttcol align='left' width="53%"></ttcol> <c>4</c><c>Not<table align="center" pn="table-7"> <thead> <tr> <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Error-Type</th> <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Meaning</th> <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Error-value</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">4</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Not supported object</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">6: BANDWIDTH object</c><c></c> <c></c><c>value=TBA-14:</c><c>Bandwidth ObjecttypeTBA-23 orTBA-34 notsupported</c> <c></c><c>value=TBA-15:</c><c>Unsupportedsupported</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">7: Unsupported endpoint type in</c> <c></c><c></c><c>END-POINTSEND-POINTS GeneralizedEndpoint</c> <c></c><c></c><c>object type</c> <c></c><c>value=TBA-16:</c><c>UnsupportedEndpoint object type</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">8: Unsupported TLV present in END-POINTS Generalized Endpoint objecttype</c> <c></c><c>value=TBA-17:</c><c>Unsupportedtype</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">9: Unsupported granularity in the RP objectflags</c> <c>10</c><c>Receptionflags</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">10</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Reception of an invalidobject</c><c></c> <c></c><c>value=TBA-18:</c><c>Bad Bandwidth Objectobject </td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">24: Bad BANDWIDTH object typeTBA-2(Generalized bandwidth)3 orTBA-3( Generalized bandwidth of existing TE-LSP for which a reoptimization is requested)</c> <c></c><c>value=TBA-20:</c><c>Unsupported4</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">25: Unsupported LSP Protection Flags in PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTETLV</c> <c></c><c>value=TBA-21:</c><c>UnsupportedTLV</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">26: Unsupported Secondary LSP Protection Flags in PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTETLV</c> <c></c><c>value=TBA-22:</c><c>UnsupportedTLV</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">27: Unsupported Link Protection Type in PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTETLV</c> <c></c><c>value=TBA-24:</c><c>LABEL-SETTLV</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">28: LABEL-SET TLV present with0O bit set but without R bit set inRP</c> <c></c><c>value=TBA-25:</c><c>Wrong LABEL-SET</c> <c></c><c></c><c>TLVRP</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">29: Wrong LABEL-SET TLV presentwith</c> <c></c><c></c><c>0with O and Lbit set</c> <c></c><c>value=TBA-26:</c><c>Wrongbits set</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">30: Wrong LABEL-SET TLV present with O bit set and wrongformat</c> <c></c><c>value=TBA-42:</c><c>Missingformat</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">31: Missing GMPLS-CAPABILITYTLV</c> <c>TBA-27</c><c>PathTLV</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">29</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Path computationfailure</c><c></c> <c></c><c>value=0:</c><c>Unassigned</c> <c></c><c>value=TBA-28:</c><c>Unacceptablefailure</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">0: Unassigned</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">1: Unacceptable requestmessage</c> <c></c><c>value=TBA-29:</c><c>Generalizedmessage</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">2: Generalized bandwidth value notsupported</c> <c></c><c>value=TBA-30:</c><c>Label Setsupported</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">3: Label set constraint could notbe</c> <c></c><c></c><c>met</c> <c></c><c>value=TBA-31:</c><c>Labelbe met</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">4: Label constraint could notbe</c> <c></c><c></c><c>met</c> </texttable>be met</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </section> <sectiontitle="Manageability Considerations"> <t>Thisnumbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-4"> <name slugifiedName="name-manageability-consideration">Manageability Considerations</name> <t pn="section-4-1">This section follows the guidance of <xref target="RFC6123"/>.</t>format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC6123"/>.</t> <sectiontitle="Controlnumbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-4.1"> <name slugifiedName="name-control-of-function-through">Control of Function through Configuration andPolicy"> <t>Policy</name> <t pn="section-4.1-1"> This document makes no change to the basic operation ofPCEP andPCEP, so the requirements described in <xref target="RFC5440"/> Section 8.1.sectionFormat="comma" section="8.1" format="default" derivedLink="https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5440#section-8.1" derivedContent="RFC5440"/> also apply to this document. In addition to thoserequirementsrequirements, a PCEP implementation may allow the configuration of the following parameters:<list> <t>Accepted</t> <ul empty="false" spacing="normal" bare="false" pn="section-4.1-2"> <li pn="section-4.1-2.1">Accepted RG in the RPobject.</t> <t>Defaultobject.</li> <li pn="section-4.1-2.2">Default RG to use (overriding the one present in thePCReq)</t> <t>AcceptedPCReq).</li> <li pn="section-4.1-2.3">Accepted BANDWIDTH object typeTBA-23 andTBA-34 parameters inrequest,the request and default mapping to use when not specified in therequest</t> <t>Acceptedrequest.</li> <li pn="section-4.1-2.4">Accepted LOAD-BALANCING object typeTBA-42 parameters inrequest.</t> <t>Acceptedrequest.</li> <li pn="section-4.1-2.5">Accepted endpoint type and allowed TLVs in object END-POINTS with the object type GeneralizedEndpoint.</t> <t>AcceptedEndpoint.</li> <li pn="section-4.1-2.6">Accepted range for label restrictions inlabel restriction in END-POINTS, or IROEND-POINTS orXRO objects</t> <t>PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV acceptanceIRO/XRO objects.</li> <li pn="section-4.1-2.7">Acceptance andsuppression.</t> </list>suppression of the PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV.</li> </ul> <t pn="section-4.1-3"> The configuration of the above parameters is applicable to the different sessions as described in <xref target="RFC5440"/> Section 8.1sectionFormat="comma" section="8.1" format="default" derivedLink="https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5440#section-8.1" derivedContent="RFC5440"/> (by default, per PCEP peer, etc.). </t> </section> <sectiontitle="Informationnumbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-4.2"> <name slugifiedName="name-information-and-data-models">Information and DataModels"> <t>Models</name> <t pn="section-4.2-1"> This document makes no change to the basic operation ofPCEP andPCEP, so the requirements described in <xref target="RFC5440"/> Section 8.2.sectionFormat="comma" section="8.2" format="default" derivedLink="https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5440#section-8.2" derivedContent="RFC5440"/> also apply to this document. This document does not introduce any new EROsub objects, so that the,subobjects; the ERO information model is already covered in <xreftarget="RFC4802"/>.target="RFC4802" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC4802"/>. </t> </section> <sectiontitle="Livenessnumbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-4.3"> <name slugifiedName="name-liveness-detection-and-moni">Liveness Detection andMonitoring"> <t>Monitoring</name> <t pn="section-4.3-1"> This document makes no change to the basic operation ofPCEP andPCEP, so there are no changes to the requirements for liveness detection and monitoringset outin <xref target="RFC4657"/>format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC4657"/> and <xref target="RFC5440"/> Section 8.3.sectionFormat="comma" section="8.3" format="default" derivedLink="https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5440#section-8.3" derivedContent="RFC5440"/>. </t> </section> <sectiontitle="Verifyingnumbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-4.4"> <name slugifiedName="name-verifying-correct-operation">Verifying CorrectOperation"> <t>Operation</name> <t pn="section-4.4-1"> This document makes no change to the basic operations of PCEP and the considerations described in <xref target="RFC5440"/> Section 8.4.sectionFormat="comma" section="8.4" format="default" derivedLink="https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5440#section-8.4" derivedContent="RFC5440"/>. New errors defined by this document should satisfy the requirement to log error events. </t> </section> <sectiontitle="Requirementsnumbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-4.5"> <name slugifiedName="name-requirements-on-other-proto">Requirements on Other Protocols and FunctionalComponents"> <t>NoComponents</name> <t pn="section-4.5-1">No newRequirementsrequirements onOther Protocolsother protocols andFunctional Componentsfunctional components are made by this document. This document does not require ERO object extensions. Any new ERO subobject defined in the TEAS or CCAMPworking groupWorking Groups can be adopted without modifying the operations defined in this document. </t> </section> <sectiontitle="Impactnumbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-4.6"> <name slugifiedName="name-impact-on-network-operation">Impact on NetworkOperation"> <t>ThisOperation</name> <t pn="section-4.6-1">This document makes no change to the basic operations of PCEP and the considerations described in <xref target="RFC5440"/> Section 8.6.sectionFormat="comma" section="8.6" format="default" derivedLink="https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5440#section-8.6" derivedContent="RFC5440"/>. In addition to the limit on the rate of messages sent by a PCEP speaker, a limitMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> be placed on the size of the PCEP messages. </t> </section> </section> <sectiontitle="IANA Considerations"> <t>numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-5"> <name slugifiedName="name-iana-considerations">IANA Considerations</name> <t pn="section-5-1"> IANA assigns values tothePCEP objects and TLVs. IANAis requested to make some allocationshas made allocations for the newly defined objects and TLVs defined in this document.Also,In addition, IANAis requested to managemanages the space of flags thatarehave been newly added in the TLVs. </t> <sectiontitle="PCEP Objects"> <t>As describednumbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-5.1"> <name slugifiedName="name-pcep-objects">PCEP Objects</name> <t pn="section-5.1-1">New object types are defined in Sections <xreftarget="generalized-bandwidth"/>, <xref target="generalized-load-balancing"/>target="generalized-bandwidth" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="2.3"/>, <xref target="generalized-load-balancing" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="2.4"/>, and <xref target="endpoints_generalized"/> new Objects types are defined.format="counter" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="2.5.1"/>. IANAis requested to makehas made the following Object-Type allocationsfromin the "PCEP Objects"sub-registry.subregistry. </t><texttable suppress-title='true' style='none' anchor='iana_gen_bw'> <ttcol align='left'></ttcol> <ttcol align='left'></ttcol> <c>Object Class</c><c>5</c> <c>Name</c><c> BANDWIDTH</c> <c>Object-Type</c><c>TBA-2:<table anchor="iana_gen_bw" align="center" pn="table-8"> <thead> <tr> <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Object-Class Value</th> <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Name</th> <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Object-Type</th> <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Reference</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">5</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">BANDWIDTH</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">3: Generalizedbandwidth </c> <c> </c><c>TBA-3:bandwidth</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">RFC 8779, <xref target="generalized-bandwidth" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 2.3"/></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">4: Generalized bandwidth of an existing TE-LSP for which a reoptimization isrequested </c> <c>Reference</c><c>This document (<xref target="generalized-bandwidth"></xref>)</c> <c /><c /> <c>Object Class</c><c>14</c> <c>Name</c><c> LOAD-BALANCING</c> <c>Object-Type</c><c>TBA-4:requested</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">RFC 8779, <xref target="generalized-bandwidth" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 2.3"/></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">14</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">LOAD-BALANCING</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">2: Generalized LoadBalancing </c> <c /><c /> <c>Reference</c><c>This document (<xref target="generalized-load-balancing"></xref>)</c> <c>Object Class</c><c>4</c> <c>Name</c><c> END-POINTS</c> <c>Object-Type</c><c>TBA-5:Balancing</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">RFC 8779, <xref target="generalized-load-balancing" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 2.4"/></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">4</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">END-POINTS</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">5: GeneralizedEndpoint </c> <c>Reference</c><c>This document (<xref target="endpoints_extensions"></xref>)</c> </texttable>Endpoint</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">RFC 8779, <xref target="endpoints_extensions" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 2.5"/></td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </section><!-- End New PCEP Objects--><sectiontitle="Endpoint type fieldnumbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-5.2"> <name slugifiedName="name-endpoint-type-field-in-the-">Endpoint Type Field in the Generalized END-POINTSObject"> <t>IANA is requested to createObject</name> <t pn="section-5.2-1">IANA has created a new "Generalized Endpoint Types" registry to manage the Endpoint Type field of the END-POINTS object,Object Typethe object type GeneralizedEndpointEndpoint, andmanagethe code space.</t><t>New<t pn="section-5.2-2">New endpointtypetypes in theReservedUnassigned range are assigned by Standards Action <xreftarget="RFC8126"/>.target="RFC8126" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC8126"/>. Each endpoint type should be tracked with the following attributes:<list style='symbols'> <t>Endpoint type</t> <t>Description</t> <t>Defining RFC</t> </list></t><t>New<ul spacing="normal" bare="false" empty="false" pn="section-5.2-3"> <li pn="section-5.2-3.1">Value</li> <li pn="section-5.2-3.2">Type</li> <li pn="section-5.2-3.3">Defining RFC</li> </ul> <t pn="section-5.2-4">New endpointtypetypes in the Experimental Use rangeare for experimental use; thesewill not be registered with IANA andMUST NOT<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> be mentioned by any RFCs.</t><t>The<t pn="section-5.2-5">The following valueshave beenare defined by thisdocument. (<xref target="endpoints_generalized"></xref>,document (see <xref target="endpoints_generalized_endpoint-type"/>):</t> <texttable suppress-title='true' style='none'> <ttcol align='left'>Value</ttcol> <ttcol align='left'>Type</ttcol> <ttcol align='left'>Meaning</ttcol> <c>0</c><c>Point-to-Point</c> <c></c> <c>1</c><c>Point-to-Multipoint</c><c>New leaves to add</c> <c>2</c><c></c> <c>Old leaves to remove</c> <c>3</c><c></c> <c>Old leaves whose path can be modified/reoptimized</c> <c>4</c><c></c> <c>Old leaves whose path has to be</c> <c></c><c></c> <c>left unchanged</c> <c>5-244</c><c>Unassigned</c><c></c> <c>245-255</c> <c>Experimental range</c><c></c> </texttable>format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Table 4"/> in <xref target="endpoints_generalized" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 2.5.1"/>):</t> <table align="center" pn="table-9"> <thead> <tr> <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Value</th> <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Type</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">0</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Point-to-Point</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">1</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Point-to-Multipoint with leaf type 1</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">2</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Point-to-Multipoint with leaf type 2</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">3</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Point-to-Multipoint with leaf type 3</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">4</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Point-to-Multipoint with leaf type 4</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">5-244</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Unassigned</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">245-255</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Experimental Use</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </section><!-- End END-POINTS object, Object Type Generalized Endpoint--><sectiontitle="Newanchor="iana-tlvs" numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-5.3"> <name slugifiedName="name-new-pcep-tlvs">New PCEPTLVs" anchor='iana-tlvs'> <t>TLVs</name> <t pn="section-5.3-1"> IANA managesthea registry for PCEP TLV codepoint registrypoints (see <xreftarget="RFC5440"></xref>). Thistarget="RFC5440" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5440"/>), which is maintained as the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators"sub-registrysubregistry of the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry. IANAis requested to dohas allocated the followingallocation. Note: TBA-11 is not used <!-- The values here are suggested for use by IANA. -->per this document: </t><texttable suppress-title='true' style='none'> <ttcol align='center'>Value</ttcol> <ttcol align='left'>Meaning</ttcol> <ttcol align='left'>Reference</ttcol> <c>TBA-6</c><c>IPV4-ADDRESS</c><c> This document (<xref target="endpoints_tlvs_ipv4"></xref>) </c> <c>TBA-7</c><c>IPV6-ADDRESS</c><c> This document (<xref target="endpoints_tlvs_ipv6"></xref>) </c> <c>TBA-8</c><c>UNNUMBERED-ENDPOINT</c><c> This document (<xref target="endpoints_tlvs_unnumbered-if"></xref>) </c> <c>TBA-9</c><c>LABEL-REQUEST</c><c> This document (<xref target="endpoints_tlvs_label-request"></xref>) </c> <c>TBA-10</c><c>LABEL-SET</c><c> This document (<xref target="endpoints_tlvs_labels"></xref>) </c> <c>TBA-12 </c><c>PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE</c><c> This document (<xref target="lspa"></xref>) </c> <c>TBA-1</c><c>GMPLS-CAPABILITY</c><c> This document (<xref target="open-extensions"></xref>) </c> </texttable><table align="center" pn="table-10"> <thead> <tr> <th align="center" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Value</th> <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Meaning</th> <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Reference</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td align="center" colspan="1" rowspan="1">39</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">IPV4-ADDRESS</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">RFC 8779, <xref target="endpoints_tlvs_ipv4" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 2.5.2.1"/></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center" colspan="1" rowspan="1">40</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">IPV6-ADDRESS</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">RFC 8779, <xref target="endpoints_tlvs_ipv6" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 2.5.2.2"/></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center" colspan="1" rowspan="1">41</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">UNNUMBERED-ENDPOINT</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">RFC 8779, <xref target="endpoints_tlvs_unnumbered-if" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 2.5.2.3"/></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center" colspan="1" rowspan="1">42</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">LABEL-REQUEST</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">RFC 8779, <xref target="endpoints_tlvs_label-request" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 2.5.2.4"/></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center" colspan="1" rowspan="1">43</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">LABEL-SET</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">RFC 8779, <xref target="endpoints_tlvs_labels" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 2.5.2.5"/></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center" colspan="1" rowspan="1">44 </td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">RFC 8779, <xref target="lspa" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 2.8"/></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center" colspan="1" rowspan="1">45</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">GMPLS-CAPABILITY</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">RFC 8779, <xref target="open-extensions" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 2.1.2"/></td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </section><!-- End New PCEP TLVs--><sectiontitle="RPnumbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-5.4"> <name slugifiedName="name-rp-object-flag-field">RP Object FlagField"> <t> As described in <xref target="rp-extensions"></xref>Field</name> <t pn="section-5.4-1"> A new flagareis defined in <xref target="rp-extensions" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 2.2"/> for the Flags field of the RPObject Flagobject. IANAis requested to makehas made the followingObject-Type allocations fromallocation in the "RP Object Flag Field"sub-registry. <!-- The values here are suggested for use by IANA. -->subregistry: </t><texttable suppress-title='true' style='none'> <ttcol align='center'>Bit</ttcol> <ttcol align='left'>Description</ttcol> <ttcol align='left'>Reference</ttcol> <c>TBA-13</c><c>routing granularity (2 bits)</c><c>This document, <xref target="rp-extensions"></xref></c> <c><!-- (suggested bit 17-16) --></c><c> (RG)</c><c></c> </texttable><table align="center" pn="table-11"> <thead> <tr> <th align="center" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Bit</th> <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Description</th> <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Reference</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td align="center" colspan="1" rowspan="1">15-16</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Routing Granularity (RG)</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">RFC 8779, <xref target="rp-extensions" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 2.2"/></td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </section><!-- RP object flag--><sectiontitle="Newnumbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-5.5"> <name slugifiedName="name-new-pcep-error-codes">New PCEP ErrorCodes"> <t>As described in <xref target="error-codes"></xref>, newCodes</name> <t pn="section-5.5-1">New PCEP Error-Types and Error-values aredefined.defined in <xref target="error-codes" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 3"/>. IANAis requested to makehas made the followingallocationallocations in the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values"registry. <!-- The values here are suggested for use by IANA. -->registry: </t><texttable suppress-title='true' style='none'> <ttcol align='left' >Error</ttcol> <ttcol align='left' width="50">name</ttcol> <ttcol align='left' >Reference</ttcol> <c>Type=4</c><c>Not<table align="center" pn="table-12"> <thead> <tr> <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Error-Type</th> <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Meaning</th> <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Error-value</th> <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Reference</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">4</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Not supportedobject </c><c><xrefobject</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"> <xref target="RFC5440"/></c> <c>Value=TBA-14:</c><c>Bandwidth Objectformat="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5440"/></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">6: BANDWIDTH object typeTBA-23 orTBA-34 notsupported</c><c>This Document</c> <c>Value=TBA-15:</c><c>Unsupportedsupported</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">RFC 8779</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">7: Unsupported endpoint type in END-POINTS Generalized Endpoint objecttype</c><c>This Document</c> <c>Value=TBA-16:</c><c>Unsupportedtype</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">RFC 8779</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">8: Unsupported TLV present in END-POINTS Generalized Endpoint objecttype</c><c>This Document</c> <c>Value=TBA-17:</c><c>Unsupportedtype</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">RFC 8779</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">9: Unsupported granularity in the RP objectflags</c><c>This Document</c> <c>Type=10</c><c>Receptionflags</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">RFC 8779</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">10</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Reception of an invalid object</c><c><xref</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"> <xref target="RFC5440"/></c> <c>Value=TBA-18:</c><c>format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5440"/></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">24: BadBandwidth ObjectBANDWIDTH object typeTBA-2(Generalized bandwidth)3 orTBA-3(Generalized bandwidth of existing TE-LSP for which a reoptimization is requested)</c><c>This Document</c> <c>Value=TBA-20:</c><c>4</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">RFC 8779</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">25: Unsupported LSP Protection Flags in PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTETLV</c><c>This Document</c> <c>Value=TBA-21:</c><c>TLV</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">RFC 8779</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">26: Unsupported Secondary LSP Protection Flags in PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTETLV</c><c>This Document</c> <c>Value=TBA-22:</c><c>TLV</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">RFC 8779</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">27: Unsupported Link Protection Type in PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTETLV</c><c>This Document</c> <c>Value=TBA-24:</c><c>TLV</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">RFC 8779</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">28: LABEL-SET TLV present with0O bit set but without R bit set inRP</c><c>This Document</c> <c>Value=TBA-25:</c><c>RP</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">RFC 8779</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">29: Wrong LABEL-SET TLV present with0O and Lbit set</c><c>This Document</c> <c>Value=TBA-26:</c><c>bits set</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">RFC 8779</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">30: Wrong LABEL-SET TLV present with O bit set and wrongformat</c><c>This Document</c> <c>Value=TBA-42:</c><c>format</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">RFC 8779</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">31: Missing GMPLS-CAPABILITYTLV</c><c>This Document</c> <c>Type=TBA-27</c><c>PathTLV</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">RFC 8779</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">29</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Path computationfailure</c><c>This Document</c> <c>Value=0</c><c> Unassigned</c><c>This Document</c> <c>Value=TBA-28:</c><c>Unacceptablefailure</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">RFC 8779</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">0: Unassigned</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">RFC 8779</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">1: Unacceptable requestmessage</c><c>This Document</c> <c>Value=TBA-29:</c><c>Generalizedmessage</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">RFC 8779</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">2: Generalized bandwidth value notsupported</c><c>This Document</c> <c>Value=TBA-30:</c><c>Label Setsupported</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">RFC 8779</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">3: Label set constraint could not bemet</c><c>This Document</c> <c>Value=TBA-31:</c><c>Labelmet</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">RFC 8779</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1"/> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">4: Label constraint could not bemet</c><c>This Document</c> </texttable>met</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">RFC 8779</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </section> <sectiontitle="Newnumbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-5.6"> <name slugifiedName="name-new-bits-in-no-path-vector-">New Bits in NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV</name> <t pn="section-5.6-1">New NO-PATH-VECTOR TLVFields"> <t>As describedbits are defined in <xreftarget="no-path_bits"></xref>, new NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Flag Fields have been defined.target="no-path_bits" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 2.9.1"/>. IANAis requested to dohas made the following allocations in the "NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Flag Field"sub-registry. <!-- The values here are suggested for use by IANA. --> <list> <t>Bit number TBA-32 - Protection Mismatch (1-bit). Specifies the mismatch of the protection type of the PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV in the request. </t> <t>Bit number TBA-33 - No Resource (1-bit). Specifies that the resources are not currently sufficient to provide the path. </t> <t>Bit number TBA-34 - Granularity not supported (1-bit). Specifies that the PCE is not able to provide a path with the requested granularity.subregistry: </t><t>Bit number TBA-35 - No endpoint label resource (1-bit). Specifies that the PCE is<table anchor="no-path-vector-iana" align="center" pn="table-13"> <thead> <tr> <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Bit</th> <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Description</th> <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Reference</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">18</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Protection Mismatch</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">RFC 8779</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">17</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">No Resource</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">RFC 8779</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">16</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Granularity notable to provide a path because of thesupported</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">RFC 8779</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">15</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">No endpoint labelrestriction. </t> <t>Bit number TBA-36 - Noresource</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">RFC 8779</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">14</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">No endpoint label resource inrange (1-bit). Specifies that the PCE is not able to provide a path because of the endpoint label set restriction. </t> <t>Bit number TBA-37 - Norange</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">RFC 8779</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">13</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">No label resource inrange (1-bit). Specifies that the PCE is not able to provide a path because of the label set restriction. </t> <t>Bit number TBA-40 - LOAD-BALANCINGrange</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">RFC 8779</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">12</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">LOAD-BALANCING could not be performed with the bandwidthconstraits (1 bit). Specifies that the PCE is not able to provide a path because it could not map the BANDWIDTH into the parameters specified by the LOAD-BALANCING. </t> </list> </t>constraints</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">RFC 8779</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </section> <sectiontitle="Newnumbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-5.7"> <name slugifiedName="name-new-subobject-for-the-inclu">New Subobject for the Include RouteObject" > <t>The "PCEP Parameters" registry containsObject</name> <t pn="section-5.7-1">IANA has added asubregistrynew subobject in the "IRO Subobjects"with an entry forsubregistry of theInclude Route Object (IRO).</t> <t>"Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry.</t> <t pn="section-5.7-2"> IANAis requested to addhas added afurthernew subobject that can be carried in the IRO as follows: </t><texttable suppress-title='true' style='none'> <ttcol align='left'>Subobject</ttcol> <ttcol align='left'>type</ttcol> <ttcol align='left'>Reference</ttcol> <c>TBA-38<!-- , suggested value 3--></c><c>Label subobject</c><c>This Document</c> </texttable><table align="center" pn="table-14"> <thead> <tr> <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Value</th> <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Description</th> <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Reference</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">10</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Label</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">RFC 8779</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </section> <sectiontitle="Newnumbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-5.8"> <name slugifiedName="name-new-subobject-for-the-exclu">New Subobject for the Exclude RouteObject" > <t>The "PCEP Parameters" registry containsObject</name> <t pn="section-5.8-1">IANA has added asubregistrynew subobject in the "XRO Subobjects"with an entry forsubregistry of theXRO object (Exclude Route Object).</t> <t>"Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry.</t> <t pn="section-5.8-2"> IANAis requested to addhas added afurthernew subobject that can be carried in the XRO as follows: </t><texttable suppress-title='true' style='none'> <ttcol align='left'>Subobject</ttcol> <ttcol align='left'>type</ttcol> <ttcol align='left'>Reference</ttcol> <c>TBA-39<!--, suggested value 3--></c><c>Label subobject</c><c>This Document</c> </texttable><table align="center" pn="table-15"> <thead> <tr> <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Value</th> <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Description</th> <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Reference</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">10</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Label</td> <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1">RFC 8779</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </section> <sectiontitle="Newnumbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-5.9"> <name slugifiedName="name-new-gmpls-capability-tlv-fl">New GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV FlagField" > <t>IANA is requested to createField</name> <t pn="section-5.9-1">IANA has created asub-registry to manage the Flag field of the GMPLS-CAPABILITYnew "GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV Flag Field" subregistry within the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers"registry.</t> <t>Newregistry to manage the Flag field of the GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV.</t> <t pn="section-5.9-2">New bit numbers are to be assigned by Standards Action <xreftarget="RFC8126"/>.target="RFC8126" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC8126"/>. Each bit should be tracked with the following qualities:<list style="symbols"> <t>Bit</t> <ul spacing="normal" bare="false" empty="false" pn="section-5.9-3"> <li pn="section-5.9-3.1">Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significantbit)</t> <t>Capability description</t> <t>Defining RFC</t> </list></t> <t>Thebit)</li> <li pn="section-5.9-3.2">Capability description</li> <li pn="section-5.9-3.3">Defining RFC</li> </ul> <t pn="section-5.9-4">The initial contents of thesub-registrysubregistry are empty, withallbits 0-31 markedunassigned</t>as Unassigned.</t> </section> </section><!-- End IANA --><sectiontitle="Security Considerations"> <t>numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-6"> <name slugifiedName="name-security-considerations">Security Considerations</name> <t pn="section-6-1"> GMPLS controls multiple technologies and types of network elements. The LSPs that are established using GMPLS, whose paths can be computed using the PCEP extensions to support GMPLS described in this document, can carry a high volume of traffic and can be a critical part of a network infrastructure. The PCE can then play a key role in the use of the resources and in determining the physical paths of theLSPs and thusLSPs; thus, it is important to ensure the identity of the PCE and PCC, as well as the communication channel. In manydeploymentsdeployments, there will be a completely isolated network where an external attack is of very low probability. However, there are other deployment cases in which the PCC-PCE communication can be moreexposedexposed, and there could be more security considerations.ThreeThere are three main situations in caseofan attack in the GMPLS PCE contextcould happen: <list style="symbols"> <t> PCEhappens: </t> <ul spacing="normal" empty="true" bare="false" pn="section-6-2"> <li pn="section-6-2.1"> <dl spacing="normal" newline="false" pn="section-6-2.1.1"> <dt pn="section-6-2.1.1.1">PCE Identitytheft: Atheft:</dt> <dd pn="section-6-2.1.1.2">A legitimate PCC could request a path for a GMPLS LSP to a malicious PCE, which poses as a legitimate PCE. Theanswer can makeresponse may be that the LSP traverses some geographical place known to the attacker where confidentiality (sniffing), integrity (trafficmodification)modification), or availability (traffic drop) attacks could be performed by use of an attacker-controlled middlebox device. Also, the resulting LSP can omit constraints given in the requests (e.g., excluding certainfibers,fibers and avoiding someSRLGs)SRLGs), which could makethatthe LSPwhichthat will be set up laterset-up canlook perfectly fine, but it will be in a risky situation. Also, the result can lead to the creation of an LSP that does not provide the desired quality and gives less resources thannecessary. </t> <t>necessary.</dd> <dt pn="section-6-2.1.1.3"> PCC Identitytheft: Atheft:</dt> <dd pn="section-6-2.1.1.4">A malicious PCC, acting as a legitimate PCC, requesting LSP paths to a legitimate PCE can obtain a good knowledge of the physical topology of a critical infrastructure. It couldget to knowlearn enough details to plan a later physical attack.</t> <t></dd> <dt pn="section-6-2.1.1.5"> Messageinspection: Asinspection:</dt> <dd pn="section-6-2.1.1.6">As in the previous case, knowledge of an infrastructure can be obtained by sniffing PCEP messages.</t> </list></dd> </dl> </li> </ul> <t pn="section-6-3"> The security mechanisms can provide authentication and confidentiality for those scenarios wherethePCC-PCE communication cannot be completely trusted. <xref target="RFC8253"/>format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC8253"/> provides origin verification, messageintegrityintegrity, and replay protection, and it ensures that a third party cannot decipher the contents of a message. </t><t><t pn="section-6-4"> In order to protect against the malicious PCEcasecase, the PCCSHOULD<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> have policies in place to accept or not accept the path provided by the PCE. Those policies can verify if the path follows the provided constraints. In addition,technology specific data planea technology-specific data-plane mechanism can be used (following <xref target="RFC5920"/> Section 5.8)sectionFormat="comma" section="5.8" format="default" derivedLink="https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5920#section-5.8" derivedContent="RFC5920"/>) to verify thedata planedata-plane connectivity and deviation from constraints. </t><t><t pn="section-6-5"> Thedocument <xref target="RFC8253" /> describes theusage of Transport Layer Security (TLS) to enhance PCEPsecurity.security is described in <xref target="RFC8253" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC8253"/>. The document describes the initiation oftheTLS procedures, the TLS handshake mechanisms, the TLS methods for peer authentication, the applicable TLS ciphersuites for data exchange, and the handling of errors in the security checks. PCE and PCCSHOULD<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> use the mechanism in <xref target="RFC8253"/> mechanismformat="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC8253"/> to protect against malicious PCC and PCE. </t><t><t pn="section-6-6"> Finally, as mentioned by <xref target="RFC7025"/>format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC7025"/>, the PCEP extensionstothat support GMPLS should be considered under the same security as current PCEworkwork, and this extension will not change the underlying security issues. However, given the critical nature of the network infrastructures under control by GMPLS, the security issues described above should be seriously considered when deploying aGMPLS-PCE basedGMPLS-PCE-based control plane for such networks. Formore information onan overview of the securityconsiderations on a GMPLS control plane,considerations, not only related to PCE/PCEP,<xref target="RFC5920" /> provides an overview of securityand vulnerabilities of a GMPLS controlplane. </t> </section> <section title="Contributing Authors"> <t>Elie Sfeir<vspace blankLines='0'/> Coriant<vspace blankLines='0'/> St Martin Strasse 76<vspace blankLines='0'/> Munich, 81541<vspace blankLines='0'/> Germany<vspace blankLines='1'/> Email: elie.sfeir@coriant.com<vspace blankLines='0'/> </t> <t> Franz Rambach<vspace blankLines='0'/> Nockherstrasse 2-4,<vspace blankLines='0'/> Munich 81541<vspace blankLines='0'/> Germany<vspace blankLines='1'/> Phone: +49 178 8855738<vspace blankLines='0'/> Email: franz.rambach@cgi.com<vspace blankLines='0'/> </t> <t> Francisco Javier Jimenez Chico<vspace blankLines='0'/> Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo<vspace blankLines='0'/> C/ Emilio Vargas 6<vspace blankLines='0'/> Madrid, 28043<vspace blankLines='0'/> Spain<vspace blankLines='1'/> Phone: +34 91 3379037<vspace blankLines='0'/> Email: fjjc@tid.es<vspace blankLines='0'/> </t> <t> Huawei Technologies <list> <t>Suresh BR<vspace blankLines='0'/> Shenzhen<vspace blankLines='0'/> China<vspace blankLines='0'/> Email: sureshbr@huawei.com<vspace blankLines='0'/> </t> <t> Young Lee<vspace blankLines='0'/> 1700 Alma Drive, Suite 100<vspace blankLines='0'/> Plano, TX 75075<vspace blankLines='0'/> USA<vspace blankLines='1'/> Phone: (972) 509-5599 (x2240)<vspace blankLines='0'/> Email: ylee@huawei.com<vspace blankLines='0'/> </t> <t> SenthilKumar S<vspace blankLines='0'/> Shenzhen<vspace blankLines='0'/> China<vspace blankLines='0'/> Email: senthilkumars@huawei.com<vspace blankLines='0'/> </t> <t> Jun Sun<vspace blankLines='0'/> Shenzhen<vspace blankLines='0'/> China<vspace blankLines='0'/> Email: johnsun@huawei.com <vspace blankLines='0'/> </t> </list> </t> <t> CTTC - Centre Tecnologic de Telecomunicacions de Catalunya <list> <t>Ramon Casellas<vspace blankLines='0'/> PMT Ed B4 Av. Carl Friedrich Gauss 7<vspace blankLines='0'/> 08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona)<vspace blankLines='0'/> Spain<vspace blankLines='0'/> Phone: (34) 936452916 <vspace blankLines='0'/> Email: ramon.casellas@cttc.es<vspace blankLines='0'/> </t> </list> </t> </section> <section title="Acknowledgments"> <t> The research of Ramon Casellas, Francisco Javier Jimenez Chico, Oscar Gonzalez de Dios, Cyril Margaria, and Franz Rambach leading to these results has received funding from the European Community's Seventh Framework Program FP7/2007-2013 under grant agreement no 247674 and no 317999. </t> <t> The authors would like to thank Julien Meuric, Lyndon Ong, Giada Lander, Jonathan Hardwick, Diego Lopez, David Sinicrope, Vincent Roca, Dhruv Dhody, Adrian Farrel and Tianran Zhou for their review and useful comments to the document.plane, see <xref target="RFC5920" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5920"/>. </t><t> Thanks to Alisa Cooper, Benjamin Kaduk, Elwun-davies, Martin Vigoureux, Roman Danyliw, and Suresh Krishnan for the IESG comments</t></section> </middle><!-- *****BACK MATTER ***** --><back> <referencestitle="Normative References">pn="section-7"> <name slugifiedName="name-references">References</name> <references pn="section-7.1"> <name slugifiedName="name-normative-references">Normative References</name> <reference anchor="G.709-v3"target="https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.709-201606-I/en">target="https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.709-201606-I/en" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="G.709-v3"> <front> <title>Interfaces for the optical transport network</title> <author> <organization showOnFrontPage="true">ITU-T</organization> </author> <date year="2016" month="June"/> </front> <refcontent>Recommendation G.709/Y.1331</refcontent> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC2119" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC2119"> <front><title> Interfaces<title>Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title> <author initials="S." surname="Bradner" fullname="S. Bradner"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <date year="1997" month="March"/> <abstract> <t>In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2119"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2119"/> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC2210" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2210" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC2210"> <front> <title>The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated Services</title> <author initials="J." surname="Wroclawski" fullname="J. Wroclawski"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <date year="1997" month="September"/> <abstract> <t>This note describes the use of the RSVP resource reservation protocol with the Controlled-Load and Guaranteed QoS control services. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2210"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2210"/> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC3209" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC3209"> <front> <title>RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels</title> <author initials="D." surname="Awduche" fullname="D. Awduche"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="L." surname="Berger" fullname="L. Berger"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="D." surname="Gan" fullname="D. Gan"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="T." surname="Li" fullname="T. Li"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="V." surname="Srinivasan" fullname="V. Srinivasan"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="G." surname="Swallow" fullname="G. Swallow"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <date year="2001" month="December"/> <abstract> <t>This document describes the use of RSVP (Resource Reservation Protocol), including all the necessary extensions, to establish label-switched paths (LSPs) in MPLS (Multi-Protocol Label Switching). Since the flow along an LSP is completely identified by the label applied at the ingress node of the path, these paths may be treated as tunnels. A key application of LSP tunnels is traffic engineering with MPLS as specified in RFC 2702. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="3209"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC3209"/> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC3471" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3471" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC3471"> <front> <title>Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description</title> <author initials="L." surname="Berger" fullname="L. Berger" role="editor"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <date year="2003" month="January"/> <abstract> <t>This document describes extensions to Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) signaling required to support Generalized MPLS. Generalized MPLS extends the MPLS control plane to encompass time-division (e.g., Synchronous Optical Network and Synchronous Digital Hierarchy, SONET/SDH), wavelength (optical lambdas) and spatial switching (e.g., incoming port or fiber to outgoing port or fiber). This document presents a functional description of the extensions. Protocol specific formats and mechanisms, and technology specific details are specified in separate documents. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="3471"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC3471"/> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC3473" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3473" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC3473"> <front> <title>Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions</title> <author initials="L." surname="Berger" fullname="L. Berger" role="editor"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <date year="2003" month="January"/> <abstract> <t>This document describes extensions to Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Resource ReserVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) signaling required to support Generalized MPLS. Generalized MPLS extends the MPLS control plane to encompass time-division (e.g., Synchronous Optical Network and Synchronous Digital Hierarchy, SONET/SDH), wavelength (optical lambdas) and spatial switching (e.g., incoming port or fiber to outgoing port or fiber). This document presents a RSVP-TE specific description of the extensions. A generic functional description can be found in separate documents. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="3473"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC3473"/> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC3477" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3477" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC3477"> <front> <title>Signalling Unnumbered Links in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)</title> <author initials="K." surname="Kompella" fullname="K. Kompella"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="Y." surname="Rekhter" fullname="Y. Rekhter"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <date year="2003" month="January"/> <abstract> <t>Current signalling used by Multi-Protocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (MPLS TE) does not provide support for unnumbered links. This document defines procedures and extensions to Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) for Label Switched Path (LSP) Tunnels (RSVP-TE), one of the MPLS TE signalling protocols, that are needed in order to support unnumbered links. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="3477"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC3477"/> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC3630" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3630" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC3630"> <front> <title>Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2</title> <author initials="D." surname="Katz" fullname="D. Katz"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="K." surname="Kompella" fullname="K. Kompella"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="D." surname="Yeung" fullname="D. Yeung"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <date year="2003" month="September"/> <abstract> <t>This document describes extensions to the OSPF protocol version 2 to support intra-area Traffic Engineering (TE), using Opaque Link State Advertisements.</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="3630"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC3630"/> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC4003" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4003" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC4003"> <front> <title>GMPLS Signaling Procedure for Egress Control</title> <author initials="L." surname="Berger" fullname="L. Berger"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <date year="2005" month="February"/> <abstract> <t>This document clarifies the procedures for the control of the label used on an output/downstream interface of the egress node of a Label Switched Path (LSP). This control is also known as "Egress Control". Support for Egress Control is implicit in Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling. This document clarifies the specification of GMPLS Signaling and does not modify GMPLS signaling mechanisms and procedures. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4003"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4003"/> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC4328" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4328" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC4328"> <front> <title>Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical Transport Networks Control</title> <author initials="D." surname="Papadimitriou" fullname="D. Papadimitriou" role="editor"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <date year="2006" month="January"/> <abstract> <t>This document is a companion to the Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) signaling documents. It describes the technology-specific information needed to extend GMPLS signaling to control Optical Transport Networks (OTN); it also includes the so-called pre-OTN developments. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4328"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4328"/> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC4606" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4606" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC4606"> <front> <title>Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control</title> <author initials="E." surname="Mannie" fullname="E. Mannie"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="D." surname="Papadimitriou" fullname="D. Papadimitriou"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <date year="2006" month="August"/> <abstract> <t>This document provides minor clarification to RFC 3946.</t> <t>This document is a companion to the Generalized Multi-protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) signaling. It defines the Synchronous Optical Network (SONET)/Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) technology-specific information needed when GMPLS signaling is used. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4606"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4606"/> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC4802" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4802" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC4802"> <front> <title>Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Management Information Base</title> <author initials="T." surname="Nadeau" fullname="T. Nadeau" role="editor"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="A." surname="Farrel" fullname="A. Farrel" role="editor"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <date year="2007" month="February"/> <abstract> <t>This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes managed objects for Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS)-based traffic engineering. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4802"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4802"/> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC4872" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4872" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC4872"> <front> <title>RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery</title> <author initials="J.P." surname="Lang" fullname="J.P. Lang" role="editor"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="Y." surname="Rekhter" fullname="Y. Rekhter" role="editor"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="D." surname="Papadimitriou" fullname="D. Papadimitriou" role="editor"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <date year="2007" month="May"/> <abstract> <t>This document describes protocol-specific procedures and extensions for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) signaling to support end-to-end Label Switched Path (LSP) recovery that denotes protection and restoration. A generic functional description of GMPLS recovery can be found in a companion document, RFC 4426. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4872"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4872"/> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC4873" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4873" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC4873"> <front> <title>GMPLS Segment Recovery</title> <author initials="L." surname="Berger" fullname="L. Berger"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="I." surname="Bryskin" fullname="I. Bryskin"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="D." surname="Papadimitriou" fullname="D. Papadimitriou"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="A." surname="Farrel" fullname="A. Farrel"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <date year="2007" month="May"/> <abstract> <t>This document describes protocol specific procedures for GMPLS (Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching) RSVP-TE (Resource ReserVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering) signaling extensions to support label switched path (LSP) segment protection and restoration. These extensions are intended to complement and be consistent with the RSVP-TE Extensions for End-to-End GMPLS Recovery (RFC 4872). Implications and interactions with fast reroute are also addressed. This document also updates the handling of NOTIFY_REQUEST objects. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4873"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4873"/> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC5088" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5088" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC5088"> <front> <title>OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element (PCE) Discovery</title> <author initials="JL." surname="Le Roux" fullname="JL. Le Roux" role="editor"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="JP." surname="Vasseur" fullname="JP. Vasseur" role="editor"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="Y." surname="Ikejiri" fullname="Y. Ikejiri"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="R." surname="Zhang" fullname="R. Zhang"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <date year="2008" month="January"/> <abstract> <t>There are various circumstances where it is highly desirable for a Path Computation Client (PCC) to be able to dynamically and automatically discover a set of Path Computation Elements (PCEs), along with information that can be used by the PCC for PCE selection. When the PCE is a Label Switching Router (LSR) participating in the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP), or even a server participating passively in the IGP, a simple and efficient way to announce PCEs consists of using IGP flooding. For that purpose, this document defines extensions to the Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) routing protocol for the advertisement of PCE Discovery information within an OSPF area or within the entire OSPF routing domain. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5088"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5088"/> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC5089" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5089" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC5089"> <front> <title>IS-IS Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element (PCE) Discovery</title> <author initials="JL." surname="Le Roux" fullname="JL. Le Roux" role="editor"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="JP." surname="Vasseur" fullname="JP. Vasseur" role="editor"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="Y." surname="Ikejiri" fullname="Y. Ikejiri"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="R." surname="Zhang" fullname="R. Zhang"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <date year="2008" month="January"/> <abstract> <t>There are various circumstances where it is highly desirable for a Path Computation Client (PCC) to be able to dynamically and automatically discover a set of Path Computation Elements (PCEs), along with information that can be used by the PCC for PCE selection. When the PCE is a Label Switching Router (LSR) participating in the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP), or even a server participating passively in the IGP, a simple and efficient way to announce PCEs consists of using IGP flooding. For that purpose, this document defines extensions to the Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) routing protocol for the advertisement of PCE Discovery information within an IS-IS area or within the entire IS-IS routing domain. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5089"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5089"/> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC5440" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC5440"> <front> <title>Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)</title> <author initials="JP." surname="Vasseur" fullname="JP. Vasseur" role="editor"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="JL." surname="Le Roux" fullname="JL. Le Roux" role="editor"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <date year="2009" month="March"/> <abstract> <t>This document specifies the Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP) for communications between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a PCE, or between two PCEs. Such interactions include path computation requests and path computation replies as well as notifications of specific states related to the use of a PCE in the context of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering. PCEP is designed to be flexible and extensible so as to easily allow for the addition of further messages and objects, should further requirements be expressed in the future. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5440"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5440"/> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC5511" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5511" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC5511"> <front> <title>Routing Backus-Naur Form (RBNF): A Syntax Used to Form Encoding Rules in Various Routing Protocol Specifications</title> <author initials="A." surname="Farrel" fullname="A. Farrel"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <date year="2009" month="April"/> <abstract> <t>Several protocols have been specified in the Routing Area of the IETF using a common variant of the Backus-Naur Form (BNF) of representing message syntax. However, there is no formal definition of this version of BNF.</t> <t>There is value in using the same variant of BNF for the set of protocols that are commonly used together. This reduces confusion and simplifies implementation.</t> <t>Updating existing documents to use some other variant of BNF that is already formally documented would be a substantial piece of work.</t> <t>This document provides a formal definition of the variant of BNF that has been used (that we call Routing BNF) and makes it available for use by new protocols. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5511"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5511"/> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC5520" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5520" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC5520"> <front> <title>Preserving Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path Computation Using a Path-Key-Based Mechanism</title> <author initials="R." surname="Bradford" fullname="R. Bradford" role="editor"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="JP." surname="Vasseur" fullname="JP. Vasseur"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="A." surname="Farrel" fullname="A. Farrel"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <date year="2009" month="April"/> <abstract> <t>Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) may be computed by Path Computation Elements (PCEs). Where the TE LSP crosses multiple domains, such as Autonomous Systems (ASes), the path may be computed by multiple PCEs that cooperate, with each responsible for computing a segment of the path. However, in some cases (e.g., when ASes are administered by separate Service Providers), it would break confidentiality rules for a PCE to supply a path segment to a PCE in another domain, thus disclosing AS-internal topology information. This issue may be circumvented by returning a loose hop and by invoking a new path computation from the domain boundary Label Switching Router (LSR) during TE LSP setup as the signaling message enters the second domain, but this technique has several issues including the problem of maintaining path diversity.</t> <t>This document defines a mechanism to hide the contents of a segment of a path, called the Confidential Path Segment (CPS). The CPS may be replaced by a path-key that can be conveyed in the PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) and signaled within in a Resource Reservation Protocol TE (RSVP-TE) explicit route object. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5520"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5520"/> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC5521" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5521" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC5521"> <front> <title>Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for Route Exclusions</title> <author initials="E." surname="Oki" fullname="E. Oki"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="T." surname="Takeda" fullname="T. Takeda"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="A." surname="Farrel" fullname="A. Farrel"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <date year="2009" month="April"/> <abstract> <t>The Path Computation Element (PCE) provides functions of path computation in support of traffic engineering (TE) in Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks.</t> <t>When a Path Computation Client (PCC) requests a PCE for a route, it may be useful for the PCC to specify, as constraints to the path computation, abstract nodes, resources, and Shared Risk Link Groups (SRLGs) that are to be explicitly excluded from the computed route. Such constraints are termed "route exclusions".</t> <t>The PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) is designed as a communication protocol between PCCs and PCEs. This document presents PCEP extensions for route exclusions. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5521"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5521"/> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC5541" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5541" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC5541"> <front> <title>Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)</title> <author initials="JL." surname="Le Roux" fullname="JL. Le Roux"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="JP." surname="Vasseur" fullname="JP. Vasseur"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="Y." surname="Lee" fullname="Y. Lee"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <date year="2009" month="June"/> <abstract> <t>The computation of one or a set of Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) in MultiProtocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks is subject to a set of one or more specific optimization criteria, referred to as objective functions (e.g., minimum cost path, widest path, etc.).</t> <t>In the Path Computation Element (PCE) architecture, a Path Computation Client (PCC) may want a path to be computed for one or more TE LSPs according to a specific objective function. Thus, the PCC needs to instruct the PCE to use the correct objective function. Furthermore, it is possible that not all PCEs support the same set of objective functions; therefore, it is useful for the PCC to be able to automatically discover the set of objective functions supported by each PCE.</t> <t>This document defines extensions to the PCE communication Protocol (PCEP) to allow a PCE to indicate the set of objective functions it supports. Extensions are also defined so that a PCC can indicate in a path computation request the required objective function, and a PCE can report in a path computation reply the objective function that was used for path computation.</t> <t>This document defines objective function code types for six objective functions previously listed in the PCE requirements work, and provides the definition of four new metric types that apply to a set of synchronized requests. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5541"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5541"/> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC6001" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6001" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC6001"> <front> <title>Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Protocol Extensions for Multi-Layer and Multi-Region Networks (MLN/MRN)</title> <author initials="D." surname="Papadimitriou" fullname="D. Papadimitriou"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="M." surname="Vigoureux" fullname="M. Vigoureux"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="K." surname="Shiomoto" fullname="K. Shiomoto"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="D." surname="Brungard" fullname="D. Brungard"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="JL." surname="Le Roux" fullname="JL. Le Roux"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <date year="2010" month="October"/> <abstract> <t>There are specific requirements for the support of networks comprising Label Switching Routers (LSRs) participating in different data plane switching layers controlled by a single Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) control plane instance, referred to as GMPLS Multi-Layer Networks / Multi-Region Networks (MLN/MRN).</t> <t>This document defines extensions to GMPLS routing and signaling protocols so as to support the operation of GMPLS Multi-Layer / Multi-Region Networks. It covers the elements of a single GMPLS control plane instance controlling multiple Label Switched Path (LSP) regions or layers within a single Traffic Engineering (TE) domain. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6001"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6001"/> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC6003" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6003" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC6003"> <front> <title>Ethernet Traffic Parameters</title> <author initials="D." surname="Papadimitriou" fullname="D. Papadimitriou"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <date year="2010" month="October"/> <abstract> <t>This document describes the support of Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) Ethernet traffic parameters as described in MEF10.1 when using Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) signaling. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6003"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6003"/> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC6205" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6205" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC6205"> <front> <title>Generalized Labels for Lambda-Switch-Capable (LSC) Label Switching Routers</title> <author initials="T." surname="Otani" fullname="T. Otani" role="editor"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="D." surname="Li" fullname="D. Li" role="editor"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <date year="2011" month="March"/> <abstract> <t>Technology in the optical domain is constantly evolving, and, as a consequence, new equipment providing lambda switching capability has been developed and is currently being deployed.</t> <t>Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) is a family of protocols that can be used to operate networks built from a range of technologies including wavelength (or lambda) switching. For this purpose, GMPLS defined a wavelength label as only having significance between two neighbors. Global wavelength semantics are not considered.</t> <t>In order to facilitate interoperability in a network composed of next generation lambda-switch-capable equipment, this document defines a standard lambda label format that is compliant with the Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) and Coarse Wavelength Division Multiplexing (CWDM) grids defined by the International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication Standardization Sector. The label format defined in this document can be used in GMPLS signaling and routing protocols. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6205"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6205"/> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC6387" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6387" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC6387"> <front> <title>GMPLS Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs)</title> <author initials="A." surname="Takacs" fullname="A. Takacs"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="L." surname="Berger" fullname="L. Berger"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="D." surname="Caviglia" fullname="D. Caviglia"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="D." surname="Fedyk" fullname="D. Fedyk"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="J." surname="Meuric" fullname="J. Meuric"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <date year="2011" month="September"/> <abstract> <t>This document defines a method for the support of GMPLS asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs). The approach presented is applicable to any switching technology and builds on the original Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) model for the transport of traffic-related parameters. This document moves the experiment documented in RFC 5467 to the standards track and obsoletes RFC 5467. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6387"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6387"/> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC7139" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7139" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC7139"> <front> <title>GMPLS Signaling Extensions for Control of Evolving G.709 Optical Transport Networks</title> <author initials="F." surname="Zhang" fullname="F. Zhang" role="editor"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="G." surname="Zhang" fullname="G. Zhang"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="S." surname="Belotti" fullname="S. Belotti"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="D." surname="Ceccarelli" fullname="D. Ceccarelli"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="K." surname="Pithewan" fullname="K. Pithewan"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <date year="2014" month="March"/> <abstract> <t>ITU-T Recommendation G.709 [G709-2012] introduced new Optical channel Data Unit (ODU) containers (ODU0, ODU4, ODU2e, and ODUflex) and enhanced Optical Transport Network (OTN) flexibility.</t> <t>This document updates the ODU-related portions of RFC 4328 to provide extensions to GMPLS signaling to control the full set of OTN features, including ODU0, ODU4, ODU2e, and ODUflex.</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7139"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7139"/> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC7570" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7570" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC7570"> <front> <title>Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in the Explicit Route Object (ERO)</title> <author initials="C." surname="Margaria" fullname="C. Margaria" role="editor"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="G." surname="Martinelli" fullname="G. Martinelli"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="S." surname="Balls" fullname="S. Balls"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="B." surname="Wright" fullname="B. Wright"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <date year="2015" month="July"/> <abstract> <t>RFC 5420 extends RSVP-TE to specify or record generic attributes that apply to the whole of the path of a Label Switched Path (LSP). This document defines an extension to the RSVP Explicit Route Object (ERO) and Record Route Object (RRO) to allow them to specify or record generic attributes that apply to a given hop.</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7570"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7570"/> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC7792" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7792" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC7792"> <front> <title>RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions in Support of Flexi-Grid Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) Networks</title> <author initials="F." surname="Zhang" fullname="F. Zhang"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="X." surname="Zhang" fullname="X. Zhang"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="A." surname="Farrel" fullname="A. Farrel"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="O." surname="Gonzalez de Dios" fullname="O. Gonzalez de Dios"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="D." surname="Ceccarelli" fullname="D. Ceccarelli"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <date year="2016" month="March"/> <abstract> <t>This memo describes the extensions to the Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) signaling protocol to support Label Switched Paths (LSPs) in a GMPLS-controlled network that includes devices using the flexible optical grid.</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7792"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7792"/> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC8126" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC8126"> <front> <title>Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs</title> <author initials="M." surname="Cotton" fullname="M. Cotton"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="B." surname="Leiba" fullname="B. Leiba"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="T." surname="Narten" fullname="T. Narten"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <date year="2017" month="June"/> <abstract> <t>Many protocols make use of points of extensibility that use constants to identify various protocol parameters. To ensure that the values in these fields do not have conflicting uses and to promote interoperability, their allocations are often coordinated by a central record keeper. For IETF protocols, that role is filled by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).</t> <t>To make assignments in a given registry prudently, guidance describing the conditions under which new values should be assigned, as well as when and how modifications to existing values can be made, is needed. This document defines a framework for the documentation of these guidelines by specification authors, in order to assure that the provided guidance for the IANA Considerations is clear and addresses the various issues that are likely in the operation of a registry.</t> <t>This is the third edition of this document; it obsoletes RFC 5226.</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="26"/> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8126"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8126"/> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC8174" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC8174"> <front> <title>Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words</title> <author initials="B." surname="Leiba" fullname="B. Leiba"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <date year="2017" month="May"/> <abstract> <t>RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings.</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8174"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8174"/> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC8253" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC8253"> <front> <title>PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)</title> <author initials="D." surname="Lopez" fullname="D. Lopez"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="O." surname="Gonzalez de Dios" fullname="O. Gonzalez de Dios"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="Q." surname="Wu" fullname="Q. Wu"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="D." surname="Dhody" fullname="D. Dhody"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <date year="2017" month="October"/> <abstract> <t>The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) defines the mechanisms for the communication between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a Path Computation Element (PCE), or among PCEs. This document describes PCEPS -- the usage of Transport Layer Security (TLS) to provide a secure transport for PCEP. The additional security mechanisms are provided by the transport protocol supporting PCEP; therefore, they do not affect the flexibility and extensibility of PCEP.</t> <t>This document updates RFC 5440 in regards to the PCEP initialization phase procedures.</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8253"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8253"/> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC8282" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8282" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC8282"> <front> <title>Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for Inter-Layer MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering</title> <author initials="E." surname="Oki" fullname="E. Oki"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="T." surname="Takeda" fullname="T. Takeda"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="A." surname="Farrel" fullname="A. Farrel"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="F." surname="Zhang" fullname="F. Zhang"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <date year="2017" month="December"/> <abstract> <t>The Path Computation Element (PCE) provides path computation functions in support of traffic engineering in Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks.</t> <t>MPLS and GMPLS networks may be constructed from layered service networks. It is advantageous for overall network efficiency to provide end-to-end traffic engineering across multiple network layers through a process called inter-layer traffic engineering. PCE is a candidate solution for such requirements.</t> <t>The PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) is designed as a communication protocol between Path Computation Clients (PCCs) and PCEs. This document presents PCEP extensions for inter-layer traffic engineering.</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8282"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8282"/> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC8306" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8306" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC8306"> <front> <title>Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths</title> <author initials="Q." surname="Zhao" fullname="Q. Zhao"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="D." surname="Dhody" fullname="D. Dhody" role="editor"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="R." surname="Palleti" fullname="R. Palleti"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="D." surname="King" fullname="D. King"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <date year="2017" month="November"/> <abstract> <t>Point-to-point Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) may be established using signaling techniques, but their paths may first need to be determined. The Path Computation Element (PCE) has been identified as an appropriate technology for the determination of the paths of point-to-multipoint (P2MP) TE LSPs.</t> <t>This document describes extensions to the PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) to handle requests and responses for the computation of paths for P2MP TE LSPs.</t> <t>This document obsoletes RFC 6006.</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8306"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8306"/> </reference> </references> <references pn="section-7.2"> <name slugifiedName="name-informative-references">Informative References</name> <reference anchor="RFC4655" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC4655"> <front> <title>A Path Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture</title> <author initials="A." surname="Farrel" fullname="A. Farrel"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="J.-P." surname="Vasseur" fullname="J.-P. Vasseur"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="J." surname="Ash" fullname="J. Ash"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <date year="2006" month="August"/> <abstract> <t>Constraint-based path computation is a fundamental building block for traffic engineering systems such as Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) networks. Path computation in large, multi-domain, multi-region, or multi-layer networks is complex and may require special computational components and cooperation between the different network domains.</t> <t>This document specifies the architecture for a Path Computation Element (PCE)-based model to address this problem space. This document does not attempt to provide a detailed description of all the architectural components, but rather it describes a set of building blocks for the PCE architecture from which solutions may be constructed. This memo provides information for the Internet community.</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4655"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4655"/> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC4657" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4657" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC4657"> <front> <title>Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic Requirements</title> <author initials="J." surname="Ash" fullname="J. Ash" role="editor"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="J.L." surname="Le Roux" fullname="J.L. Le Roux" role="editor"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <date year="2006" month="September"/> <abstract> <t>The PCE model is described in the "PCE Architecture" document and facilitates path computation requests from Path Computation Clients (PCCs) to Path Computation Elements (PCEs). This document specifies generic requirements for a communication protocol between PCCs and PCEs, and also between PCEs where cooperation between PCEs is desirable. Subsequent documents will specify application-specific requirements for the PCE communication protocol. This memo provides information for the Internet community.</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4657"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4657"/> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC5920" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5920" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC5920"> <front> <title>Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks</title> <author initials="L." surname="Fang" fullname="L. Fang" role="editor"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <date year="2010" month="July"/> <abstract> <t>This document provides a security framework for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Networks. This document addresses the security aspects that are relevant in the context of MPLS and GMPLS. It describes the security threats, the related defensive techniques, and the mechanisms for detection and reporting. This document emphasizes RSVP-TE and LDP security considerations, as well as inter-AS and inter-provider security considerations for building and maintaining MPLS and GMPLS networks across different domains or different Service Providers. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5920"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5920"/> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC6123" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6123" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC6123"> <front> <title>Inclusion of Manageability Sections in Path Computation Element (PCE) Working Group Drafts</title> <author initials="A." surname="Farrel" fullname="A. Farrel"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <date year="2011" month="February"/> <abstract> <t>It has often been the case that manageability considerations have been retrofitted to protocols after they have been specified, standardized, implemented, or deployed. This is sub-optimal. Similarly, new protocols or protocol extensions are frequently designed without due consideration of manageability requirements.</t> <t>The Operations Area has developed "Guidelines for Considering Operations and Management of New Protocols and Protocol Extensions" (RFC 5706), and those guidelines have been adopted by the Path Computation Element (PCE) Working Group.</t> <t>Previously, the PCE Working Group used the recommendations contained in this document to guide authors of Internet-Drafts on the contents of "Manageability Considerations" sections in their work. This document is retained for historic reference. This document defines a Historic Document for the Internet community.</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6123"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6123"/> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC6163" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6163" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC6163"> <front> <title>Framework for GMPLS and Path Computation Element (PCE) Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs)</title> <author initials="Y." surname="Lee" fullname="Y. Lee" role="editor"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="G." surname="Bernstein" fullname="G. Bernstein" role="editor"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="W." surname="Imajuku" fullname="W. Imajuku"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <date year="2011" month="April"/> <abstract> <t>This document provides a framework for applying Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) and the Path Computation Element (PCE) architecture to the control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs). In particular, it examines Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA) of optical paths.</t> <t>This document focuses on topological elements and path selection constraints that are common across different WSON environments; as such, it does not address optical impairments in any depth. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6163"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6163"/> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC7025" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7025" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC7025"> <front> <title>Requirements for GMPLS Applications of PCE</title> <author initials="T." surname="Otani" fullname="T. Otani"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="K." surname="Ogaki" fullname="K. Ogaki"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="D." surname="Caviglia" fullname="D. Caviglia"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="F." surname="Zhang" fullname="F. Zhang"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="C." surname="Margaria" fullname="C. Margaria"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <date year="2013" month="September"/> <abstract> <t>The initial effort of the PCE (Path Computation Element) WG focused mainly on MPLS. As a next step, this document describes functional requirements for GMPLS applications of PCE.</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7025"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7025"/> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC7449" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7449" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC7449"> <front> <title>Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Requirements for Wavelength Switched Optical Network (WSON) Routing and Wavelength Assignment</title> <author initials="Y." surname="Lee" fullname="Y. Lee" role="editor"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="G." surname="Bernstein" fullname="G. Bernstein" role="editor"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="J." surname="Martensson" fullname="J. Martensson"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="T." surname="Takeda" fullname="T. Takeda"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="T." surname="Tsuritani" fullname="T. Tsuritani"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <author initials="O." surname="Gonzalez de Dios" fullname="O. Gonzalez de Dios"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> </author> <date year="2015" month="February"/> <abstract> <t>This memo provides application-specific requirements for the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for the support of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs). Lightpath provisioning in WSONs requires a Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA) process. From a path computation perspective, wavelength assignment is the process of determining which wavelength can be used on each hop of a path and forms an additional routing constraint to optical light path computation. Requirements forthePCEP extensions in support of opticaltransport network, Recommendation G.709/Y.1331 </title> <author> <organization>ITU-T</organization></author> <date year="2016" month="June"/>impairments will be addressed in a separate document.</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7449"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7449"/> </reference><?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2210.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3209.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3471.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3473.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3477.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3630.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4003.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4328.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4606.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4802.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4872.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4873.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5088.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5089.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5440.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5511.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5520.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5521.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5541.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6001.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6003.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6205.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6387.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7570.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7139.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7792.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8126.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8253.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8282.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8306.xml"?></references><references title="Informative References"> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4655.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4657.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5920.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6123.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6163.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7025.xml"?> <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7449.xml"?></references> <section anchor="appendix"title="LOAD-BALANCINGnumbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-appendix.a"> <name slugifiedName="name-load-balancing-usage-for-sd">LOAD-BALANCING Usage for SDH VirtualConcatenation"> <t>For exampleConcatenation</name> <t pn="section-appendix.a-1">As an example, a request for one co-signaled n x VC-4 TE-LSP will not usetheLOAD-BALANCING. In case the VC-4 components can use different paths, the BANDWIDTH with object typeTBA-23 will containa traffic specification indicatingthe complete n x VC-4 trafficspecificationspecification, and the LOAD-BALANCING object will contain the minimum co-signaled VC-4. For an SDH network, a requestto havefor a TE-LSP group with 10 VC-4 containers, with each path using at minimum 2 x VC-4 containers, can be represented with a BANDWIDTH object withOT=TBA-2,object type 3, the Bw Spec Type set to 4, and the content of the Generalized Bandwidthisfield with ST=6, RCC=0, NCC=0, NVC=10, and MT=1. TheLOAD-BALANCING, OT=TBA-4LOAD-BALANCING with object type 2 with the Bw Spec Type set to4,4 and Max-LSP=5, Min Bandwidth Spec is(ST=6,ST=6, RCC=0, NCC=0, NVC=2,MT=1).MT=1. The PCE can respond with aresponse withmaximum of 5 paths, with eachof thempath having a BANDWIDTHOT=TBA-2object type 3 and a Generalized Bandwidth field matching the Min Bandwidth Spec from the LOAD-BALANCING object of the corresponding request.</t> </section> <section numbered="false" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-appendix.b"> <name slugifiedName="name-acknowledgments">Acknowledgments</name> <t pn="section-appendix.b-1"> The research of <contact fullname="Ramon Casellas"/>, <contact fullname="Francisco Javier Jimenez Chico"/>, <contact fullname="Oscar Gonzalez de Dios"/>, <contact fullname="Cyril Margaria"/>, and <contact fullname="Franz Rambach"/> that led to the results in this document received funding from the European Community's Seventh Framework Program FP7/2007-2013 under grant agreement no. 247674 and no. 317999. </t> <t pn="section-appendix.b-2"> The authors would like to thank <contact fullname="Julien Meuric"/>, <contact fullname="Lyndon Ong"/>, <contact fullname="Giada Lander"/>, <contact fullname="Jonathan Hardwick"/>, <contact fullname="Diego Lopez"/>, <contact fullname="David Sinicrope"/>, <contact fullname="Vincent Roca"/>, <contact fullname="Dhruv Dhody"/>, <contact fullname="Adrian Farrel"/>, and <contact fullname="Tianran Zhou"/> for their review and useful comments. </t> <t pn="section-appendix.b-3"> Thanks to <contact fullname="Alisa Cooper"/>, <contact fullname="Benjamin Kaduk"/>, <contact fullname="Elwyn Davies"/>, <contact fullname="Martin Vigoureux"/>, <contact fullname="Roman Danyliw"/>, and <contact fullname="Suresh Krishnan"/> for the IESG-related comments.</t> </section> <section numbered="false" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-appendix.c"> <name slugifiedName="name-contributors">Contributors</name> <contact fullname="Elie Sfeir"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true">Coriant</organization> <address> <postal> <street>St. Martin Strasse 76</street> <city>Munich</city> <region/> <code>81541</code> <country>Germany</country> </postal> <email>elie.sfeir@coriant.com</email> </address> </contact> <contact fullname="Franz Rambach"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> <address> <postal> <street>Nockherstrasse 2-4</street> <city>Munich</city> <region/> <code>81541</code> <country>Germany</country> </postal> <phone>+49 178 8855738</phone> <email>franz.rambach@cgi.com</email> </address> </contact> <contact fullname="Francisco Javier Jimenez Chico"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true">Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo</organization> <address> <postal> <street>C/ Emilio Vargas 6</street> <city>Madrid</city> <region/> <code>28043</code> <country>Spain</country> </postal> <phone>+34 91 3379037</phone> <email>fjjc@tid.es</email> </address> </contact> <contact fullname="Suresh Babu"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> <address> <postal> <street/> <city/> <region/> <code/> <country/> </postal> <email>sureshhimnish@gmail.com</email> </address> </contact> <contact fullname="Young Lee"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true">Samsung Electronics</organization> <address> <postal> <street/> <city/> <region/> <code/> <country/> </postal> <phone/> <email>younglee.tx@gmail.com</email> </address> </contact> <contact fullname="Senthil Kumar S"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/> <address> <postal> <street/> <city/> <region/> <code/> <country/> </postal> <email>ssenthilkumar@gmail.com</email> </address> </contact> <contact fullname="Jun Sun"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true">Huawei Technologies</organization> <address> <postal> <street/> <city>Shenzhen</city> <region/> <code/> <country>China</country> </postal> <email>johnsun@huawei.com</email> </address> </contact> <contact fullname="Ramon Casellas"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true">CTTC - Centre Tecnologic de Telecomunicacions de Catalunya</organization> <address> <postal> <street>PMT Ed B4 Av. Carl Friedrich Gauss 7</street> <city>Castelldefels,</city> <region>Barcelona</region> <code>08660</code> <country>Spain</country> </postal> <phone>+34 93 6452916</phone> <email>ramon.casellas@cttc.e</email> </address> </contact> </section> <section anchor="authors-addresses" numbered="false" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-appendix.d"> <name slugifiedName="name-authors-addresses">Authors' Addresses</name> <author fullname="Cyril Margaria" initials="C." role="editor" surname="Margaria"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true">Juniper</organization> <address> <email>cmargaria@juniper.net</email> </address> </author> <author fullname="Oscar Gonzalez de Dios" initials="O." role="editor" surname="Gonzalez de Dios"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true">Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo</organization> <address> <postal> <street>C/ Ronda de la Comunicacion</street> <city>Madrid</city> <region/> <code>28050</code> <country>Spain</country> </postal> <phone>+34 91 4833441</phone> <email>oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com</email> </address> </author> <author fullname="Fatai Zhang" role="editor" initials="F." surname="Zhang"> <organization showOnFrontPage="true">Huawei Technologies</organization> <address> <postal> <street>F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base</street> <cityarea>Bantian, Longgang District</cityarea> <city>Shenzhen</city> <region/> <code>518129</code> <country>China</country> </postal> <email>zhangfatai@huawei.com</email> </address> </author> </section> </back> </rfc>