PCE Working Group
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) C. Li
Internet-Draft Li, Ed.
Request for Comments: 9603 Huawei Technologies
Intended status:
Category: Standards Track P. Kaladharan
Expires: 6 October 2024
ISSN: 2070-1721 RtBrick Inc
S. Sivabalan
Ciena Corporation
M. Koldychev
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Ciena Corporation
Y. Zhu
China Telecom
4 April
June 2024
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for
IPv6 Segment Routing
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-25
Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) can be used to steer packets through a network
using the IPv6 or MPLS data plane, employing the source routing
paradigm.
A Segment Routed
An SR Path can be derived from a variety of mechanisms, including an
IGP Shortest Path Tree (SPT), explicit configuration, or a Path
Computation Element(PCE). Element (PCE).
Since SR can be applied to both MPLS and IPv6 data-planes, data planes, a PCE
should be able to compute an SR Path for both MPLS and IPv6 data- data
planes. The Path Computation Element communication Communication Protocol (PCEP)
extension and mechanisms to support SR-MPLS have been defined. This
document outlines the necessary extensions to support SR for the IPv6
data-plane
data plane within PCEP.
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 an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list It represents the consensus of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for a maximum publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of six months this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained 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 6 October 2024.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9603.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 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)
(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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Overview of PCEP Operation in SRv6 Networks . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Operation Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. SRv6-Specific PCEP Message Extensions . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Object Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. The OPEN Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1.1. The SRv6 PCE Capability sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. The RP/SRP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. ERO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3.1. SRv6-ERO Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3.1.1. SID Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.3.1.2. Order of the Optional fields . . . . . . . . . . 12 Fields
4.4. RRO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.4.1. SRv6-RRO Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.1. Exchanging the SRv6 Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.2. ERO Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.2.1. SRv6 ERO Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.2.2. Interpreting the SRv6-ERO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.3. RRO Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.5. Requirements On on Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.6. Impact On on Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.1. Cisco's Commercial Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8.2. Huawei's Commercial Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9.1.
8.1. PCEP ERO and RRO subobjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9.2. Subobjects
8.2. New SRv6-ERO NAI Type Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
9.3.
8.3. New SRv6-ERO Flag Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
9.4.
8.4. LSP-ERROR-CODE TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9.5.
8.5. PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY Sub-TLV Type Indicators . . . 21
9.6.
8.6. SRv6 PCE Capability Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9.7.
8.7. New Path Setup Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
9.8.
8.8. ERROR Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
10.
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
10.1.
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
10.2.
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
1. Introduction
As defined in [RFC8402], Segment Routing (SR) architecture allows the
source node to steer a packet through a path indicated by an ordered
list of instructions, called segments. "segments". A segment can represent any
instruction, topological or service-based, service based, and it can have a semantic
local to an SR node or global within an SR domain.
[RFC5440] describes Path Computation Element communication Communication Protocol
(PCEP) for communication between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and
a PCE or between a pair of PCEs. A PCE or a PCC operating as a PCE
(in a hierarchical PCE environment) computes paths for MPLS Traffic
Engineering LSPs (MPLS-TE LSPs) based on various constraints and
optimization criteria.
[RFC8231] specifies extensions to PCEP that allow a stateful PCE to
compute and recommend network paths in compliance with [RFC4657] and
defines objects and TLVs for MPLS-TE LSPs. Stateful PCEP extensions
provide synchronization of LSP state between a PCC and a PCE or
between a pair of PCEs, delegation of LSP control, reporting of LSP
state from a PCC to a PCE, and controlling the setup and path routing
of an LSP from a PCE to a PCC. Stateful PCEP extensions are intended
for an operational model in which LSPs are configured on the PCC, and
control over them is delegated to the PCE.
A mechanism to dynamically initiate LSPs on a PCC based on the
requests from a stateful PCE or a controller using stateful PCE is
specified in [RFC8281]. As per [RFC8664], it is possible to use a
stateful PCE for computing one or more SR-TE paths taking into
account various constraints and objective functions. Once a path is
computed, the stateful PCE can initiate an SR-TE path on a PCC using
PCEP extensions specified in [RFC8281] and the SR-specific PCEP
extensions specified in [RFC8664].
[RFC8664] specifies PCEP extensions for supporting a an SR-TE LSP for
the MPLS data-plane. data plane. This document extends [RFC8664] to support SR
for the IPv6 data-plane. data plane. Additionally, using procedures described in
this document, a PCC can request an SRv6 path from either a stateful
or stateless PCE. This specification relies on the PATH-SETUP-TYPE
TLV and the procedures specified in [RFC8408].
This specification provides a mechanism for a network controller
(acting as a PCE) to instantiate candidate paths for an SR Policy
onto a head-end node (acting as a PCC) using PCEP. For more
information on the SR Policy Architecture, architecture, see [RFC9256] [RFC9256], which
applies to both SR-MPLS and SRv6.
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
This document uses the following terms defined in [RFC5440]: PCC,
PCE, PCEP, PCEP Peer.
This document uses the following terms defined in [RFC8051]: Stateful
PCE, Delegation.
Further, the following terms are used in the document, document:
MSD: Maximum SID Depth. Depth
PST: Path Setup Type. Type
SR: Segment Routing. Routing
SID: Segment Identifier. Identifier
SRv6: Segment Routing over IPv6 data-plane. data plane
SRH: IPv6 Segment Routing Header [RFC8754]. [RFC8754]
SRv6 Path: path: IPv6 Segment List (List (A list of IPv6 SIDs representing a
path in IPv6 SR domain in the context of this document) document.)
Further, note that the term LSP "LSP" used in the PCEP specifications, specifications
would be equivalent to an SRv6 Path path (represented as a list of SRv6
segments) in the context of supporting SRv6 in PCEP.
3. Overview of PCEP Operation in SRv6 Networks
Basic operations for PCEP speakers are built on [RFC8664].
In PCEP messages, route information is carried in the Explicit Route
Object (ERO), which consists of a sequence of subobjects. [RFC8664]
defined a new Explicit Route Object (ERO) ERO subobject denoted by "SR-
ERO "SR-ERO subobject" that is
capable of carrying a SID as well as the identity of the node/adjacency node/
adjacency represented by the SID for SR-MPLS. SR-capable PCEP
speakers can generate and/or process such an ERO subobject. An ERO
containing SR-ERO subobjects can be included in the PCEP Path
Computation Reply (PCRep) message defined in [RFC5440], the PCEP LSP
Initiate Request message (PCInitiate) defined in [RFC8281], as well
as in the PCEP LSP Update Request (PCUpd) and PCEP LSP State Report
(PCRpt) messages defined in [RFC8231]. [RFC8664] also defines a new
Reported Route Object(RRO) Object (RRO), called SR-RRO "SR-RRO", to represent the SID
list that was applied by the PCC, that is, which is the actual path taken by
the LSP in SR-MPLS network.
The SRv6 Paths paths computed by a PCE can be represented as an ordered
list of SRv6 segments. This document defines new subobjects
"SRv6-ERO" and "SRv6-RRO" in the ERO and the RRO respectively RRO, respectively, to
carry the SRv6 SID. SRv6-capable PCEP speakers MUST be able to
generate and/or process these subobjects.
When a PCEP session between a PCC and a PCE is established, both PCEP
speakers exchange their capabilities to indicate their ability to
support SRv6 specific SRv6-specific functionality as described in Section 4.1.1.
In summary, this document, document defines:
* Defines a new PCEP capability for SRv6. SRv6,
* Defines a new subobject SRv6-ERO in ERO. ERO,
* Defines a new subobject SRv6-RRO in RRO. RRO, and
* Defines a new path setup Path Setup type (PST) [RFC8408] [RFC8408], carried in the PATH-
SETUP-TYPE TLV PATH-SETUP-
TYPE and the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV. TLVs.
3.1. Operation Overview
In SR networks, an SR source node [RFC8754] steers a packet into an
SR Policy resulting in a segment list.
When SR leverages the IPv6 data-plane (i.e. data plane (i.e., SRv6), the PCEP
procedures and mechanisms are extended in this document.
This document describes the extension to support SRv6 in PCEP. A PCC
or PCE indicates its ability to support SRv6 during the PCEP session
Initialization Phase
initialization phase via a new SRv6-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV (see
details in Section 4.1.1).
3.2. SRv6-Specific PCEP Message Extensions
As defined in [RFC5440], a PCEP message consists of a common header
followed by a variable length variable-length body made up of mandatory and/or
optional objects. This document does not require any changes in the
format of PCReq and PCRep messages specified in [RFC5440], the
PCInitiate message specified in [RFC8281], and or PCRpt and PCUpd
messages specified in [RFC8231]. However, PCEP messages pertaining
to SRv6 MUST include PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV in the RP (Request Parameters) Request Parameters
(RP) or
SRP (Stateful Stateful PCE Request Parameters) Parameters (SRP) object to clearly
identify that SRv6 is intended.
4. Object Formats
4.1. The OPEN Object
4.1.1. The SRv6 PCE Capability sub-TLV
This document defines a new Path Setup Type (PST) [RFC8408] for SRv6,
as follows.
* PST = 3 : follows:
PST=3: Path is setup set up using SRv6.
A PCEP speaker indicates 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 "3" included in the PST list.
This document also defines the SRv6-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV. PCEP
speakers use this sub-TLV to exchange information about their SRv6
capability. If a PCEP speaker includes PST=3 in the PST List list of the
PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV TLV, then it MUST also include the SRv6-
PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV inside the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV.
For further error handling, please see Section 5.
The format of the SRv6-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV is shown in the
following figure. Figure 1.
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=27 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Flags |N| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MSD-Type | MSD-Value | MSD-Type | MSD-Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// ... //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MSD-Type | MSD-Value | Padding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: SRv6-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV format Sub-TLV Format
The code point for the TLV type is 27 27, and the format is compliant
with the PCEP TLV format defined in [RFC5440]. That is, the sub-TLV
is composed of 2 octets for the type, 2 octets specifying the length,
and a Value field. The Type field when When set to 27 27, the Type field identifies the
SRv6-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV sub-TLV, and the presence of the sub-TLV
indicates the support for the SRv6 paths in PCEP. The Length field
defines the length of the value portion in octets. The sub-TLV is
padded to 4-octet alignment, and padding is not included in the
Length field. The (MSD-Type,MSD-Value) pairs are OPTIONAL. The
number of (MSD-
Type,MSD-Value) (MSD-Type,MSD-Value) pairs can be determined from by the Length
field of the TLV.
The value comprises of - is comprised of:
* Reserved: 2 octet, octets; this field MUST be set to 0 on transmission, transmission
and ignored on receipt.
* Flags: 2 octet, octets; one bit is currently assigned in this document. Section 9.6 8.6
- N bit (bit position 14): A PCC sets this flag bit to 1 to
indicate that it is capable of resolving a Node or Adjacency
Identifier (NAI) to an SRv6-SID.
- Unassigned bits MUST be set to 0 on transmission and ignored on
receipt
* A pair of (MSD-Type, MSD-Value): (MSD-Type,MSD-Value): Where MSD-Type (1 octet) is as per
the IGP MSD Type registry created by [RFC8491] and populated with
SRv6 MSD types as per [RFC9352]; [RFC9352], and where MSD-Value (1 octet) is
as per [RFC8491].
The SRv6 MSD information advertised via SRv6-PCE-Capability sub-TLV
conveys the SRv6 capabilities of the PCEP speaker alone. However,
when it comes to the computation of an SR Policy for the SRv6 data- data
plane, the SRv6 MSD capabilities of all the intermediate SRv6 Endpoint
node as well as and the tail-end node also need to be considered to ensure those
midpoints are able to correctly process their segments and for the
tail-end to dispose of the SRv6 encapsulation. The SRv6 MSD
capabilities of other nodes might be learned as part of the topology
information via BGP-LS[RFC9514] the Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS)
[RFC9514] or via PCEP if the PCE also happens to have PCEP sessions to
with those nodes.
It is recommended that the SRv6 MSD information be not be included in
the SRv6-PCE-Capability sub-TLV in deployments where the PCE is able
to obtain this via IGP/BGP-LS as part of the topology information.
4.2. The RP/SRP Object
This document defines a new Path Setup Type (PST=3) for SRv6. In
order to indicate that the path is for SRv6, any RP or SRP object
MUST include the PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV as specified in [RFC8408], where
PST is set to 3.
4.3. ERO
In order to support SRv6, a new "SRv6-ERO" subobject is defined for
inclusion in the ERO.
4.3.1. SRv6-ERO Subobject
An SRv6-ERO subobject is formatted as shown in the following figure. 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type=40 | Length | NT | Flags |V|T|F|S|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Endpoint Behavior |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| SRv6 SID (conditional) |
| (128-bit) |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// NAI (variable, conditional) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| SID Structure (conditional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: SRv6-ERO Subobject Format
The fields in the SRv6-ERO subobject are as follows:
* The 'L' Flag: "L" flag: Indicates whether the subobject represents a loose-hop loose
hop (see [RFC3209]). If this flag is set to zero, a PCC MUST NOT
overwrite the SID value present in the SRv6-ERO subobject.
Otherwise, a PCC MAY expand or replace one or more SID values in
the received SRv6-ERO based on its local policy.
* Type: indicates Indicates the content of the subobject, i.e. i.e., when the field
is set to 40, the suboject subobject is an SRv6-ERO subobject representing
an SRv6 SID.
* Length: Contains the total length of the subobject in octets. The
Length MUST be at least 24, 24 and MUST be a multiple of 4. An
SRv6-ERO subobject MUST contain at least one of an SRv6-SID or an
NAI. The S and F bit bits in the Flags field indicates whether the
SRv6-SID or NAI fields are absent.
* NAI Type (NT): Indicates the type and format of the NAI contained
in the object body, if any is are present. If the F bit is set to
one (see
below) below), then the NT field has no meaning and MUST be
ignored by the receiver. This document creates a new PCEP
SRv6-ERO NAI Types registry in Section 9.2 8.2 and allocates the
following values. values:
- If NT value is 0, the NAI MUST NOT be included.
- When NT value is 2, the NAI is as per the 'IPv6 Node ID' "IPv6 node ID" format
defined in [RFC8664], which specifies an IPv6 address. This is
used to identify the owner of the SRv6 Identifier. This is
optional, as the LOC (the locator portion) of the SRv6 SID
serves a similar purpose (when present).
- When NT value is 4, the NAI is as per the 'IPv6 Adjacency' "IPv6 adjacency"
format defined in [RFC8664], which specify a pair of IPv6
addresses. This is used to identify the IPv6 Adjacency adjacency and
used with the SRv6 Adj-SID.
- When NT value is 6, the NAI is as per the 'link-local "link-local IPv6
addresses'
addresses" format defined in [RFC8664], which specify a pair of
(global IPv6 address, interface ID) tuples. It is used to
identify the IPv6 Adjacency adjacency and used with the SRv6 Adj-SID.
* Flags: Used to carry additional information pertaining to the
SRv6-SID. This document defines the following flag bits. The
other bits MUST be set to zero by the sender and MUST be ignored
by the receiver. This document creates a new registry SRv6-ERO
Flag Field registry in Section 9.3 8.3 and allocates the following
values.
*
- S: When this bit is set to 1, the SRv6-SID value in the
subobject body is absent. In this case, the PCC is responsible
for choosing the SRv6-SID value, e.g., by looking up in the SR-DB SR-
DB using the NAI
which, that, in this case, MUST be present in the
subobject. If the S bit is set to 1 1, then the F bit MUST be
set to zero.
*
- F: When this bit is set to 1, the NAI value in the subobject
body is absent. The F bit MUST be set to 1 if NT=0, and otherwise NT=0; otherwise,
it MUST be set to zero. The S and F bits MUST NOT both be set
to 1.
*
- T: When this bit is set to 1, the SID Structure value in the
subobject body is present. The T bit MUST be set to 0 when the
S bit is set to 1. If the T bit is set when the S bit is set,
the T bit MUST be ignored. Thus, the T bit indicates the
presence of an optional 8-byte SID Structure when SRv6 SID is
included. The SID Structure is defined in Section 4.3.1.1.
*
- V: The "SID verification" bit usage is as per Section 5.1 of
[RFC9256]. If a PCC "Verification fails" for a SID, it MUST
report this error by including the LSP-ERROR-CODE TLV with LSP
error-value
Error-value "SID Verification fails" in the LSP object in the
PCRpt message to the PCE.
* Reserved: MUST be set to zero while sending and ignored on
receipt.
* Endpoint Behavior: A 16-bit field representing the behavior
associated with the SRv6 SIDs. This information is optional, but
it is recommended to signal it always if possible. It could be
used for maintainability and diagnostic purpose. purposes. If behavior is
not known, value '0xFFFF' "0xFFFF" as defined in the registry "SRv6 Endpoint
Behaviors" registry is used [RFC8986].
* SRv6 SID: SRv6 Identifier is an a 128-bit value representing the SRv6
segment.
* NAI: The NAI associated with the SRv6-SID. The NAI's format
depends on the value in the NT field, field and is described in
[RFC8664].
At least one SRv6-SID or the NAI MUST be included in the SRv6-ERO
subobject, and both MAY be included.
4.3.1.1. SID Structure
The SID Structure is an optional part of the SR-ERO subobject, as
described in Section 4.3.1.
[RFC8986] defines an SRv6 SID as consisting of LOC:FUNCT:ARG, where a
locator (LOC) is encoded in the L most significant bits of the SID,
followed by F bits of function (FUNCT) and A bits of arguments (ARG).
A locator may be represented as B:N where B is the SRv6 SID locator
block (IPv6 prefix allocated for SRv6 SIDs by the operator) and N is
the identifier of the parent node instantiating the SID called
locator node.
It
"locator node".
The SID Structure is formatted as shown in the following figure. Figure 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LB Length | LN Length | Fun. Length | Arg. Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: SID Structure Format
where:
Where:
* LB Length: 1 octet. octet; SRv6 SID Locator Block length in bits. bits
* LN Length: 1 octet. octet; SRv6 SID Locator Node length in bits. bits
* Fun. Length: 1 octet. octet; SRv6 SID Function length in bits. bits
* Arg. Length: 1 octet. octet; SRv6 SID Arguments length in bits. bits
The sum of all four sizes in the SID Structure must be lower less than or
equal to 128 bits. If the sum of all four sizes advertised in the
SID Structure is larger than 128 bits, the corresponding SRv6 SID
MUST be considered invalid and a PCErr message with Error-Type = 10
("Reception of an invalid object") and Error-Value Error-value = 37 ("Invalid
SRv6 SID Structure") is returned.
* Reserved: MUST be set to zero while sending and ignored on
receipt.
* Flags: Currently no flags are defined.
* Unassigned bits must be set to zero while sending and ignored on
receipt.
The SRv6 SID Structure provides the detailed encoding information of
an SRv6 SID, which is useful helpful in the use cases that require to know the SRv6
SID structure. structure to be known. When a PCEP speaker receives the SRv6 SID
and its structure information, the SRv6 SID can be parsed based on
the SRv6 SID Structure and/or possible local policies. The SRv6 SID
Structure could be used by the PCE for ease of operations and
monitoring. For example, this information could be used for
validation of SRv6 SIDs being instantiated in the network and checked
for conformance to with the SRv6 SID allocation scheme chosen by the
operator as described in Section 3.2 of [RFC8986]. In the future,
PCE might also be utilized to verify and automate the security of the
SRv6 domain by provisioning filtering rules at the domain boundaries
as described in Section 5 of [RFC8754]. The details of these
potential applications are outside the scope of this document.
4.3.1.2. Order of the Optional fields Fields
The optional elements in the SRv6-ERO subobject i.e. subobject, i.e., SRv6 SID, NAI NAI,
and the SID Structure Structure, MUST be encoded in the order as depicted in
Figure 2. The presence or absence of each of them is indicated by
the respective flags i.e. flags, i.e., S flag, F flag flag, and T flag.
In order to ensure future compatibility, any optional elements added
to the SRv6-ERO subobject in the future must specify their order and
request that the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) to allocate
a flag to indicate their presence from the subregistry created in
Section 9.3. 8.3.
4.4. RRO
In order to support SRv6, a new "SRv6-RRO" subobject is defined for
inclusion in the RRO.
4.4.1. SRv6-RRO Subobject
A PCC reports an SRv6 path to a PCE by sending a PCRpt message, per
[RFC8231]. The RRO on this message represents the SID list that was
applied by the PCC, that is, the actual path taken. The procedures
of [RFC8664] with respect to the RRO apply equally to this
specification without change.
An RRO contains one or more subobjects called "SRv6-RRO subobjects" subobjects",
whose format is shown below. in Figure 4.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type=40 | Length | NT | Flags |V|T|F|S|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Endpoint Behavior |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| SRv6 SID(optional) |
| (128-bit) |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// NAI (variable) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| SID Structure (optional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: SRv6-RRO Subobject Format
The format of the SRv6-RRO subobject is the same as that of the
SRv6-ERO subobject, subobject but without the L flag.
The V flag has no meaning in the SRv6-RRO and is ignored on receipt
at the PCE.
Ordering
The ordering of SRv6-RRO subobjects by PCC in PCRpt message remains
as per [RFC8664].
The ordering of optional elements in the SRv6-RRO subobject is the
same as described in Section 4.3.1.2.
5. Procedures
5.1. Exchanging the SRv6 Capability
A PCC indicates that it is capable of supporting the head-end
functions for SRv6 by including the SRv6-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV in
the Open message that it sends to a PCE. A PCE indicates that it is
capable of computing SRv6 paths by including the SRv6-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=3, but the SRv6-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV is
absent, then the PCEP speaker MUST send a PCErr message with Error-
Type = 10 (Reception ("Reception of an invalid object) object") and Error-Value = 34
(Missing
("Missing PCE-SRv6-CAPABILITY sub-TLV) sub-TLV") and MUST then close the PCEP
session. If a PCEP speaker receives a PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV
with an SRv6-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV, but the PST list does not
contain PST=3, then the PCEP speaker MUST ignore the SRv6-PCE-
CAPABILITY sub-TLV.
In case the MSD-Type in the SRv6-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV received by
the PCE does not correspond to one of the SRv6 MSD types, the PCE
MUST respond with a PCErr message (Error-Type = 1 "PCEP ("PCEP session
establishment failure" failure") and Error-Value = 1 "reception ("reception of an invalid
Open message or a non Open message."). message.")).
Note that the MSD-Type, MSD-Value exchanged via the SRv6-PCE-
CAPABILITY sub-TLV indicates the SRv6 SID imposition limit for the
sender PCC node only. However, if a PCE learns these via alternate
mechanisms, e.g. e.g., routing protocols [RFC9352], then it ignores the
values in the SRv6-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV. Furthermore, whenever a
PCE learns any other SRv6 MSD types that may be defined in the future
via alternate mechanisms, it MUST use those values regardless of the
values exchanged in the SRv6-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV.
During path computation, PCE must consider the MSD information of all
the nodes along the path instead of only the MSD information of the
ingress PCC since a packet may be dropped on any node in a forwarding
path because of MSD exceeding. The MSD capabilities of all SR nodes
along the path can be learned as part of the topology information via
IGP/BGP-LS or via PCEP if the PCE also happens to have PCEP sessions
to
with those nodes.
A PCE MUST NOT send SRv6 paths exceeding that exceed the SRv6 MSD capabilities
of the PCC. If a PCC needs to modify the SRv6 MSD value signaled via
the Open message, it MUST close the PCEP session and re-establish it
with the new value. If the PCC receives an SRv6 path that exceed exceeds
its SRv6 MSD capabilities, the PCC MUST send a PCErr message with Error-
Type
Error-Type = 10 (Reception ("Reception of an invalid object) object") and Error-Value Error-value =
39
(Unsupported ("Unsupported number of SRv6-ERO subobjects). subobjects").
The N flag and (MSD-Type,MSD-Value) pair inside the SRv6-PCE-
CAPABILITY sub-TLV are meaningful only in the Open message sent to a
PCE. As such, the flags MUST be set to zero and a (MSD-Type,MSD-
Value) pair MUST NOT be present in the SRv6-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV in
an Open message sent to a PCC. Similarly, a PCC MUST ignore flags
and any (MSD-Type,MSD-Value) pair in a received Open message. If a
PCE receives multiple SRv6-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLVs in an Open
message, it processes only the first sub-TLV received.
5.2. ERO Processing
The processing of ERO remains unchanged in accordance with both
[RFC5440] and [RFC8664].
5.2.1. SRv6 ERO Validation
If a PCC does not support the SRv6 PCE Capability and thus cannot
recognize the SRv6-ERO or SRv6-RRO subobjects, it should respond
according to the rules for a malformed object as described in
[RFC5440].
On receiving an SRv6-ERO, a PCC MUST validate that the Length field,
the S bit, the F bit, the T bit, and the NT field are consistent, as
follows.
follows:
* If NT=0, the F bit MUST be 1, the S bit MUST be zero zero, and the
Length MUST be 24.
* If NT=2, the F bit MUST be zero. If the S bit is 1, the Length
MUST be 24, otherwise 24; otherwise, the Length MUST be 40.
* If NT=4, the F bit MUST be zero. If the S bit is 1, the Length
MUST be 40, otherwise 40; otherwise, the Length MUST be 56.
* If NT=6, the F bit MUST be zero. If the S bit is 1, the Length
MUST be 48, otherwise 48; otherwise, the Length MUST be 64.
* If the T bit is 1, then the S bit MUST be zero.
If a PCC finds that the NT field, Length field, S bit, F bit, and T
bit are not consistent, it MUST consider the entire ERO invalid and
MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an
invalid object") and Error-Value Error-value = 11 ("Malformed object").
If a PCC does not recognize or support the value in the NT field, it
MUST consider the entire ERO invalid and send a PCErr message with
Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and Error- value Error-value =
40 ("Unsupported NAI Type in the SRv6-ERO/SRv6-RRO subobject").
If a PCC receives an SRv6-ERO subobject in which the S and F bits are
both set to 1 (that is, both the SID and NAI are absent), it MUST
consider the entire ERO invalid and send a PCErr message with Error-
Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and Error-value = 41
("Both SID and NAI are absent in the SRv6-ERO subobject").
If a PCC receives an SRv6-ERO subobject in which the S bit is set to
1 and the F bit is set to zero (that is, the SID is absent and the
NAI is present), but the PCC does not support NAI resolution, it MUST
consider the entire ERO invalid and send a PCErr message with Error-
Type = 4 ("Not supported object") and Error-value = 4 ("Unsupported
parameter").
If a PCC detects that the subobjects of an ERO are a mixture of SRv6-
ERO
SRv6-ERO subobjects and subobjects of other types, then it MUST send
a PCErr message with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid
object") and Error-value = 42 ("ERO mixes SRv6-ERO subobjects with
other subobject types").
In case a PCEP speaker receives an SRv6-ERO subobject, when the PST
is not set to 3 or SRv6-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV was not exchanged, it
MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type = 19 ("Invalid Operation")
and Error-Value Error-value = 19 ("Attempted SRv6 when the capability was not
advertised").
If a PCC receives an SRv6 path that exceeds the SRv6 MSD
capabilities, it MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type = 10
("Reception of an invalid object") and Error-Value Error-value = 43 ("Unsupported
number of SRv6-ERO subobjects") as per [RFC8664].
5.2.2. Interpreting the SRv6-ERO
The SRv6-ERO contains a sequence of subobjects. According to
[RFC9256], each SRv6-ERO subobject in the sequence identifies a
segment to which that the traffic will be directed to, in the order
given. That is, the first subobject identifies the first segment the
traffic will be directed to, the second SRv6-ERO subobject represents
the second segment, and so on.
5.3. RRO Processing
The syntax checking syntax-checking rules that apply to the SRv6-RRO subobject are
identical to those of the SRv6-ERO subobject, except as noted below.
If a PCEP speaker receives an SRv6-RRO subobject in which both SRv6
SID and NAI are absent, it MUST consider the entire RRO invalid and
send a PCErr message with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid
object") and Error-Value Error-value = 35 ("Both SID and NAI are absent in
SRv6-RRO subobject").
If a PCE detects that the subobjects of an RRO are a mixture of
SRv6-RRO subobjects and subobjects of other types, then it MUST send
a PCErr message with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid
object") and Error-Value Error-value = 36 ("RRO mixes SRv6-RRO subobjects with
other subobject types").
The mechanism by which the PCC learns the path is outside the scope
of this document.
6. Security Considerations
The security considerations Security Considerations described in [RFC5440], section Section 2.5 of
[RFC6952], [RFC8231], [RFC8281], [RFC8253] [RFC8253], and [RFC8664] are
applicable to this specification.
Note that this specification enables a network controller to
instantiate an SRv6 path in the network. This creates an additional
vulnerability if the security mechanisms of [RFC5440], [RFC8231], and
[RFC8281] are not used. If there is no integrity protection on the
session, then an attacker could create an SRv6 path that may not be
subjected to the further verification checks. Further, the MSD field
in the Open message could disclose node forwarding capabilities if
suitable security mechanisms are not in place. Hence, securing the
PCEP session using Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8253] is
RECOMMENDED.
7. Manageability Considerations
All manageability requirements and considerations listed in
[RFC5440], [RFC8231], [RFC8281], and [RFC8664] apply to PCEP protocol
extensions defined in this document. In addition, requirements and
considerations listed in this section apply.
7.1. Control of Function and Policy
A PCEP implementation SHOULD allow the operator to configure the SRv6
capability. Further Further, a policy to accept NAI only for the SRv6 SHOULD
be allowed to be set.
7.2. Information and Data Models
The PCEP YANG module is out of the scope of this document and document; it is
defined in other documents, for example, [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]. [PCEP-YANG]. An augmented
YANG module for SRv6 is also specified in another document
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-srv6-yang] [PCEP-SRv6-YANG] that
allows for SRv6 capability and MSD configurations as well as to
monitor the SRv6 paths set in the network.
7.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness
detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already
listed in [RFC5440].
7.4. Verify Correct Operations
Verification of the mechanisms defined in this document can be built
on those already listed in [RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC8664].
7.5. Requirements On on Other Protocols
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new requirements
on other protocols.
7.6. Impact On on Network Operations
Mechanisms defined in [RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC8664] also apply
to PCEP extensions defined in this document.
8. Implementation Status
[Note to the RFC Editor - remove this section before publication, as
well as remove the reference to [RFC7942].
This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942].
The description of implementations in this section is intended to
assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort
has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not
be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
exist.
According to [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and working groups
to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
they see fit".
8.1. Cisco's Commercial Delivery
* Organization: Cisco Systems, Inc.
* Implementation: IOS-XR PCE and PCC.
* Description: Implementation with experimental codepoints.
* Maturity Level: Production
* Coverage: Partial
* Contact: ssidor@cisco.com
8.2. Huawei's Commercial Delivery
* Organization: Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd.
* Implementation: Huawei Routers and NCE Controller
* Description: Huawei has Implemented this draft to support PCE-
Initiated SRv6 Policy.
* Maturity Level: Production
* Coverage: Partial
* Contact: yuwei.yuwei@huawei.com
9. IANA Considerations
9.1.
8.1. PCEP ERO and RRO subobjects Subobjects
This document defines a new subobject type for the PCEP explicit
route object (ERO), Explicit
Route Object (ERO) and a new subobject type for the PCEP reported
route object Reported
Route Object (RRO). The code points for subobject types of these
objects is maintained These have been registered in the RSVP parameters registry, under the
EXPLICIT_ROUTE and REPORTED_ROUTE objects. “Resource
Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters” registry group as shown
below.
IANA is requested to
confirm has allocated the following allocations new subobject in the RSVP Parameters registry for
each of "Subobject type
- 20 EXPLICIT_ROUTE - Type 1 Explicit Route" registry:
+=======+==========================+
| Value | Description |
+=======+==========================+
| 40 | SRv6-ERO (PCEP-specific) |
+-------+--------------------------+
Table 1
IANA has allocated the following new subobject types defined in this document.
Object Subobject Subobject the "Subobject type
- 21 ROUTE_RECORD - Type
--------------------- -------------------------- ------------------
EXPLICIT_ROUTE SRv6-ERO (PCEP-specific) 1 Route Record" registry:
+=======+==========================+
| Value | Description |
+=======+==========================+
| 40
ROUTE_RECORD | SRv6-RRO (PCEP-specific) 40
9.2. |
+-------+--------------------------+
Table 2
8.2. New SRv6-ERO NAI Type Registry
IANA is requested to create a new sub-registry, named has created the "PCEP SRv6-ERO NAI Types", Types" registry within the
"Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry group to
manage the 4-bit NT field in the SRv6-ERO subobject. The allocation
registration policy for this new registry is by IETF
Review[RFC8126].The new registry contains Review [RFC8126]. IANA has registered
the following values. values in Table 3.
+=======+===============================+===========+
| Value | Description | Reference
----- ----------- --------- |
+=======+===============================+===========+
| 0 | NAI is absent. This document
1 Unassigned | RFC 9603 |
+-------+-------------------------------+-----------+
| 2 | NAI is an IPv6 node ID. This document
3 Unassigned | RFC 9603 |
+-------+-------------------------------+-----------+
| 4 | NAI is an IPv6 adjacency This document with | RFC 9603 |
| | global IPv6 addresses.
5 Unassigned | |
+-------+-------------------------------+-----------+
| 6 | NAI is an IPv6 adjacency This document with | RFC 9603 |
| | link-local IPv6 addresses.
7-15 Unassigned
9.3. | |
+-------+-------------------------------+-----------+
Table 3
8.3. New SRv6-ERO Flag Registry
IANA is requested to create a new sub-registry, named has created the "SRv6-ERO Flag
Field", Field" registry within the "Path
Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry group to manage
the 12-bit Flag field of the SRv6-ERO subobject. New values are to
be assigned by Standards Action [RFC8126]. Each
bit registration should be tracked with
include the following qualities. information:
* Bit (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit)
* Description
* Reference
The following values are defined in this document. document:
+=====+==============================+===========+
| Bit | Description | Reference
----- ------------------ --------------
0-7 Unassigned |
+=====+==============================+===========+
| 8 | SID Verification (V) This document | RFC 9603 |
+-----+------------------------------+-----------+
| 9 | SID Structure is This document present (T) | RFC 9603 |
+-----+------------------------------+-----------+
| 10 | NAI is absent (F) This document | RFC 9603 |
+-----+------------------------------+-----------+
| 11 | SID is absent (S) This document
9.4. | RFC 9603 |
+-----+------------------------------+-----------+
Table 4
8.4. LSP-ERROR-CODE TLV
This document defines a new value in the sub-registry "LSP-ERROR-CODE TLV Error Code
Field" in registry within the "Path Computation Element Protocol(PCEP) Protocol (PCEP)
Numbers" registry. registry group.
+=======+========================+===========+
| Value | Meaning | Reference
--- ----------------------- -----------
TBD |
+=======+========================+===========+
| 10 | SID Verification fails This document
9.5. | RFC 9603 |
+-------+------------------------+-----------+
Table 5
8.5. PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY Sub-TLV Type Indicators
IANA maintains a sub-registry, named the "PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY Sub-
TLV Sub-TLV Type Indicators",
Indicators" registry within the "Path Computation Element Protocol
(PCEP) Numbers" registry group to manage the type indicator space for sub-
TLVs
sub-TLVs of the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV. IANA is requested to
confirm has registered
the following allocations in the sub-registry. value:
+=======+=====================+===========+
| Value | Meaning | Reference
----- ------- --------- |
+=======+=====================+===========+
| 27 | SRv6-PCE-CAPABILITY This Document
9.6. | RFC 9603 |
+-------+---------------------+-----------+
Table 6
8.6. SRv6 PCE Capability Flags
IANA is requested to create a new sub-registry, named has created the "SRv6 Capability Flag Field", Field" registry within the
"Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry group to
manage the 16-bit Flag field of the SRv6-
PCE-CAPABILITY SRv6-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV. New
values are to be assigned by Standards Action [RFC8126]. Each bit
registration should be tracked with include the following
qualities. information:
* Bit (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit)
* Description
* Reference
The following values are value is defined in this document.
+=====+==============================+===========+
| Bit | Description | Reference
----- ------------------ --------------
0-13 Unassigned |
+=====+==============================+===========+
| 14 | Node or Adjacency This document Identifier | RFC 9603 |
| | (NAI) is supported (N)
15 Unassigned
9.7. | |
+-----+------------------------------+-----------+
Table 7
8.7. New Path Setup Type
[RFC8408] created a sub-registry the "PCEP Path Setup Types" registry within the
"Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry called "PCEP Path Setup Types". group.
IANA is requested to confirm has allocated the following allocations in the sub-
registry. value:
+=======+==========================+===========+
| Value | Description | Reference
----- ----------- --------- |
+=======+==========================+===========+
| 3 | Traffic engineering path | RFC 9603 |
| | is This Document
setup set up using SRv6.
9.8. | |
+-------+--------------------------+-----------+
Table 8
8.8. ERROR Objects
IANA is requested to confirm has allocated the following allocations Error-values in the PCEP-
ERROR "PCEP-ERROR
Object Error Types and Values Values" registry for within the following new
error-values. "Path Computation
Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry group:
+============+=================+===================================+
| Error-Type | Meaning
---------- ------- | Error-value |
+============+=================+===================================+
| 10 | Reception of an | 34: Missing PCE-SRv6-CAPABILITY |
| | invalid object
Error-value = 34 (Missing
PCE-SRv6-CAPABILITY sub-TLV)
Error-value = 35 (Both | sub-TLV |
| | +-----------------------------------+
| | | 35: Both SID and NAI are absent |
| | | in SRv6-RRO subobject)
Error-value = 36 (RRO subobject |
| | +-----------------------------------+
| | | 36: RRO mixes SRv6-RRO subobjects |
| | | with other subobject types)
Error-value = 37 (Invalid SRv6 SID Structure)
19 types |
| | +-----------------------------------+
| | | 37: Invalid Operation
Error-value = 19 (Attempted SRv6 when the
capability was not advertised)
IANA is requested to make new allocations in the PCEP-ERROR Object
Error Types and Values registry for the following new error-values.
Error-Type Meaning
---------- -------
10 Reception of an invalid object
Error-value = TBD (Unsupported SID Structure |
| | +-----------------------------------+
| | | 40: Unsupported number of |
| | | SRv6-ERO subobjects)
Error-value = TBD (Unsupported subobjects |
| | +-----------------------------------+
| | | 41: Unsupported NAI Type in the |
| | | SRv6-ERO/SRv6-RRO subobject)
Error-value = TBD (Both subobject |
| | +-----------------------------------+
| | | 42: Both SID and NAI are absent |
| | | in the SRv6-ERO subobject)
Error-value = TBD (ERO subobject |
| | +-----------------------------------+
| | | 43: ERO mixes SRv6-ERO subobjects |
| | | with other subobject types)
Error-value = TBD (Unsupported types |
| | +-----------------------------------+
| | | 44: Unsupported number of |
| | | SRv6-ERO subobjects)
10. subobjects |
+------------+-----------------+-----------------------------------+
| 19 | Invalid | 19: Attempted SRv6 when the |
| | Operation | capability was not advertised |
+------------+-----------------+-----------------------------------+
Table 9
9. References
10.1.
9.1. Normative References
[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/rfc/rfc3209>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
[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/rfc/rfc5440>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[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/rfc/rfc8231>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>.
[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/rfc/rfc8281>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281>.
[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/rfc/rfc8408>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8408>.
[RFC8491] Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Aldrin, S., and L. Ginsberg,
"Signaling Maximum SID Depth (MSD) Using IS-IS", RFC 8491,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8491, November 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8491>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8491>.
[RFC8253] Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody,
"PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)",
RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8253>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253>.
[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/rfc/rfc8664>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8664>.
[RFC8986] Filsfils, C., Ed., Camarillo, P., Ed., Leddy, J., Voyer,
D., Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "Segment Routing over IPv6
(SRv6) Network Programming", RFC 8986,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8986, February 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8986>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8986>.
[RFC9514] Dawra, G., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Chen, M.,
Bernier, D., and B. Decraene, "Border Gateway Protocol -
Link State (BGP-LS) Extensions for Segment Routing over
IPv6 (SRv6)", RFC 9514, DOI 10.17487/RFC9514, December
2023, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9514>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9514>.
[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/rfc/rfc2119>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[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/rfc/rfc8174>.
10.2. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
9.2. Informative References
[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/rfc/rfc4657>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4657>.
[RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of
BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying
and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design
Guide", RFC 6952, DOI 10.17487/RFC6952, May 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6952>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6952>.
[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.
[RFC8051] Zhang, X., Ed. and I. Minei, Ed., "Applicability of a
Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)", RFC 8051,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8051, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8051>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8051>.
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8402>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
[RFC8754] Filsfils, C., Ed., Dukes, D., Ed., Previdi, S., Leddy, J.,
Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header
(SRH)", RFC 8754, DOI 10.17487/RFC8754, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8754>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8754>.
[RFC9256] Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Voyer, D., Bogdanov,
A., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture",
RFC 9256, DOI 10.17487/RFC9256, July 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9256>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9256>.
[RFC9352] Psenak, P., Ed., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B.,
and Z. Hu, "IS-IS Extensions to Support Segment Routing
over the IPv6 Data Plane", RFC 9352, DOI 10.17487/RFC9352,
February 2023, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9352>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9352>.
[PCEP-YANG]
Dhody, D., Beeram, V. P., Hardwick, J., and J. Tantsura,
"A YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element
Communications Protocol (PCEP)", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-23, 18 March draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-25, 21 May 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-
pce-pcep-yang-23>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-srv6-yang]
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-
pcep-yang-25>.
[PCEP-SRv6-YANG]
Li, C., Sivabalan, S., Peng, S., Koldychev, M., and L.
Ndifor, "A YANG Data Model for Segment Routing (SR) Policy
and SR in IPv6 (SRv6) support in Path Computation Element
Communications Protocol (PCEP)", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pce-pcep-srv6-yang-05, 18 March
2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-
pce-pcep-srv6-yang-05>.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Jeff Tantsura, Adrian Farrel, Aijun
Wang, Khasanov Boris, Ketan Talaulikar, Martin Vigoureux, Hariharan
Ananthakrishnan, Xinyue Zhang, John Scudder, Julien Meuric Meuric, and
Robert Varga for valuable suggestions.
Thanks to Gunter Van de Velde, Eric Éric Vyncke, Jim Guichard, and Mahesh
Jethanandani for their comments during the IESG review.
Contributors
Mahendra Singh Negi
RtBrick Inc
Bangalore
Karnataka
India
Email: mahend.ietf@gmail.com
Dhruv Dhody
Huawei
India
Email: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
Huang Wumin
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Building, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing
100095
China
Email: huangwumin@huawei.com
Shuping Peng
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Building, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing
100095
China
Email: pengshuping@huawei.com
Ran Chen
ZTE Corporation
China
Email: chen.ran@zte.com.cn
Authors' Addresses
Cheng Li(Editor) Li (editor)
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing
100095
China
Email: c.l@huawei.com
Prejeeth Kaladharan
RtBrick Inc
Bangalore
Karnataka
India
Email: prejeeth@rtbrick.com
Siva Sivabalan
Ciena Corporation
Email: msiva282@gmail.com
Mike Koldychev
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Ciena Corporation
Canada
Email: mkoldych@cisco.com
Yongqing Zhu
China Telecom
109 West Zhongshan Ave, Tianhe District
Bangalore
Guangzhou,
P.R.
China
Email: zhuyq8@chinatelecom.cn