Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-pce-bier-te
draft-ietf-pce-bier-te
PCE Working Group R. Chen
Internet-Draft Zh. Zhang
Intended status: Standards Track ZTE Corporation
Expires: 8 May 2024 H. Chen
S. Dhanaraj
Futurewei
F. Qin
China Mobile
A. Wang
China Telecom
5 November 2023
PCEP Extensions for BIER-TE
draft-ietf-pce-bier-te-00
Abstract
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).
This document specifies extensions to the Path Computation Element
Protocol (PCEP) that allow a PCE to compute and initiate the path for
the 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 8 May 2024.
Chen, et al. Expires 8 May 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for BIER-TE November 2023
Copyright Notice
Copyright (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
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Overview of PCEP Operation in BIER Networks . . . . . . . . . 3
4. LSP Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. PCEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Object Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.1. The OPEN Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.1.1. The BIER-TE PCE Capability sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . 4
6.2. The LSP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.3. The RP/SRP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.4. END-POINTS object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.5. Objective Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.6. ERO Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.6.1. BIER-TE-ERO Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.7. RRO Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1. Exchanging the BIER-TE Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.2. BIER-TE-ERO Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.3. BIER-TE-RRO Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.1. New Path Setup Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.2. BIER-TE-PCE-CAPABILITY Sub-TLV Type Indicators . . . . . 11
8.3. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.4. Objective Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.5. BIER-TE-ERO and RRO Subobjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.6. PCEP-Error Objects and Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Chen, et al. Expires 8 May 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for BIER-TE November 2023
1. Introduction
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.
2. Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
3. Overview of PCEP Operation in BIER Networks
BIER-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.
Chen, et al. Expires 8 May 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for BIER-TE November 2023
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 Object
This document defines one new optional TLV for use in the OPEN
object.
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:
Chen, et al. Expires 8 May 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for BIER-TE November 2023
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.
* 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:
Chen, et al. Expires 8 May 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for BIER-TE November 2023
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 Identifier (11/23 octets) ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2
Type: TBD4
Length: 1 octet. Contains the total length of the TLV in octets.
Tunnel Identifier(as per [I-D.ietf-idr-bier-te-path]): 11/23 octet
value 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
* 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].
Chen, et al. Expires 8 May 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for BIER-TE November 2023
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
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).
6.6.1. BIER-TE-ERO Subobject
Chen, et al. Expires 8 May 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for BIER-TE November 2023
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|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.
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:
Chen, et al. Expires 8 May 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for BIER-TE November 2023
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
An RRO 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
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 Capability
A 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
Chen, et al. Expires 8 May 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for BIER-TE November 2023
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].
7.3. BIER-TE-RRO Processing
The 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 has registered the code points for the protocol elements defined
in this document.
Chen, et al. Expires 8 May 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for BIER-TE November 2023
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.
+=======+========================+===============+
| 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
Chen, et al. Expires 8 May 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for BIER-TE November 2023
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.
+================+=============================+================+
| Object | Subobject | Subobject Type |
+================+=============================+================+
| EXPLICIT_ROUTE | BIER-TE-ERO (PCEP specific) | TBD6 |
+----------------+-----------------------------+----------------+
| ROUTE_RECORD | BIER-TE-RRO (PCEP specific) | TBD7 |
+----------------+-----------------------------+----------------+
Table 5
8.6. 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 8 May 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for BIER-TE November 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.
Normative 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,
Chen, et al. Expires 8 May 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for BIER-TE November 2023
draft-ietf-idr-bier-te-path-02, 3 July 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-
bier-te-path-02>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement 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>.
[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>.
[RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation 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>.
Chen, et al. Expires 8 May 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for BIER-TE November 2023
[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 8 May 2024 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for BIER-TE November 2023
Huaimo Chen
Futurewei
Email: huaimo.chen@futurewei.com
Senthil 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 8 May 2024 [Page 16]
