PCE Working Group R. Chen
Internet-Draft Zh. Zhang
Intended status: Standards Track ZTE Corporation
Expires: 3 April 2024 H. Chen
S. Dhanaraj
Futurewei
F. Qin
China Mobile
A. Wang
China Telecom
1 October 2023
PCEP Extensions for Tree Engineering for Bit Index Explicit Replication(BIER-TE)
draft-chen-pce-bier-13
Abstract
Tree Engineering for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER-TE) shares architecture and packet formats with BIER. BIER-TE forwards and replicates packets based on a BitString in the packet header, but every BitPosition of the BitString of a BIER-TE packet indicates one or more adjacencies. BIER-TE Path can be derived from a Path Computation Element (PCE).
This document specifies extensions to the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) that allow a PCE to compute and initiate the path for the Tree Engineering for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER-TE).
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 3 April 2024.
Chen, et al. Expires 3 April 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for BIER-TE October 2023
Copyright NoticeCopyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Overview of PCEP Operation in BIER Networks . . . . . . . . . 4
4. LSP Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. PCEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Object Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.1. The OPEN Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.1.1. The BIER-TE PCE Capability sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . 5
6.2. The LSP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.3. The RP/SRP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.4. END-POINTS object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.5. Objective Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.6. ERO Object(EROO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.6.1. BIER-TE-ERO Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.7. RRO Object(RROO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1. Exchanging the BIER-TE Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.2. BIER-TE-ERO Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.3. BIER-TE-RRO Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.1. New Path Setup Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.2. BIER-TE-PCE-CAPABILITY Sub-TLV Type Indicators . . . . . 11
8.3. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.4. Objective Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.5. BIER-TE-ERO and RRO Subobjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.6. BIER-TE-PCE-CAPABILITY Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.7. PCEP-Error Objects and Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Chen, et al. Expires 3 April 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for BIER-TE October 2023 1. IntroductionTree Engineering for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER-TE) shares architecture and packet formats with BIER as described in [RFC8279]. BIER-TE forwards and replicates packets based on a BitString in the packet header, but every BitPosition of the BitString of a BIER-TE packet indicates one or more adjacencies as described in [RFC9262].BIER-TE Path can be derived from a Path Computation Element (PCE).
[RFC8623] specifies a set of extensions to PCEP that allow a PCE to compute and recommend network paths in compliance with [RFC4657] and defines objects and TLVs for P2MP TE LSPs.
This document uses a PCE for computing one or more BIER-TE paths taking into account various constraints and objective functions and the controller distributes a BIER-TE path to the BFIR via PCEP.
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
2. Terminology
The following terminology is used in this document:* BFIR: Bit-Forwarding Ingress Router
* BFR: Bit-Forwarding Router
* BIER-TE: Tree Engineering for Bit Index Explicit Replication
* EROO: ERO Object
* RROO: RRO Object
* SI: Set Identifier
Chen, et al. Expires 3 April 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for BIER-TE October 2023 3. Overview of PCEP Operation in BIER NetworksBIER-TE forwards and replicates packets based on a BitString in the packet header, and every BitPosition of the BitString of a BIER-TE packet indicates one or more adjacencies as described in [RFC9262]. In a PCEP session, An ERO object specified in [RFC5440] can be extended to carry a BIER-TE path consists of one or more BIER-TE-ERO subobject(s). BIER-TE computed by a PCE can be represented as:
* An ordered set of adjacencies BitString(s) in which each bit represents that the adjacencies to which the BFR SHOULD replicate packets to in the domain.
In this document, we define a set of PCEP protocol extensions, including a new PCEP capability,a new Path Setup Type (PST), reuse BIER END-POINT Object,a new Objective Functions subobjects,a new ERO subobjects, a new RRO subobjects, a new PCEP error codes and procedures.
4. LSP Operations
LSP operations for active and passive stateful PCE operations and on P2MP TE LSPs (described in [RFC8623]) are applicable for BIER-TE LSPs as well.
5. PCEP Messages
The PCEP Message of P2MP TE LSPs(defined in [RFC8623]) are applicable for BIER-TE LSPs as well.The PCReq message, PCRep message and PCRpt message may be extended to support encoding of OF object so that to indicate the required/ desired objective function to be applied by the PCE during path computation or within a PCRep/PCRpt message so as to indicate the objective function that was used by the PCE during path computation.
6. Object Formats 6.1. The OPEN ObjectThis document defines one new optional TLV for use in the OPEN object.
Chen, et al. Expires 3 April 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for BIER-TE October 2023 6.1.1. The BIER-TE PCE Capability sub-TLV[RFC8408]defines the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV for use in the OPEN object. The PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV contains an optional list of sub-TLVs which are intended to convey parameters that are associated with the path setup types supported by a PCEP speaker.
This document defines a new Path Setup Type (PST) for BIER-TE as follows:
* PST = TBD1: Path is setup using BIER-TE technique.
A PCEP speaker MUST indicate its support of the function described in this document by sending a PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV in the OPEN object with this new PST included in the PST list.
This document also defines the BIER-TE-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV. PCEP speakers use this sub-TLV to exchange BIER-TE capability. If a PCEP speaker includes PST=TBD1 in the PST List of the PATH-SETUP-TYPE- CAPABILITY TLV then it MUST also include the BIER-TE-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV inside the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV.
The format of the BIER-TE-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV is shown in the following figure:
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=TBD2 | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Flags |U| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+Figure 1: BIER-TE-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV format
The code point for the TLV type is to be defined by IANA.
Length: 4 octets.
Flags: A single flag is defined (as per setion 7.1.1 of [RFC8296]:
* U (1 bit):if set to 1 by a PCC, the U flag indicates that the PCC allows modification of LSP parameters; if set to 1 by a PCE, the U flag indicates that the PCE is capable of updating LSP parameters. The flag must be advertised by both a PCC and a PCE for PCUpd messages to be allowed on a PCEP session.
Chen, et al. Expires 3 April 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for BIER-TE October 2023
* The remaining "Flags" fields are currently unused, and MUST be set to zero on transmission and ignored on reception.
6.2. The LSP Object
[RFC8623] specifies the IPv4 and IPv6 P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLVs to be included in the LSP object. For BIER-TE LSP, this document defines BIER-TE-IDENTIFIERS TLVs for the LSP object.The BIER-TE-IDENTIFIERS TLV MUST be included in the LSP object in a PCRpt message for BIER-TE LSP. If the P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIER TLV is missing, the PCE MUST respond with a PCErr message carrying error-type 6 ("mandatory object missing") and error-value TBD3 ("BIER-TE-IDENTIFIERS TLV missing") and close the PCEP session.The BIER-TE-IDENTIFIERS TLV MAY optionally be included in the LSP object in the PCUpd,the PCReq and the PCRep message for BIER-TE LSPs and the BIER-TE-IDENTIFIERS TLV SHOULD NOT be inclueded in a PCInitiate message.
The format of the BIER-TE-IDENTIFIERS TLV is shown in Figure 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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Tunnel-ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | BFR-prefix (4/16 octets) ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | BFR-id | sub-domain-id | Padding | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+Figure 2: BIER-TE-IDENTIFIERS TLV
Type: TBD4
Length:The Length field (2 octets), depending on BFR-prefix--12 or 24.
Tunnel Identifier(as per [I-D.ietf-idr-bier-te-path]): it contains:
* sub-domain-id (1 octet):It is id of the sub domain through which the BIER-TE tunnel crosses
* BFR-id (2 octets):It is the BFR-id of the BFIR of the BIER-TE tunnel
Chen, et al. Expires 3 April 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for BIER-TE October 2023
* Tunnel-ID (4 octets):It is a number uniquely identifying a BIER-TE tunnel within the BFIR and sub domain* BFR-prefix (4/16 octets):It is a BFR-prefix of the BFIR of the BIER-TE tunnel.It occupies 4 octets for IPv4 and 16 octets for IPv6
6.3. The RP/SRP Object
In order to setup an BIER-TE, a new PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV MUST be contained in RP/SRP object. This document defines a new Path Setup Type (PST=TBD1) for BIER-TE.
6.4. END-POINTS object
The END-POINTS object which is defined in [RFC8306]is used in a PCReq message to specify the BIER information of the path for which a path computation is requested. To represent the end points for a BIER path efficiently, we reuse the P2MP END-POINTS object body for IPv4(Object-Type 3) and END-POINTS object body for IPv6 (Object-Type 4) which is defined in [RFC8306].
6.5. Objective Functions
[RFC5541] defines a mechanism to specify an objective function (OF) that is used by a PCE when it computes a path. For a BIER-TE path,a new OF is defined.Objective Function Code: TBD5 Name: Minimum Bit Sets (MBS) Description: Find a path represented by BitPositions that has
the minimum number of bit sets.
For each bit set that represents a part of the BIER-TE path,the ingress of the path constructs a copy of the packet containing the bit set and applies the BIER-TE forwarding procedure to forward the packet copy. When a path is computed to have the minimum number of bit sets, the ingress of the path generates the minimum number of the packet copies and applies the BIER-TE forwarding procedure in the minimum number of times. The number of packet copies generated and transmitted in the network along the path may be minimum.
6.6. ERO Object(EROO)
BIER-TE consists of one or more adjacencies BitStrings where every BitPosition of the BitString indicates one or more adjacencies, as described in([RFC8279]). The EROO specified in [RFC5440] is used to encode the path of a TE LSP through the network. The EROO is carried within a PCRep message to provide the computed TE LSP if the path computation was successful. In order to carry BIER-TE explicit paths, this document defines a new ERO subobjects referred to as "BIER-TE-ERO subobjects" whose formats are specified in the following section. An BIER-TE-ERO subobjects carrying a adjacencies BitStrings consists of one or more BIER-TE-ERO subobject(s).
Chen, et al. Expires 3 April 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for BIER-TE October 2023 6.6.1. BIER-TE-ERO Subobject0 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |L| Type=TBD6 | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | BS Length | subdomain-id | SI | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Adjacency BitString (first 32 bits) ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ Adjacency BitString (last 32 bits) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+Figure 3: BIER-TE-ERO Subobject
The 'L' Flag: Indicates whether the subobject represents a loose-hop in the LSP[RFC3209]. If the bit is not set, the subobject represents a strict hop in the explicit route.
Type: TBD6
Length: 1 octet ([RFC3209]). Contains the total length of the subobject in octets. The Length MUST be at least 8, and MUST be a multiple of 4.
BS Length: A 1 octet field encodes the length in bits of the BitString as per [RFC8296], the maximum length of the BitString is 5, it indicates the length of BitString is 1024. It is used to refer to the number of bits in the BitString. If k is the length of the BitString, the value of BitStringLen is log2(k)-5. However, only certain values are supported:
* 1: 64 bits * 2: 128 bits
Chen, et al. Expires 3 April 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for BIER-TE October 2023
* 3: 256 bits* 4: 512 bits
* 5: 1024 bits
subdomain-id: Unique value identifying the BIER subdomain. 1 octet.
SI: Set Identifier (Section 1 of [RFC8279]) used in the encapsulation for this BIER subdomain for this BitString length, 1 octet.
The "Reserved" (1 octets) fields are currently unused, and MUST be set to zero on transmission and ignored on reception.
Adjacency BitString: a variable length field encoding the Adjacency BitString where every BitPosition of the BitString indicates one or more adjacencies.the length of this field is according the BS length. The minimum value of this field is 64 bits, and the maximum value of this field is 1024 bits.
Notice:
The maximum value of BS Length is limited to the 1024 bits, in case the BIER-TE-ERO Subobject is too long.
6.7. RRO Object(RROO)
An RROO contains one or more subobjects called "BIER-TE-RRO subobjects", whose format is shown below: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=TBD7 | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | BS Length | subdomain-id | SI | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Adjacency BitString (first 32 bits) ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ Adjacency BitString (last 32 bits) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+Figure 4: BIER-TE-RRO subobjects
Chen, et al. Expires 3 April 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for BIER-TE October 2023
The format of the BIER-TE-RRO subobject is the same as that of the BIER-TE-ERO subobject, but without the L-Flag.For the integrity of the protocol, we define a new BIER-TE-RRO object, but its actual value is consistent with ERO. The PCC reports an BIER-TE to a PCE by sending a PCRpt message with RROO.
7. Procedures 7.1. Exchanging the BIER-TE CapabilityA PCC indicates that it is capable of supporting the head-end functions for BIER-TE by including the BIER-TE-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV in the Open message that it sends to a PCE. A PCE indicates that it is capable of computing BIER-TE by including the BIET-TE-PCE- CAPABILITY sub-TLV in the Open message that it sends to a PCC.
If a PCEP speaker receives a PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV with a PST list containing PST=TBD1, and supports that path setup type, then it checks for the presence of the SR-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV. If that sub-TLV is absent, then the PCEP speaker MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and Error- value = TBD8("Missing PCE-BIER-TE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV") and MUST then close the PCEP session. If a PCEP speaker receives a PATH-SETUP- TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV with a BIER-TE-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV, but the PST list does not contain PST=TBD1, then the PCEP speaker MUST ignore the BIER-TE-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV.
7.2. BIER-TE-ERO Processing
If a PCC does not support the BIER-TE PCE Capability and thus cannot recognize the BIER-TE-ERO or BIER-TE-RRO subobjects,The ERO and BIER- TE-ERO subobject processing remains as per [RFC5440].If a PCC receives an BIER-TE-ERO subobject in which either BitStringLength or Adjacency BitString or SI is absent, it MUST consider the entire BIER-TE-ERO subobject invalid and send a PCErr message with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object"), Error-Value = TBD9 ("BitStringLength is absent ") or Error-Value = TBD10 ("Adjacency BitString is absent")or Error-Value = TBD11("SI is absent").
If a PCC receives an BIER-TE-ERO subobject in which BitStringLength values are not chosen from: 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024,as it described in ([RFC8279]). The PCC MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type =10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and Error-Value = TBD12 ("Invalid BitStringLength"). When a PCEP speaker detects that all subobjects of ERO are not of type TBD6, and if it does not handle such ERO, it MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and Error-Value = TBD13 ("Non-identical ERO subobjects")as per [RFC8664].
Chen, et al. Expires 3 April 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for BIER-TE October 2023 7.3. BIER-TE-RRO ProcessingThe syntax checking rules that apply to the BIER-TE-RRO subobject are identical to those of the BIER-TE-ERO subobject
The actual value of BIER-TE-RRO subobject is consistent with ERO. The PCC reports an BIER-TE to a PCE by sending a PCRpt message with RRO object.
8. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to make the following allocation Ifor the protocol elements defined in this document.
8.1. New Path Setup Type
A sub-registry within the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry called "PCEP Path Setup Types" was created in [RFC8408]. The document requests a new codepoint within this registry, as follows:
+=======+=======================================+===============+
| value | Meaning | Reference |
+=======+=======================================+===============+
| TBD1 | Path is setup using BIER-TE technique | This Document |
+-------+---------------------------------------+---------------+
Table 1
8.2. BIER-TE-PCE-CAPABILITY Sub-TLV Type Indicators
IANA has created a new sub-registry, named "PATH-SETUP-TYPE- CAPABILITY Sub-TLV Type Indicators", within the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry to manage the type indicator space for sub-TLVs of PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV. This document defines a new sub-TLV type.
Chen, et al. Expires 3 April 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for BIER-TE October 2023
+=======+========================+===============+
| value | Meaning | Reference |
+=======+========================+===============+
| TBD2 | BIER-TE-PCE-CAPABILITY | This Document |
+-------+------------------------+---------------+
Table 2
8.3. PCEP TLV Type Indicators
The document requests a new code point in the existing "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" registry as follows:
+=======+=========================+===============+
| value | Meaning | Reference |
+=======+=========================+===============+
| TBD4 | BIER-TE-IDENTIFIERS TLV | This Document |
+-------+-------------------------+---------------+
Table 3
8.4. Objective Functions
This document requests a new objective functions from the "Objective Function" subregistry within the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry:
+=======+========================+===============+
| value | Meaning | Reference |
+=======+========================+===============+
| TBD5 | Minimum Bit Sets (MBS) | This Document |
+-------+------------------------+---------------+
Table 4
8.5. BIER-TE-ERO and RRO Subobjects
This document defines a new subobject type for the PCEP explicit route object (ERO) and a new subobject type for the PCEP RRO.The code points for subobject types of these objects are maintained in the RSVP parameters registry, under the EXPLICIT_ROUTE and ROUTE_RECORD objects, respectively.
Chen, et al. Expires 3 April 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for BIER-TE October 2023
+================+=============================+================+
| Object | Subobject | Subobject Type |
+================+=============================+================+
| EXPLICIT_ROUTE | BIER-TE-ERO (PCEP specific) | TBD6 |
+----------------+-----------------------------+----------------+
| ROUTE_RECORD | BIER-TE-RRO (PCEP specific) | TBD7 |
+----------------+-----------------------------+----------------+
Table 5
8.6. BIER-TE-PCE-CAPABILITY Flags
IANA is requested to allocate a new sub-registry, named "BIER-TE-PCE- CAPABILITY Flags Field", within the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry to manage the Flag field of the BIER-TE-PCE-CAPABILITY Sub-TLV. Each bit should be tracked with the following qualities:
+======+=============+===============+
| Bit | Description | Reference |
+======+=============+===============+
| 0-14 | Unassigned | |
+------+-------------+---------------+
| 15 | U | This Document |
+------+-------------+---------------+
Table 6
8.7. PCEP-Error Objects and Types
IANA is requested to allocate code-points in the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" subregistry for the following new error-types and error-values:
Chen, et al. Expires 3 April 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for BIER-TE October 2023
+============+==========================+==========================+
| Error-Type | Meaning | Error-value |
+============+==========================+==========================+
| 6 | mandatory object missing | |
+------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| | | TBD3:BIER-TE-IDENTIFIERS |
| | | TLV missing |
+------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| 10 | Reception of an invalid | |
| | object | |
+------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| | | TBD8: Missing PCE-BIER- |
| | | TE-CAPABILITY subobjects |
+------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| | | TBD9: BitStringLength is |
| | | absent |
+------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| | | TBD10: Adjacency |
| | | BitString is absent |
+------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| | | TBD11: SI is absent |
+------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| | | TBD12: Invalid |
| | | BitStringLength |
+------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| | | TBD13: Non-identical ERO |
| | | subobjects |
+------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
Table 7
9. Security Considerations
The security considerations described in [RFC5440], [RFC8231], [RFC8281] and[RFC8408]are applicable to this specification. No additional security measures are required.Acknowledgments
The authors thank Dhruv Dhody, Benchong Xu, Chun Zhu, and Zhaohui Zhang and many others for their suggestions and comments.
Informative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-bier-te-path]
Chen, H., McBride, M., Chen, R., Mishra, G. S., Wang, A., Liu, Y., Fan, Y., Khasanov, B., Liu, L., and X. Liu, "BGP for BIER-TE Path", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-bier-te-path-02, 3 July 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr- bier-te-path-02>.
Chen, et al. Expires 3 April 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for BIER-TE October 2023
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to IndicateRequirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
[RFC4657] Ash, J., Ed. and J.L. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic Requirements", RFC 4657, DOI 10.17487/RFC4657, September 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4657>.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
[RFC5541] Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., and Y. Lee, "Encoding of
Objective Functions in the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5541, DOI 10.17487/RFC5541, June 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5541>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231, DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>.
[RFC8279] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A.,
Przygienda, T., and S. Aldrin, "Multicast Using Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER)", RFC 8279, DOI 10.17487/RFC8279, November 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8279>.
Chen, et al. Expires 3 April 2024 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for BIER-TE October 2023
[RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "PathComputation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281>.
[RFC8296] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A.,
Tantsura, J., Aldrin, S., and I. Meilik, "Encapsulation for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) in MPLS and Non- MPLS Networks", RFC 8296, DOI 10.17487/RFC8296, January 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8296>.
[RFC8306] Zhao, Q., Dhody, D., Ed., Palleti, R., and D. King,
"Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths", RFC 8306, DOI 10.17487/RFC8306, November 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8306>.
[RFC8408] Sivabalan, S., Tantsura, J., Minei, I., Varga, R., and J.
Hardwick, "Conveying Path Setup Type in PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) Messages", RFC 8408, DOI 10.17487/RFC8408, July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8408>.
[RFC8623] Palle, U., Dhody, D., Tanaka, Y., and V. Beeram, "Stateful
Path Computation Element (PCE) Protocol Extensions for Usage with Point-to-Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 8623, DOI 10.17487/RFC8623, June 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8623>.
[RFC8664] Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,
and J. Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8664, DOI 10.17487/RFC8664, December 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8664>.
[RFC9262] Eckert, T., Ed., Menth, M., and G. Cauchie, "Tree
Engineering for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER-TE)", RFC 9262, DOI 10.17487/RFC9262, October 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9262>.
Authors' Addresses
Ran Chen ZTE Corporation Email: chen.ran@zte.com.cn Zheng Zhang ZTE Corporation Email: zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn
Chen, et al. Expires 3 April 2024 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for BIER-TE October 2023
Huaimo Chen Futurewei Email: huaimo.chen@futurewei.comSenthil Dhanaraj Futurewei Email: senthil.dhanaraj.ietf@gmail.com
Fengwei Qin China Mobile Email: qinfengwei@chinamobile.com
Aijun Wang China Telecom Email: wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn
Chen, et al. Expires 3 April 2024 [Page 17]