draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-14.txt   draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-15.txt 
Network Working Group Y. Lee, Ed. Network Working Group Y. Lee, Ed.
Internet Draft Huawei Technologies Internet Draft Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Standard Track R. Casellas, Ed. Intended status: Standard Track R. Casellas, Ed.
Expires: August 14, 2019 CTTC Expires: August 21, 2019 CTTC
February 15, 2019 February 22, 2019
PCEP Extension for WSON Routing and Wavelength Assignment PCEP Extension for WSON Routing and Wavelength Assignment
draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-14 draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-15
Abstract Abstract
This document provides the Path Computation Element communication This document provides the Path Computation Element communication
Protocol (PCEP) extensions for the support of Routing and Wavelength Protocol (PCEP) extensions for the support of Routing and Wavelength
Assignment (RWA) in Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSON). Assignment (RWA) in Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSON).
Path provisioning in WSONs requires a routing and wavelength Path provisioning in WSONs requires a routing and wavelength
assignment (RWA) process. From a path computation perspective, assignment (RWA) process. From a path computation perspective,
wavelength assignment is the process of determining which wavelength wavelength assignment is the process of determining which wavelength
can be used on each hop of a path and forms an additional routing can be used on each hop of a path and forms an additional routing
skipping to change at page 2, line 7 skipping to change at page 2, line 7
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 14, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 21, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 34 skipping to change at page 2, line 34
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Terminology....................................................3 1. Terminology....................................................3
2. Requirements Language..........................................3 2. Requirements Language..........................................3
3. Introduction...................................................3 3. Introduction...................................................3
4. Encoding of a RWA Path Request.................................6 4. Encoding of a RWA Path Request.................................6
4.1. Wavelength Assignment (WA) Object.........................7 4.1. Wavelength Assignment (WA) Object.........................7
4.2. Wavelength Selection TLV..................................9 4.2. Wavelength Selection TLV..................................9
4.3. Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV.....................9 4.3. Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV.....................9
4.3.1. Link Identifier Field...............................12 4.3.1. Link Identifier Field...............................12
4.3.2. Wavelength Restriction Field........................13 4.3.2. Wavelength Restriction Field........................14
4.4. Signal Processing Capability Restrictions................15 4.4. Signal Processing Capability Restrictions................15
4.4.1. Signal Processing Exclusion.........................16 4.4.1. Signal Processing Exclusion.........................17
4.4.2. Signal Processing Inclusion.........................18 4.4.2. Signal Processing Inclusion.........................18
5. Encoding of a RWA Path Reply..................................18 5. Encoding of a RWA Path Reply..................................19
5.1. Wavelength Allocation TLV................................18 5.1. Wavelength Allocation TLV................................19
5.2. Error Indicator..........................................20 5.2. Error Indicator..........................................21
5.3. NO-PATH Indicator........................................21 5.3. NO-PATH Indicator........................................21
6. Manageability Considerations..................................21 6. Manageability Considerations..................................22
6.1. Control of Function and Policy...........................21 6.1. Control of Function and Policy...........................22
6.2. Liveness Detection and Monitoring........................22 6.2. Liveness Detection and Monitoring........................22
6.3. Verifying Correct Operation..............................22 6.3. Verifying Correct Operation..............................22
6.4. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components22 6.4. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components23
6.5. Impact on Network Operation..............................22 6.5. Impact on Network Operation..............................23
7. Security Considerations.......................................22 7. Security Considerations.......................................23
8. IANA Considerations...........................................22 8. IANA Considerations...........................................23
8.1. New PCEP Object: Wavelength Assignment Object............22 8.1. New PCEP Object: Wavelength Assignment Object............23
8.2. WA Object Flag Field.....................................23 8.2. WA Object Flag Field.....................................24
8.3. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Selection TLV...................23 8.3. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Selection TLV...................24
8.4. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV......24 8.4. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV......24
8.5. Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV Action Values......24 8.5. Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV Action Values......25
8.6. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Allocation TLV..................24 8.6. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Allocation TLV..................25
8.7. Wavelength Allocation TLV Flag Field.....................25 8.7. Wavelength Allocation TLV Flag Field.....................26
8.8. New PCEP TLV: Optical Interface Class List TLV...........25 8.8. New PCEP TLV: Optical Interface Class List TLV...........26
8.9. New PCEP TLV: Client Signal TLV..........................26 8.9. New PCEP TLV: Client Signal TLV..........................26
8.10. New No-Path Reasons.....................................26 8.10. New No-Path Reasons.....................................27
8.11. New Error-Types and Error-Values........................26 8.11. New Error-Types and Error-Values........................27
8.12. New SubobjectS for the Exclude Route Object.............27 8.12. New Subobjects for the Exclude Route Object.............28
8.13. New SubobjectS for the Include Route Object.............27 8.13. New Subobjects for the Include Route Object.............28
9. Acknowledgments...............................................28 8.14. Request for Updated Note for LMP TE Link Object Class Type
10. References...................................................28 ..............................................................28
10.1. Normative References....................................28 9. Acknowledgments...............................................29
10.2. Informative References..................................29 10. References...................................................29
11. Contributors.................................................31 10.1. Normative References....................................29
Authors' Addresses...............................................32 10.2. Informative References..................................30
11. Contributors.................................................32
Authors' Addresses...............................................33
1. Terminology 1. Terminology
This document uses the terminology defined in [RFC4655], and This document uses the terminology defined in [RFC4655], and
[RFC5440]. [RFC5440].
2. Requirements Language 2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
skipping to change at page 5, line 19 skipping to change at page 5, line 19
+---+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +---+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
(X LSC) (LSC LSC) (LSC LSC) (LSC X) (X LSC) (LSC LSC) (LSC LSC) (LSC X)
<-------> <-------> <-----> <-------> <-------> <-------> <-----> <------->
<-----------------------><----------------------> <-----------------------><---------------------->
Transparent Segment Transparent Segment Transparent Segment Transparent Segment
<-------------------------------------------------> <------------------------------------------------->
LSC LSP LSC LSP
Figure 1 Illustration of a LSC LSP and transparent segments Figure 1 Illustration of a LSC LSP and transparent segments
Note that two optical paths within a WSON LSP do not need to operate Note that two transparent segments within a WSON LSP do not need to
on the same wavelength (due to the wavelength conversion operate on the same wavelength (due to the wavelength conversion
capabilities). Two optical paths that share a common fiber link capabilities). Two optical channels that share a common fiber link
cannot be assigned the same wavelength; Otherwise, the two signals cannot be assigned the same wavelength; Otherwise, the two signals
would interfere with each other. Note that advanced additional would interfere with each other. Note that advanced additional
multiplexing techniques such as polarization based multiplexing are multiplexing techniques such as polarization based multiplexing are
not addressed in this document since the physical layer aspects are not addressed in this document since the physical layer aspects are
not currently standardized. Therefore, assigning the proper not currently standardized. Therefore, assigning the proper
wavelength on a path is an essential requirement in the optical path wavelength on a path is an essential requirement in the optical path
computation process. computation process.
When a switching node has the ability to perform wavelength When a switching node has the ability to perform wavelength
conversion, the wavelength-continuity constraint can be relaxed, and conversion, the wavelength-continuity constraint can be relaxed, and
skipping to change at page 6, line 18 skipping to change at page 6, line 18
This document aligns with GMPLS extensions for PCEP [PCEP-GMPLS] for This document aligns with GMPLS extensions for PCEP [PCEP-GMPLS] for
generic properties such as label, label-set and label assignment generic properties such as label, label-set and label assignment
noting that wavelength is a type of label. Wavelength restrictions noting that wavelength is a type of label. Wavelength restrictions
and constraints are also formulated in terms of labels per and constraints are also formulated in terms of labels per
[RFC7579]. [RFC7579].
The optical modulation properties, which are also referred to as The optical modulation properties, which are also referred to as
signal compatibility, are already considered in signaling in signal compatibility, are already considered in signaling in
[RFC7581] and [RFC7688]. In order to improve the signal quality and [RFC7581] and [RFC7688]. In order to improve the signal quality and
limit some optical effects several advanced modulation processing limit some optical effects several advanced modulation processing
capabilities are used. These modulation capabilities contribute not capabilities are used by the mechanisms specified in this document.
only to optical signal quality checks but also constrain the These modulation capabilities contribute not only to optical signal
selection of sender and receiver, as they should have matching quality checks but also constrain the selection of sender and
signal processing capabilities. This document includes signal receiver, as they should have matching signal processing
compatibility constraints as part of RWA path computation. That is, capabilities. This document includes signal compatibility
the signal processing capabilities (e.g., modulation and Forward constraints as part of RWA path computation. That is, the signal
Error Correction (FEC)) indicated by means of optical interface processing capabilities (e.g., modulation and Forward Error
class (OIC) must be compatible between the sender and the receiver Correction (FEC)) indicated by means of optical interface class
of the optical path across all optical elements. (OIC) must be compatible between the sender and the receiver of the
optical path across all optical elements.
This document, however, does not address optical impairments as part This document, however, does not address optical impairments as part
of RWA path computation. See [RFC6566] for the framework for optical of RWA path computation. See [RFC6566] for the framework for optical
impairments. impairments.
4. Encoding of a RWA Path Request 4. Encoding of a RWA Path Request
Figure 2 shows one typical PCE based implementation, which is Figure 2 shows one typical PCE based implementation, which is
referred to as the Combined Process (R&WA). With this architecture, referred to as the Combined Process (R&WA). With this architecture,
the two processes of routing and wavelength assignment are accessed the two processes of routing and wavelength assignment are accessed
skipping to change at page 7, line 20 skipping to change at page 7, line 30
(a) By means of Explicit Label Control [RFC3471] where the PCE (a) By means of Explicit Label Control [RFC3471] where the PCE
allocates which label to use for each interface/node along the path. allocates which label to use for each interface/node along the path.
The allocated labels MAY appear after an interface route subobject. The allocated labels MAY appear after an interface route subobject.
(b) By means of a Label Set where the PCE provides a range of (b) By means of a Label Set where the PCE provides a range of
potential labels to allocate by each node along the path. potential labels to allocate by each node along the path.
Option (b) allows distributed label allocation (performed during Option (b) allows distributed label allocation (performed during
signaling) to complete wavelength assignment. signaling) to complete wavelength assignment.
Additionally, given a range of potential labels to allocate, the Additionally, given a range of potential labels to allocate, a PC
request SHOULD convey the heuristic / mechanism used for the Request SHOULD convey the heuristic / mechanism used for the
allocation. allocation.
The format of a PCReq message per [RFC5440] after incorporating the The format of a PCReq message per [RFC5440] after incorporating the
Wavelength Assignment (WA) object is as follows: Wavelength Assignment (WA) object is as follows:
<PCReq Message> ::= <Common Header> <PCReq Message> ::= <Common Header>
[<svec-list>] [<svec-list>]
<request-list> <request-list>
skipping to change at page 9, line 5 skipping to change at page 9, line 24
Field as described in Section 2.6 of [RFC7579] in the response. Field as described in Section 2.6 of [RFC7579] in the response.
See Section 5 of this document for the encoding discussion of a See Section 5 of this document for the encoding discussion of a
Label Set Field in a PCRep message. Label Set Field in a PCRep message.
All unused flags SHOULD be zeroed. IANA is to create a new All unused flags SHOULD be zeroed. IANA is to create a new
registry to manage the Flag field of the WA object. registry to manage the Flag field of the WA object.
o TLVs (variable). In the TLVs field, the following two TLVs are o TLVs (variable). In the TLVs field, the following two TLVs are
defined. At least one TLV MUST be present. defined. At least one TLV MUST be present.
- Wavelength Selection TLV (32 bits): See Section 4.2 for - Wavelength Selection TLV: A TLV of type (TBD2) with fixed
details. length of 32 bits indicating the wavelength selection. See
Section 4.2 for details.
- Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV (Variable): See Section - Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV: A TLV of type (TBD3)
4.3 for details. with variable length indicating wavelength restrictions. See
Section 4.3 for details.
4.2. Wavelength Selection TLV 4.2. Wavelength Selection TLV
The Wavelength Selection TLV is used to indicate the wavelength The Wavelength Selection TLV is used to indicate the wavelength
selection constraint in regard to the order of wavelength assignment selection constraint in regard to the order of wavelength assignment
to be returned by the PCE. This TLV is only applied when M bit is to be returned by the PCE. This TLV is only applied when M bit is
set in the WA Object specified in Section 4.1. This TLV MUST NOT be set in the WA Object specified in Section 4.1. This TLV MUST NOT be
used when the M bit is cleared. used when the M bit is cleared.
The encoding of this TLV is specified as the Wavelength Selection The encoding of this TLV is specified as the Wavelength Selection
skipping to change at page 10, line 4 skipping to change at page 10, line 24
<Wavelength Restriction Constraint> ::= <Wavelength Restriction Constraint> ::=
(<Action> <Count> <Reserved> (<Action> <Count> <Reserved>
<Link Identifiers> <Wavelength Restriction>)... <Link Identifiers> <Wavelength Restriction>)...
Where Where
<Link Identifiers> ::= <Link Identifier> [<Link Identifiers>] <Link Identifiers> ::= <Link Identifier> [<Link Identifiers>]
See Section 4.3.1. for the encoding of the Link Identifiers Field. See Section 4.3.1. for the encoding of the Link Identifiers Field.
<Link Identifiers> and <Wavelength Restriction> fields MAY These fields (i.e., <Action>, <Link Identifiers> and <Wavelength
appear together more than once to be able to specify multiple Restriction>, etc.) MAY appear together more than once to be able to
restrictions. specify multiple actions and their restrictions.
IANA is to allocate a new TLV type, Wavelength Restriction IANA is to allocate a new TLV type, Wavelength Restriction
Constraint TLV type (TBD3). Constraint TLV type (TBD3).
The TLV data is defined as follows: The TLV data is defined as follows:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Action | Count | Reserved | | Action | Count | Reserved |
skipping to change at page 11, line 23 skipping to change at page 11, line 38
(inclusive). All links with numeric values between the (inclusive). All links with numeric values between the
bounds are considered to be part of the set. A value of zero bounds are considered to be part of the set. A value of zero
in either position indicates that there is no bound on the in either position indicates that there is no bound on the
corresponding portion of the range. corresponding portion of the range.
o 2-255 - For future use o 2-255 - For future use
IANA is to create a new registry to manage the Action values of the IANA is to create a new registry to manage the Action values of the
Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV. Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV.
If PCE receives an unrecognized Action value, the PCE MUST send a
PCErr message with a PCEP-ERROR Object (Error-Type=TBD8) and an
Error-value (Error-value=3). See Section 5.2 for details.
Note that "links" are assumed to be bidirectional. Note that "links" are assumed to be bidirectional.
o Count (8 bits): The number of the link identifiers o Count (8 bits): The number of the link identifiers
Note that a PCC MAY add a Wavelength restriction that applies to all Note that a PCC MAY add a Wavelength restriction that applies to all
links by setting the Count field to zero and specifying just a set links by setting the Count field to zero and specifying just a set
of wavelengths. of wavelengths.
Note that all link identifiers in the same list MUST be of the same Note that all link identifiers in the same list MUST be of the same
type. type.
skipping to change at page 13, line 33 skipping to change at page 14, line 16
zeroed and ignored on receipt. zeroed and ignored on receipt.
o Link Identifier: When Type field is 1, 4-bytes IPv4 address o Link Identifier: When Type field is 1, 4-bytes IPv4 address
is encoded; when Type field is 2, 16-bytes IPv6 address is is encoded; when Type field is 2, 16-bytes IPv6 address is
encoded; when Type field is 3, a tuple of 4-bytes TE node encoded; when Type field is 3, a tuple of 4-bytes TE node
ID and 4-bytes interface ID is encoded. ID and 4-bytes interface ID is encoded.
The Type field is extensible and matches to the IANA registry The Type field is extensible and matches to the IANA registry
created for Link Management Protocol (LMP) [RFC4204] for "TE Link created for Link Management Protocol (LMP) [RFC4204] for "TE Link
Object Class Type name space": https://www.iana.org/assignments/lmp- Object Class Type name space": https://www.iana.org/assignments/lmp-
parameters/lmp-parameters.xhtml#lmp-parameters-15. parameters/lmp-parameters.xhtml#lmp-parameters-15. See Section 8.14
for the request to update the introductory text of the
aforementioned registry to note that the values have additional
usage for the Link Identifier Type field.
4.3.2. Wavelength Restriction Field 4.3.2. Wavelength Restriction Field
The Wavelength Restriction Field of the Wavelength Restriction The Wavelength Restriction Field of the Wavelength Restriction
Constraint TLV is encoded as a Label Set field as specified in Constraint TLV is encoded as a Label Set field as specified in
Section 2.6 in [RFC7579] with base label encoded as a 32 bit LSC Section 2.6 in [RFC7579] with base label encoded as a 32 bit LSC
label, defined in [RFC6205]. The Label Set format is repeated here label, defined in [RFC6205]. The Label Set format is repeated here
for convenience, with the base label internal structure included. for convenience, with the base label internal structure included.
See [RFC6205] for a description of Grid, C.S, Identifier and n, as See [RFC6205] for a description of Grid, C.S, Identifier and n, as
well as [RFC7579] for the details of each action. well as [RFC7579] for the details of each action.
skipping to change at page 14, line 41 skipping to change at page 15, line 26
Restriction field. Restriction field.
The Identifier has a specific PCEP context. To clarify the The Identifier has a specific PCEP context. To clarify the
interpretation of the Identifier, the following additional interpretation of the Identifier, the following additional
explanation is added. explanation is added.
Identifier (9 bits): The value to be included in the "Identifier" Identifier (9 bits): The value to be included in the "Identifier"
field of the WDM label in RSVP-TE signaling, as defined in section field of the WDM label in RSVP-TE signaling, as defined in section
3.2 of [RFC6205]. The PCC MAY use the assigned value for the 3.2 of [RFC6205]. The PCC MAY use the assigned value for the
Identifier field in the corresponding LSP-related messages in RSVP- Identifier field in the corresponding LSP-related messages in RSVP-
TE signaling. TE signaling. The Identifier is always set to 0. If PCC receives the
value of the identifier other than 0, it will ignore.
See Sections 2.6.1 - 2.6.3 of [RFC7579] for details on additional See Sections 2.6.1 - 2.6.3 of [RFC7579] for details on additional
field discussion for each action. field discussion for each action.
4.4. Signal Processing Capability Restrictions 4.4. Signal Processing Capability Restrictions
Path computation for WSON includes checking of signal processing Path computation for WSON includes checking of signal processing
capabilities at each interface against requested capability; the PCE capabilities at each interface against requested capability; the PCE
MUST have mechanisms to know the signal processing capabilities at MUST have mechanisms to know the signal processing capabilities at
each interface, e.g. by means of the Traffic Engineering Database each interface, e.g. by means of the Traffic Engineering Database
skipping to change at page 16, line 4 skipping to change at page 16, line 33
<endpoint-restriction> ::= <endpoint-restriction> ::=
<LABEL-REQUEST> <label-restriction-list> <LABEL-REQUEST> <label-restriction-list>
<label-restriction-list> ::= <label-restriction> <label-restriction-list> ::= <label-restriction>
[<label-restriction-list>] [<label-restriction-list>]
<label-restriction> ::= (<LABEL-SET>| <label-restriction> ::= (<LABEL-SET>|
[<Wavelength Restriction Constraint>] [<Wavelength Restriction Constraint>]
[<signal-compatibility-restriction>]) [<signal-compatibility-restriction>])
Where Where
<signal-compatibility-restriction> ::= <signal-compatibility-restriction> ::=
[<Optical Interface Class List>] [<Client Signal>] [<Optical Interface Class List>] [<Client Signal>]
The Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV is defined in Section 4.3. The Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV is defined in Section 4.3.
A new TLV for the Optical Interface Class List TLV (TBD5) is A new TLV for the Optical Interface Class List TLV (TBD5) is
defined, and the encoding of the value part of the Optical Interface defined, and the encoding of the value part of the Optical Interface
Class List TLV is described in Section 4.1 of [RFC7581]. Class List TLV is described in Section 4.1 of [RFC7581].
A new TLV for the Client Signal Information TLV (TBD6) is defined, A new TLV for the Client Signal Information TLV (TBD6) is defined,
and the encoding of the value part of the Client Signal Information and the encoding of the value part of the Client Signal Information
TLV is described in Section 4.2 of [RFC7581]. TLV is described in Section 4.2 of [RFC7581].
skipping to change at page 18, line 19 skipping to change at page 19, line 4
TBD9 Optical Interface Class List TBD9 Optical Interface Class List
TBD10 Client Signal Information TBD10 Client Signal Information
4.4.2. Signal Processing Inclusion 4.4.2. Signal Processing Inclusion
Similar to the XRO subobject, the PCC/PCE should be able to include Similar to the XRO subobject, the PCC/PCE should be able to include
particular types of signal processing along the path in order to particular types of signal processing along the path in order to
handle client restriction or multi-domain path computation. handle client restriction or multi-domain path computation.
[RFC5440] defines how Include Route Object (IRO) subobject is used. [RFC5440] defines how Include Route Object (IRO) subobject is used.
In this draft, we add two new Signal Processing Inclusion In this draft, we add two new Signal Processing Inclusion
Subobjects. Subobjects.
The IRO needs to support the new IRO Subobject types (TBD11 and The IRO needs to support the new IRO Subobject types (TBD11 and
TBD12) for the PCEP IRO object [RFC5440]: TBD12) for the PCEP IRO object [RFC5440]:
Type IRO Subibject Type Type IRO Subobject Type
TBD11 Optical Interface Class List TBD11 Optical Interface Class List
TBD12 Client Signal Information TBD12 Client Signal Information
The encoding of the Signal Processing Inclusion subobjects is The encoding of the Signal Processing Inclusion subobjects is
similar to Section 4.4.1 where the 'X' field is replaced with 'L' similar to Section 4.4.1 where the 'X' field is replaced with 'L'
field, all the other fields remains the same. The 'L' field is field, all the other fields remains the same. The 'L' field is
described in [RFC3209]. described in [RFC3209].
skipping to change at page 20, line 42 skipping to change at page 21, line 31
o Error-Type=TBD8; Error-value=2: if a PCE receives a RWA request o Error-Type=TBD8; Error-value=2: if a PCE receives a RWA request
and the PCE is not capable of RWA computation, the PCE MUST and the PCE is not capable of RWA computation, the PCE MUST
send a PCErr message with a PCEP-ERROR Object (Error-Type=TBD8) send a PCErr message with a PCEP-ERROR Object (Error-Type=TBD8)
and an Error-value (Error-value=2). The PCE stops processing and an Error-value (Error-value=2). The PCE stops processing
the request. The corresponding RWA computation MUST be the request. The corresponding RWA computation MUST be
cancelled at the PCC. cancelled at the PCC.
o Error-Type=TBD8; Error-value=3: if a PCE receives a RWA request o Error-Type=TBD8; Error-value=3: if a PCE receives a RWA request
and there are syntactical encoding errors (e.g., not exactly and there are syntactical encoding errors (e.g., not exactly
two link identifiers with the range case, unknown identifier two link identifiers with the range case, unknown identifier
types, no matching link for a given identifier, etc.), the PCE types, no matching link for a given identifier, unknown Action
MUST send a PCErr message with a PCEP-ERROR Object (Error- value, etc.), the PCE MUST send a PCErr message with a PCEP-
Type=TBD8) and an Error-value (Error-value=3). ERROR Object (Error-Type=TBD8) and an Error-value (Error-
value=3).
5.3. NO-PATH Indicator 5.3. NO-PATH Indicator
To communicate the reason(s) for not being able to find RWA for the To communicate the reason(s) for not being able to find RWA for the
path request, the NO-PATH object can be used in the corresponding path request, the NO-PATH object can be used in the corresponding
response. The format of the NO-PATH object body is defined in response. The format of the NO-PATH object body is defined in
[RFC5440]. The object may contain a NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV to provide [RFC5440]. The object may contain a NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV to provide
additional information about why a path computation has failed. additional information about why a path computation has failed.
One new bit flag is defined to be carried in the Flags field in the One new bit flag is defined to be carried in the Flags field in the
skipping to change at page 24, line 41 skipping to change at page 25, line 33
--------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------
0 Inclusive List [This.I-D] 0 Inclusive List [This.I-D]
1 Inclusive Range [This.I-D] 1 Inclusive Range [This.I-D]
2-255 Reserved [This.I-D] 2-255 Reserved [This.I-D]
8.6. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Allocation TLV 8.6. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Allocation TLV
As described in Section 5, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate the As described in Section 5.1, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate
allocation of wavelength(s) by the PCE in response to a request by the allocation of wavelength(s) by the PCE in response to a request
the PCC. IANA is to allocate this new TLV from the "PCEP TLV Type by the PCC. IANA is to allocate this new TLV from the "PCEP TLV Type
Indicators" subregistry Indicators" subregistry
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type- (http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type-
indicators). indicators).
Value Description Reference Value Description Reference
--------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------
TBD4 Wavelength Allocation [This.I-D] TBD4 Wavelength Allocation [This.I-D]
8.7. Wavelength Allocation TLV Flag Field 8.7. Wavelength Allocation TLV Flag Field
As described in Section 5, IANA is to allocate a registry to manage As described in Section 5.1, IANA is to allocate a registry to
the Flag field of the Wavelength Allocation TLV. New values are to manage the Flag field of the Wavelength Allocation TLV. New values
be assigned by Standards Action [RFC8126]. Each bit should be are to be assigned by Standards Action [RFC8126]. Each bit should
tracked with the following qualities: be tracked with the following qualities:
o Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit) o Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit)
o Capability description o Capability description
o Defining RFC o Defining RFC
One bit is defined for the Wavelength Allocation flag in this - One bit is defined for the Wavelength Allocation flag in this -
document: document:
skipping to change at page 26, line 21 skipping to change at page 27, line 13
the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" subregistry the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" subregistry
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type- (http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type-
indicators). indicators).
Value Description Reference Value Description Reference
--------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------
TBD6 Client Signal Information [This.I-D] TBD6 Client Signal Information [This.I-D]
8.10. New No-Path Reasons 8.10. New No-Path Reasons
As described in Section 5.2, a new bit flag are defined to be As described in Section 5.3, a new bit flag are defined to be
carried in the Flags field in the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV carried in the carried in the Flags field in the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV carried in the
NO-PATH Object. This flag, when set, indicates that no feasible NO-PATH Object. This flag, when set, indicates that no feasible
route was found that meets all the RWA constraints (e.g., wavelength route was found that meets all the RWA constraints (e.g., wavelength
restriction, signal compatibility, etc.) associated with a RWA path restriction, signal compatibility, etc.) associated with a RWA path
computation request. computation request.
IANA is to allocate this new bit flag from the "PCEP NO-PATH-VECTOR IANA is to allocate this new bit flag from the "PCEP NO-PATH-VECTOR
TLV Flag Field" subregistry TLV Flag Field" subregistry
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#no-path-vector- (http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#no-path-vector-
tlv). tlv).
Bit Description Reference Bit Description Reference
----------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------
TBD7 No RWA constraints met [This.I-D] TBD7 No RWA constraints met [This.I-D]
8.11. New Error-Types and Error-Values 8.11. New Error-Types and Error-Values
As described in Section 5.1, new PCEP error codes are defined for As described in Section 5.2, new PCEP error codes are defined for
WSON RWA errors. IANA is to allocate from the ""PCEP-ERROR Object WSON RWA errors. IANA is to allocate from the ""PCEP-ERROR Object
Error Types and Values" sub-registry Error Types and Values" sub-registry
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-error-object). (http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-error-object).
Error- Meaning Error-Value Reference Error- Meaning Error-Value Reference
Type Type
--------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------
TBD8 WSON RWA Error 1: Insufficient [This.I-D] TBD8 WSON RWA Error 1: Insufficient [This.I-D]
Memory Memory
skipping to change at page 28, line 5 skipping to change at page 28, line 41
can be carried in the IRO as follows: can be carried in the IRO as follows:
Subobject Type Reference Subobject Type Reference
---------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------
TBD11 Optical Interface Class List [This.I-D] TBD11 Optical Interface Class List [This.I-D]
TBD12 Client Signal Information [This.I-D] TBD12 Client Signal Information [This.I-D]
8.14. Request for Updated Note for LMP TE Link Object Class Type
As discussed in Section 4.3.1, the registry created for Link
Management Protocol (LMP) [RFC4204] for "TE Link Object Class Type
name space": https://www.iana.org/assignments/lmp-parameters/lmp-
parameters.xhtml#lmp-parameters-15 is requested for the updated
introductory note that the values have additional usage for the Link
Identifier Type field.
9. Acknowledgments 9. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Julien Meuric and The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Julien Meuric, Dhruv
Dhruv Dhody for many helpful comments that greatly improved the Dhody and Benjamin Kaduk for many helpful comments that greatly
contents of this draft. improved the contents of this draft.
10. References 10. References
10.1. Normative References 10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3209] D. Awduche, L. Berger, D. Gan, T. Li, V. Srinivasan, [RFC3209] D. Awduche, L. Berger, D. Gan, T. Li, V. Srinivasan, G.
G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels",
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC3630] D. Katz, K. Kompella, D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering (TE) [RFC3630] D. Katz, K. Kompella, D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering (TE)
Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September 2003. Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September 2003.
[RFC5329] A. Lindem, Ed., "Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF [RFC5329] A. Lindem, Ed., "Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF
Version 3", RFC 5329, September 2008. Version 3", RFC 5329, September 2008.
[RFC5440] JP. Vasseur, Ed., JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation [RFC5440] JP. Vasseur, Ed., JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
March 2009. March 2009.
skipping to change at page 32, line 9 skipping to change at page 33, line 9
Greg Bernstein Greg Bernstein
Grotto Networking Grotto Networking
Fremont, CA, USA Fremont, CA, USA
Phone: (510) 573-2237 Phone: (510) 573-2237
Email: gregb@grotto-networking.com Email: gregb@grotto-networking.com
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Young Lee, Editor Young Lee, Editor
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
1700 Alma Drive, Suite 100 5700 Tennyson Parkway Suite 600
Plano, TX 75075, USA Plano, TX 75024, USA
Phone: (972) 509-5599 (x2240)
Email: leeyoung@huawei.com Email: leeyoung@huawei.com
Ramon Casellas, Editor Ramon Casellas, Editor
CTTC PMT Ed B4 Av. Carl Friedrich Gauss 7 CTTC PMT Ed B4 Av. Carl Friedrich Gauss 7
08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona) 08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona)
Spain Spain
Phone: (34) 936452916 Phone: (34) 936452916
Email: ramon.casellas@cttc.es Email: ramon.casellas@cttc.es
 End of changes. 35 change blocks. 
79 lines changed or deleted 102 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/