PCE Working Group U. Palle Internet-Draft D. Dhody Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies Expires: January 19, 2017 Y. Tanaka NTT Communications Z. Ali Cisco Systems V. Beeram Juniper Networks July 18, 2016 Path Computation Element (PCE) Protocol Extensions for Stateful PCE usage for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp-00 Abstract The Path Computation Element (PCE) has been identified as an appropriate technology for the determination of the paths of point- to-multipoint (P2MP) TE LSPs. This document provides extensions required for Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) so as to enable the usage of a stateful PCE capability in supporting P2MP TE LSPs. 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 http://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 January 19, 2017. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. Palle, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 1] Internet-Draft STATEFUL-P2MP July 2016 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Supporting P2MP TE LSP for Stateful PCE . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2. Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Functions to Support P2MP TE LSPs for Stateful PCEs . . . . . 5 5. Architectural Overview of Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . 6 5.1. Extension of PCEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.2. Capability Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.3. IGP Extensions for Stateful PCE P2MP Capabilities Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.4. State Synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.5. LSP Delegation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.6. LSP Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.6.1. Passive Stateful PCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.6.2. Active Stateful PCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.6.3. PCE-Initiated LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.6.3.1. P2MP TE LSP Instantiation . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.6.3.2. P2MP TE LSP Deletion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.6.3.3. Adding and Pruning Leaves for the P2MP TE LSP . . 9 5.6.3.4. P2MP TE LSP Delegation and Cleanup . . . . . . . 10 6. PCEP Message Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.1. The PCRpt Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.2. The PCUpd Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.3. The PCReq Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6.4. The PCRep Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6.5. The PCInitiate message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6.6. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6.6.1. P2MP TE LSP Update Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6.6.2. P2MP TE LSP Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7. PCEP Object Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 7.1. Extension of LSP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 7.2. P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIER TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 7.3. S2LS Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 8. Message Fragmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Palle, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 2] Internet-Draft STATEFUL-P2MP July 2016 8.1. Report Fragmentation Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 8.2. Update Fragmentation Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 8.3. PCIntiate Fragmentation Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 9. Non-Support of P2MP TE LSPs for Stateful PCE . . . . . . . . 23 10. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 10.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 10.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 10.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . 25 10.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 10.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 10.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 11.1. PCE Capabilities in IGP Advertisements . . . . . . . . . 25 11.2. STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 11.3. Extension of LSP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 11.4. Extension of PCEP-Error Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 11.5. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 13. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Appendix A. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 1. Introduction As per [RFC4655], the Path Computation Element (PCE) is an entity that is capable of computing a network path or route based on a network graph, and applying computational constraints. A Path Computation Client (PCC) may make requests to a PCE for paths to be computed. [RFC4857] describes how to set up point-to-multipoint (P2MP) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) for use in Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks. The PCE has been identified as a suitable application for the computation of paths for P2MP TE LSPs ([RFC5671]). The PCEP is designed as a communication protocol between PCCs and PCEs for point-to-point (P2P) path computations and is defined in [RFC5440]. The extensions of PCEP to request path computation for P2MP TE LSPs are described in [RFC6006]. Stateful PCEs are shown to be helpful in many application scenarios, in both MPLS and GMPLS networks, as illustrated in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app]. These scenarios apply equally to P2P and P2MP TE LSPs. [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] provides the Palle, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 3] Internet-Draft STATEFUL-P2MP July 2016 fundamental extensions needed for stateful PCE to support general functionality for P2P TE LSP. [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] provides the an extensions needed for stateful PCE-initiated P2P TE LSP. Complementarily, this document focuses on the extensions that are necessary in order for the deployment of stateful PCEs to support P2MP TE LSPs. This document describes the setup, maintenance and teardown of PCE-initiated P2MP LSPs under the stateful PCE model. 1.1. Requirements Language 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]. 2. Terminology Terminology used in this document is same as terminology used in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce], [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp], and [RFC6006]. 3. Supporting P2MP TE LSP for Stateful PCE 3.1. Motivation [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app] presents several use cases, demonstrating scenarios that benefit from the deployment of a stateful PCE including optimization, recovery, etc which are equally applicable to P2MP TE LSPs. [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] defines the extensions to PCEP for P2P TE LSPs. Complementarily, this document focuses on the extensions that are necessary in order for the deployment of stateful PCEs to support P2MP TE LSPs. In addition to that, the stateful nature of a PCE simplifies the information conveyed in PCEP messages since it is possible to refer to the LSPs via PLSP-ID ([I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]). For P2MP this is an added advantage, where the size of message is much larger. Incase of stateless PCE, a modification of P2MP tree requires encoding of all leaves along with the paths in PCReq message, but using a stateful PCE with P2MP capability, the PCEP message can be used to convey only the modifications (the other information can be retrieved from the P2MP LSP identifier in the LSP database (LSPDB)). In environments where the P2MP TE LSP placement needs to change in response to application demands, it is useful to support dynamic creation and tear down of P2MP TE LSPs. The ability for a PCE to trigger the creation of P2MP TE LSPs on demand can be seamlessly integrated into a controller-based network architecture, where intelligence in the controller can determine when and where to set up Palle, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 4] Internet-Draft STATEFUL-P2MP July 2016 paths. Section 3 of [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] further describes the motivation behind the PCE-Initiation capability, which are equally applicable for P2MP TE LSPs. 3.2. Objectives The objectives for the protocol extensions to support P2MP TE LSP for stateful PCE are same as the objectives described in section 3.2 of [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]. 4. Functions to Support P2MP TE LSPs for Stateful PCEs [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] specifies new functions to support a stateful PCE. It also specifies that a function can be initiated either from a PCC towards a PCE (C-E) or from a PCE towards a PCC (E-C). This document extends these functions to support P2MP TE LSPs. Capability Advertisement (E-C,C-E): both the PCC and the PCE must announce during PCEP session establishment that they support PCEP Stateful PCE extensions for P2MP using mechanisms defined in Section 5.2. LSP State Synchronization (C-E): after the session between the PCC and a stateful PCE with P2MP capability is initialized, the PCE must learn the state of a PCC's P2MP TE LSPs before it can perform path computations or update LSP attributes in a PCC. LSP Update Request (E-C): a stateful PCE with P2MP capability requests modification of attributes on a PCC's P2MP TE LSP. LSP State Report (C-E): a PCC sends an LSP state report to a PCE whenever the state of a P2MP TE LSP changes. LSP Control Delegation (C-E,E-C): a PCC grants to a PCE the right to update LSP attributes on one or more P2MP TE LSPs; the PCE becomes the authoritative source of the LSP's attributes as long as the delegation is in effect (See Section 5.7 of [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]); the PCC may withdraw the delegation or the PCE may give up the delegation at any time. PCE-initiated LSP instantiation (E-C): a PCE sends an LSP Initiate Message to a PCC to instantiate or delete a P2MP TE LSP. Palle, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 5] Internet-Draft STATEFUL-P2MP July 2016 5. Architectural Overview of Protocol Extensions 5.1. Extension of PCEP Messages New PCEP messages are defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] to support stateful PCE for P2P TE LSPs. In this document these messages are extended to support P2MP TE LSPs. Path Computation State Report (PCRpt): Each P2MP TE LSP State Report in a PCRpt message can contain actual P2MP TE LSP path attributes, LSP status, etc. An LSP State Report carried on a PCRpt message is also used in delegation or revocation of control of a P2MP TE LSP to/from a PCE. The extension of PCRpt message is described in Section 6.1. Path Computation Update Request (PCUpd): Each P2MP TE LSP Update Request in a PCUpd message MUST contain all LSP parameters that a PCE wishes to set for a given P2MP TE LSP. An LSP Update Request carried on a PCUpd message is also used to return LSP delegations if at any point PCE no longer desires control of a P2MP TE LSP. The PCUpd message is described in Section 6.2. A new PCEP message is defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] to support stateful PCE instantiation of P2P TE LSPs. In this document this message is extended to support P2MP TE LSPs. Path Computation LSP Initiate Message (PCInitiate): is a PCEP message sent by a PCE to a PCC to trigger P2MP TE LSP instantiation or deletion. The PCInitiate message is described in Section 6.5. 5.2. Capability Advertisement During PCEP Initialization Phase, as per Section 7.1.1 of [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce], PCEP speakers advertises Stateful capability via Stateful PCE Capability TLV in open message. Two new flags are defined for the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] and updated in [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] and [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations]. Three new bits N (P2MP-CAPABILITY), M (P2MP-LSP-UPDATE-CAPABILITY), and P (P2MP-LSP-INSTANTIATION-CAPABILITY) are added in this document: N (P2MP-CAPABILITY - 1 bit): if set to 1 by a PCC, the N Flag indicates that the PCC is willing to send P2MP LSP State Reports whenever P2MP LSP parameters or operational status changes.; if set to 1 by a PCE, the N Flag indicates that the PCE is interested Palle, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 6] Internet-Draft STATEFUL-P2MP July 2016 in receiving LSP State Reports whenever LSP parameters or operational status changes. The P2MP-CAPABILITY Flag must be advertised by both a PCC and a PCE for PCRpt messages P2MP extension to be allowed on a PCEP session. M (P2MP-LSP-UPDATE-CAPABILITY - 1 bit): if set to 1 by a PCC, the M Flag indicates that the PCC allows modification of P2MP LSP parameters; if set to 1 by a PCE, the M Flag indicates that the PCE is capable of updating P2MP LSP parameters. The P2MP-LSP- UPDATE-CAPABILITY Flag must be advertised by both a PCC and a PCE for PCUpd messages P2MP extension to be allowed on a PCEP session. P (P2MP-LSP-INSTANTIATION-CAPABILITY - 1 bit): If set to 1 by a PCC, the P Flag indicates that the PCC allows instantiation of an P2MP LSP by a PCE. If set to 1 by a PCE, the P flag indicates that the PCE supports P2MP LSP instantiation. The P2MP-LSP-INSTANTIATION- CAPABILITY flag must be set by both PCC and PCE in order to support PCE-initiated P2MP LSP instantiation. A PCEP speaker should continue to advertise the basic P2MP capability via mechanisms as described in [RFC6006]. 5.3. IGP Extensions for Stateful PCE P2MP Capabilities Advertisement When PCCs are LSRs participating in the IGP (OSPF or IS-IS), and PCEs are either LSRs or servers also participating in the IGP, an effective mechanism for PCE discovery within an IGP routing domain consists of utilizing IGP advertisements. Extensions for the advertisement of PCE Discovery Information are defined for OSPF and for IS-IS in [RFC5088] and [RFC5089] respectively. The PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV, defined in [RFC5089], is an optional sub- TLV used to advertise PCE capabilities. It MAY be present within the PCED sub-TLV carried by OSPF or IS-IS. [RFC5088] and [RFC5089] provide the description and processing rules for this sub-TLV when carried within OSPF and IS-IS, respectively. The format of the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV is included below for easy reference: Type: 5 Length: Multiple of 4. Value: This contains an array of units of 32 bit flags with the most significant bit as 0. Each bit represents one PCE capability. Palle, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 7] Internet-Draft STATEFUL-P2MP July 2016 PCE capability bits are defined in [RFC5088]. This document defines new capability bits for the stateful PCE with P2MP as follows: Bit Capability TBD Active Stateful PCE with P2MP TBD Passive Stateful PCE with P2MP TBD PCE-Initiation with P2MP Note that while active, passive or initiation stateful PCE with P2MP capabilities may be advertised during discovery, PCEP Speakers that wish to use stateful PCEP MUST advertise stateful PCEP capabilities during PCEP session setup, as specified in the current document. A PCC MAY initiate stateful PCEP P2MP capability advertisement at PCEP session setup even if it did not receive any IGP PCE capability advertisements. 5.4. State Synchronization State Synchronization operations described in Section 5.6 of [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] are applicable for P2MP TE LSPs as well. 5.5. LSP Delegation LSP delegation operations described in Section 5.7 of [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] are applicable for P2MP TE LSPs as well. 5.6. LSP Operations 5.6.1. Passive Stateful PCE LSP operations for passive stateful PCE described in Section 5.8.1 of [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] are applicable for P2MP TE LSPs as well. The Path Computation Request and Response message format for P2MP TE LSPs is described in Section 3.4 and Section 3.5 of [RFC6006] respectively. The Request and Response message for P2MP TE LSPs are extended to support encoding of LSP object, so that it is possible to refer to a LSP with a unique identifier and simplify the PCEP message exchange. For example, incase of modification of one leaf in a P2MP tree, there should be no need to carry the full P2MP tree in PCReq message. The extension for the Request and Response message for passive stateful operations on P2MP TE LSPs are described in Section 6.3 and Section 6.4. The extension for the Path Computation LSP State Report (PCRpt) message is described in Section 6.1. Palle, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 8] Internet-Draft STATEFUL-P2MP July 2016 5.6.2. Active Stateful PCE LSP operations for active stateful PCE described in Section 5.8.2 of [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] are applicable for P2MP TE LSPs as well. The extension for the Path Computation LSP Update (PCUpd) message for active stateful operations on P2MP TE LSPs are described in Section 6.2. 5.6.3. PCE-Initiated LSP As per section 5.1 of [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp], the PCE sends a Path Computation LSP Initiate Request (PCInitiate) message to the PCC to suggest instantiation or deletion of a P2P TE LSP. This document extends the PCInitiate message to support P2MP TE LSP (see details in Section 6.5). P2MP TE LSP suggested instantiation and deletion operations are same as P2P LSP as described in section 5.3 and 5.4 of [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]. 5.6.3.1. P2MP TE LSP Instantiation The Instantiation operation of P2MP TE LSP is same as defined in section 5.3 of [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] including handling of PLSP-ID, SYMBOLIC-PATH-NAME TLV etc. Rules of processing and error codes remains unchanged. The N bit MUST be set in LSP object in PCInitiate message by PCE to specify the instantiation is for P2MP TE LSP. Though N bit is set in the LSP object, P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIER TLV MUST NOT be included in the LSP object in PCIntiitate message as it SHOULD be generated by PCC and carried in PCRpt message. 5.6.3.2. P2MP TE LSP Deletion The deletion operation of P2MP TE LSP is same as defined in section 5.4 of [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] by sending an LSP Initiate Message with an LSP object carrying the PLSP-ID of the LSP to be removed and an SRP object with the R flag set (LSP-REMOVE as per section 5.2 of [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]). Rules of processing and error codes remains unchanged. 5.6.3.3. Adding and Pruning Leaves for the P2MP TE LSP Adding of new leaves and Pruning of old Leaves for the PCE initiated P2MP TE LSP MUST be carried in PCUpd message and SHOULD refer Section 6.2 for P2MP TE LSP extensions. As defined in [RFC6006], Palle, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 9] Internet-Draft STATEFUL-P2MP July 2016 leaf type = 1 for adding of new leaves, leaf type = 2 for pruning of old leaves of P2MP END-POINTS Object are used in PCUpd message. PCC MAY use the Incremental State Update mechanims as described in [RFC4875] to signal adding and pruning of leaves. 5.6.3.4. P2MP TE LSP Delegation and Cleanup P2MP TE LSP delegation and cleanup operations are same as defined in section 6 of [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]. Rules of processing and error codes remains unchanged. 6. PCEP Message Extensions 6.1. The PCRpt Message As per Section 6.1 of [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce], PCRpt message is used to report the current state of a P2P TE LSP. This document extends the PCRpt message in reporting the status of P2MP TE LSP. The format of PCRpt message is as follows: Palle, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 10] Internet-Draft STATEFUL-P2MP July 2016 ::= Where: ::= [] ::= [] Where: ::= [] [] [] [] ::= (|) [] ::= (|) [] is defined in [RFC5440] and extended by PCEP extensions. The P2MP END-POINTS object defined in [RFC6006] is mandatory for specifying address of P2MP leaves grouped based on leaf types. o New leaves to add (leaf type = 1) o Old leaves to remove (leaf type = 2) o Old leaves whose path can be modified/reoptimized (leaf type = 3) o Old leaves whose path must be left unchanged (leaf type = 4) When reporting the status of a P2MP TE LSP, the destinations are grouped in END-POINTS object based on the operational status (O field in S2LS object) and leaf type (in END-POINTS). This way the leaves that share the same operational status are grouped together. For reporting the status of delegated P2MP TE LSP, leaf-type = 3, where as for non-delegated P2MP TE LSP, leaf-type = 4 is used. Palle, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 11] Internet-Draft STATEFUL-P2MP July 2016 For delegated P2MP TE LSP configuration changes are reported via PCRpt message. For example, adding of new leaves END-POINTS (leaf- type = 1) is used where as removing of old leaves (leaf-type = 2) is used. Note that we preserve compatibility with the [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] definition of . At least one instance of MUST be present in this message for P2MP LSP. During state synchronization, the PCRpt message must report the status of the full P2MP TE LSP. The S2LS object MUST be carried in PCRpt message along with END- POINTS object when N bit is set in LSP object for P2MP TE LSP. If the S2LS object is missing, the receiving PCE MUST send a PCErr message with Error-type=6 (Mandatory Object missing) and Error- value=TBD (S2LS object missing). If the END-POINTS object is missing, the receiving PCE MUST send a PCErr message with Error- type=6 (Mandatory Object missing) and Error-value=3 (END-POINTS object missing) (defined in [RFC5440]. 6.2. The PCUpd Message As per Section 6.2 of [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce], PCUpd message is used to update P2P TE LSP attributes. This document extends the PCUpd message in updating the attributes of P2MP TE LSP. The format of a PCUpd message is as follows: Palle, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 12] Internet-Draft STATEFUL-P2MP July 2016 ::= Where: ::= [] ::= Where: ::= [] [] ::= (|) [] is defined in [RFC5440] and extended by PCEP extensions. Note that we preserve compatibility with the [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] definition of . The PCC MAY use the make-before-break or sub-group-based procedures described in [RFC4875] based on a local policy decision. The END-POINTS object MUST be carried in PCUpd message when N bit is set in LSP object for P2MP TE LSP. If the END-POINTS object is missing, the receiving PCC MUST send a PCErr message with Error- type=6 (Mandatory Object missing) and Error-value=3 (END-POINTS object missing) (defined in [RFC5440]. 6.3. The PCReq Message As per Section 3.4 of [RFC6006], PCReq message is used for a P2MP path computation request. This document extends the PCReq message such that a PCC MAY include the LSP object in the PCReq message if the stateful PCE P2MP capability has been negotiated on a PCEP session between the PCC and a PCE. The format of PCReq message is as follows: Palle, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 13] Internet-Draft STATEFUL-P2MP July 2016 ::= where: ::= [] [] [] [] [] [] [] where: ::=[][] [] ::=(|)[][] ::=[] 6.4. The PCRep Message As per Section 3.5 of [RFC6006], PCRep message is used for a P2MP path computation reply. This document extends the PCRep message such that a PCE MAY include the LSP object in the PCRep message if the stateful PCE P2MP capability has been negotiated on a PCEP session between the PCC and a PCE. The format of PCRep message is as follows: Palle, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 14] Internet-Draft STATEFUL-P2MP July 2016 ::= ::= [] [] [] where: ::= [][] ::= (|) [] ::=[] [] [] [] [] [] 6.5. The PCInitiate message As defined in section 5.1 of [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp], PCE sends a PCInitiate message to a PCC to recommend instantiation of a P2P TE LSP, this document extends the format of PCInitiate message for the creation of P2MP TE LSPs but the creation and deletion operations of P2MP TE LSP are same to the P2P TE LSP. The format of PCInitiate message is as follows: Palle, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 15] Internet-Draft STATEFUL-P2MP July 2016 ::= Where: ::= [] ::= (|) ::= [] ::= Where: ::= [] [] ::= (|) [] is defined in [RFC5440] and extended by PCEP extensions. The PCInitiate message with an LSP object with N bit (P2MP) set is used to convey operation on a P2MP TE LSP. The SRP object is used to correlate between initiation requests sent by the PCE and the error reports and state reports sent by the PCC as described in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]. The END-POINTS object MUST be carried in PCInitiate message when N bit is set in LSP object for P2MP TE LSP. If the END-POINTS object is missing, the receiving PCC MUST send a PCErr message with Error- type=6 (Mandatory Object missing) and Error-value=3 (END-POINTS object missing) (defined in [RFC5440]. Palle, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 16] Internet-Draft STATEFUL-P2MP July 2016 6.6. Example 6.6.1. P2MP TE LSP Update Request LSP Update Request message is sent by an active stateful PCE to update the P2MP TE LSP parameters or attributes. An example of a PCUpd message for P2MP TE LSP is described below: Common Header SRP LSP with P2MP flag set END-POINTS for leaf type 3 ERO list In this example, a stateful PCE request updation of path taken by some of the leaves in a P2MP tree. The update request uses the END- POINT type 3 (modified/reoptimized). The ERO list represents the S2LS path after modification. The update message does not need to encode the full P2MP tree in this case. 6.6.2. P2MP TE LSP Report LSP State Report message is sent by a PCC to report or delegate the P2MP TE LSP. An example of a PCRpt message for a delegated P2MP TE LSP is described below to add new leaves to an existing P2MP TE LSP: Common Header LSP with P2MP flag set END-POINTS for leaf type 1 S2LS (O=DOWN) ERO list (empty) An example of a PCRpt message for P2MP TE LSP is described below to prune leaves from an existing P2MP TE LSP: Common Header LSP with P2MP flag set END-POINTS for leaf type 2 S2LS (O=UP) ERO list An example of a PCRpt message for a delegated P2MP TE LSP is described below to report status of leaves in an existing P2MP TE LSP: Palle, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 17] Internet-Draft STATEFUL-P2MP July 2016 Common Header LSP with P2MP flag set END-POINTS for leaf type 3 S2LS (O=UP) ERO list END-POINTS for leaf type 3 S2LS (O=DOWN) ERO list An example of a PCRpt message for a non-delegated P2MP TE LSP is described below to report status of leaves: Common Header LSP with P2MP flag set END-POINTS for leaf type 4 S2LS (O=ACTIVE) ERO list END-POINTS for leaf type 4 S2LS (O=DOWN) ERO list 7. PCEP Object Extensions The PCEP TLV defined in this document is compliant with the PCEP TLV format defined in [RFC5440]. 7.1. Extension of LSP Object LSP Object is defined in Section 7.3 of [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]. It specifies PLSP-ID to uniquely identify an LSP that is constant for the life time of a PCEP session. Similarly for P2MP tunnel, PLSP-ID identify a P2MP TE LSP uniquely. This document adds the following flags to the LSP Object: N (P2MP bit): If the bit is set to 1, it specifies the message is for P2MP TE LSP which MUST be set in PCRpt or PCUpd message for a P2MP TE LSP. F (Fragmentation bit): If the bit is set to 1, it specifies the message is fragmented. If P2MP bit is set, the following P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIER TLV MUST be present in LSP object. Palle, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 18] Internet-Draft STATEFUL-P2MP July 2016 7.2. P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIER TLV The P2MP LSP Identifier TLV MUST be included in the LSP object in PCRpt message for RSVP-TE signaled P2MP TE LSPs. If the TLV is missing, the PCE will generate an error with error-type 6 (mandatory object missing) and error-value TBD (P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV missing) and close the PCEP session. The P2MP LSP Identifier TLV MAY be included in the LSP object in PCUpd message for RSVP-TE signaled P2MP TE LSPs. The special value of all zeros for this TLV is used to refer to all paths pertaining to a particular PLSP-ID. There are two P2MP LSP Identifier TLVs, one for IPv4 and one for IPv6. The format of the IPV4-P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIER 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=[TBD] | Length=16 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IPv4 Tunnel Sender Address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | LSP ID | Tunnel ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Extended Tunnel ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | P2MP ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 6: IPV4-P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIER TLV format The type (16-bit) of the TLV is [TBD] to be assigned by IANA. The length (16-bit) has a fixed value of 16 octets. The value contains the following fields: IPv4 Tunnel Sender Address: contains the sender node's IPv4 address, as defined in [RFC3209], Section 4.6.2.1 for the LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4 Sender Template Object. LSP ID: contains the 16-bit 'LSP ID' identifier defined in [RFC3209], Section 4.6.2.1 for the LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4 Sender Template Object. Palle, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 19] Internet-Draft STATEFUL-P2MP July 2016 Tunnel ID: contains the 16-bit 'Tunnel ID' identifier defined in [RFC3209], Section 4.6.1.1 for the LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4 Session Object. Extended Tunnel ID: contains the 32-bit 'Extended Tunnel ID' identifier defined in [RFC3209], Section 4.6.1.1 for the LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4 Session Object. P2MP ID: contains the 32-bit 'P2MP ID' identifier defined in Section 19.1.1 of [RFC4875] for the P2MP LSP Tunnel IPv4 SESSION Object. The format of the IPV6-P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIER 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=[TBD] | Length=40 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + + | IPv6 tunnel sender address | + (16 octets) + | | + + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | LSP ID | Tunnel ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + + | Extended Tunnel ID | + (16 octets) + | | + + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | P2MP ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 7: IPV6-P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIER TLV format The type of the TLV is [TBD] to be assigned by IANA. The length (16-bit) has a fixed length of 40 octets. The value contains the following fields: Palle, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 20] Internet-Draft STATEFUL-P2MP July 2016 IPv6 Tunnel Sender Address: contains the sender node's IPv6 address, as defined in [RFC3209], Section 4.6.2.2 for the LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 Sender Template Object. LSP ID: contains the 16-bit 'LSP ID' identifier defined in [RFC3209], Section 4.6.2.2 for the LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 Sender Template Object. Tunnel ID: contains the 16-bit 'Tunnel ID' identifier defined in [RFC3209], Section 4.6.1.2 for the LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 Session Object. Extended Tunnel ID: contains the 128-bit 'Extended Tunnel ID' identifier defined in [RFC3209], Section 4.6.1.2 for the LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 Session Object. P2MP ID: As defined above in IPV4-P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV. Tunnel ID remains constant over the life time of a tunnel. 7.3. S2LS Object The S2LS (Source-to-Leaves) Object is used to report RSVP-TE state of one or more destinations (leaves) encoded within the END-POINTS object for a P2MP TE LSP. It MUST be carried in PCRpt message along with END-POINTS object when N bit is set in LSP object. S2LS Object-Class is [TBD]. S2LS Object-Types is 1. The format of the S2LS object 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Flags | O| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | // Optional TLVs // | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 8: S2LS object format Flags(32 bits): Palle, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 21] Internet-Draft STATEFUL-P2MP July 2016 O(Operational - 3 bits) the O Field represents the operational status of the group of destinations. The values are as per Operational field in LSP object defined in Section 7.3 of [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]. When N bit is set in LSP object then the O field in LSP object represents the operational status of the full P2MP TE LSP and the O field in S2LS object represents the operational status of a group of destinations encoded within the END-POINTS object. Future documents MAY define optional TLVs that MAY be included in the S2LS Object. 8. Message Fragmentation The total PCEP message length, including the common header, is 16 bytes. In certain scenarios the P2MP report and update request may not fit into a single PCEP message (e.g. initial report or update). The F-bit is used in the LSP object to signal that the initial report, update, or initiate message was too large to fit into a single message and will be fragmented into multiple messages. In order to identify the single report or update each message will use the same PLSP-ID. In order to identify that a series of PCInitiate messages represents a single Initiate, each message will use the same PLSP-ID (in this case 0) and SRP-ID-number. Fragmentation procedure described below for report or update message is similar to [RFC6006] which describes request and response message fragmentation. 8.1. Report Fragmentation Procedure If the initial report is too large to fit into a single report message, the PCC will split the report over multiple messages. Each message sent to the PCE, except the last one, will have the F-bit set in the LSP object to signify that the report has been fragmented into multiple messages. In order to identify that a series of report messages represents a single report, each message will use the same PLSP-ID. To indicate P2MP message fragmentation errors associated with a P2MP Report, a Error-Type (18) and a new error-value TBD is used if a PCE has not received the last piece of the fragmented message, it should send an error message to the PCC to signal that it has received an incomplete message (i.e., "Fragmented Report failure"). Palle, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 22] Internet-Draft STATEFUL-P2MP July 2016 8.2. Update Fragmentation Procedure Once the PCE computes and updates a path for some or all leaves in a P2MP TE LSP, an update message is sent to the PCC. If the update is too large to fit into a single update message, the PCE will split the update over multiple messages. Each update message sent by the PCE, except the last one, will have the F-bit set in the LSP object to signify that the update has been fragmented into multiple messages. In order to identify that a series of update messages represents a single update, each message will use the same PLSP-ID and SRP-ID- number. To indicate P2MP message fragmentation errors associated with a P2MP Update request, a Error-Type (18) and a new error-value TBD is used if a PCC has not received the last piece of the fragmented message, it should send an error message to the PCE to signal that it has received an incomplete message (i.e., "Fragmented Update failure"). 8.3. PCIntiate Fragmentation Procedure Once the PCE initiates to set up the P2MP TE LSP, a PCInitiate message is sent to the PCC. If the PCInitiate is too large to fit into a single PCInitiate message, the PCE will split the PCInitiate over multiple messages. Each PCInitiate message sent by the PCE, except the last one, will have the F-bit set in the LSP object to signify that the PCInitiate has been fragmented into multiple messages. In order to identify that a series of PCInitiate messages represents a single Initiate, each message will use the same PLSP-ID (in this case 0) and SRP-ID-number. To indicate P2MP message fragmentation errors associated with a P2MP PCInitiate, a Error-Type (18) and a new error-value TBD is used if a PCC has not received the last piece of the fragmented message, it should send an error message to the PCE to signal that it has received an incomplete message (i.e., "Fragmented Instantiation failure"). 9. Non-Support of P2MP TE LSPs for Stateful PCE The PCEP protocol extensions described in this document for stateful PCEs with P2MP capability MUST NOT be used if PCE has not advertised its stateful capability with P2MP as per Section 5.2. If the PCEP Speaker on the PCC supports the extensions of this draft (understands the P2MP flag in the LSP object) but did not advertise this capability, then upon receipt of PCUpd message from the PCE, it SHOULD generate a PCErr with error-type 19 (Invalid Operation), error-value TBD (Attempted LSP Update Request for P2MP if active stateful PCE capability for P2MP was not advertised). If the PCEP Palle, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 23] Internet-Draft STATEFUL-P2MP July 2016 Speaker on the PCE supports the extensions of this draft (understands the P2MP flag in the LSP object) but did not advertise this capability, then upon receipt of a PCRpt message from the PCC, it SHOULD generate a PCErr with error-type 19 (Invalid Operation), error-value TBD (Attempted LSP State Report for P2MP if stateful PCE capability for P2MP was not advertised) and it will terminate the PCEP session. If a Stateful PCE receives a P2MP TE LSP report message and the PCE does not understand the P2MP flag in the LSP object, and therefore the PCEP extensions described in this document, then the Stateful PCE would act as per [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]. The PCEP protocol extensions described in this document for PCC or PCE with instantiation capability for P2MP TE LSPs MUST NOT be used if PCC or PCE has not advertised its stateful capability with Instantiation and P2MP capability as per Section 5.2. If the PCEP Speaker on the PCC supports the extensions of this draft (understands the P (P2MP-LSP-INSTANTIATION-CAPABILITY) flag in the LSP object) but did not advertise this capability, then upon receipt of PCInitiate message from the PCE, it SHOULD generate a PCErr with error-type 19 (Invalid Operation), error-value TBD (Attempted LSP Instantiation Request for P2MP if stateful PCE instantiation capability for P2MP was not advertised). 10. Manageability Considerations All manageability requirements and considerations listed in [RFC5440], [RFC6006], [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce], and [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] apply to PCEP protocol extensions defined in this document. In addition, requirements and considerations listed in this section apply. 10.1. Control of Function and Policy A PCE or PCC implementation MUST allow configuring the stateful PCEP capability, the LSP Update capability, and the LSP Initiation capability for P2MP LSPs. 10.2. Information and Data Models The PCEP MIB module SHOULD be extended to include advertised P2MP stateful capabilities, P2MP synchronization status, and P2MP delegation status etc. Palle, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 24] Internet-Draft STATEFUL-P2MP July 2016 10.3. 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]. 10.4. Verify Correct Operations Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new operation verification requirements in addition to those already listed in [RFC5440], [RFC6006], [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce], and [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]. 10.5. Requirements On Other Protocols Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new requirements on other protocols. 10.6. Impact On Network Operations Mechanisms defined in this document do not have any impact on network operations in addition to those already listed in [RFC5440], [RFC6006], [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce], and [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]. 11. IANA Considerations This document requests IANA actions to allocate code points for the protocol elements defined in this document. 11.1. PCE Capabilities in IGP Advertisements IANA is requested to allocate new bits in "PCE Capability Flags" registry for stateful PCE with P2MP capability as follows: Bit Meaning Reference TBD Active Stateful [This I-D] PCE with P2MP TBD Passive Stateful [This I-D] PCE with P2MP TBD Stateful PCE [This I-D] Initiation with P2MP Palle, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 25] Internet-Draft STATEFUL-P2MP July 2016 11.2. STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV The following values are defined in this document for the Flags field in the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY-TLV (defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]) in the OPEN object: Bit Description Reference TBD P2MP-CAPABILITY This.I-D TBD P2MP-LSP-UPDATE- This.I-D CAPABILITY TBD P2MP-LSP- This.I-D INSTANTIATION- CAPABILITY 11.3. Extension of LSP Object This document requests that a registry is created to manage the Flags field of the LSP object (defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]). New values are to be assigned by Standards Action [RFC5226]. Each bit should be tracked with the following qualities: o Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit) o Capability description o Defining RFC The following values are defined in this document: Bit Description Reference TBD P2MP This.I-D TBD Fragmentation This.I-D 11.4. Extension of PCEP-Error Object A new 19 (recommended values) defined in section 8.5 of [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]. The error-type 6 is defined in [RFC5440] and error-type 18 in [RFC6006]. This document extend the Palle, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 26] Internet-Draft STATEFUL-P2MP July 2016 new Error-Values for those error types for the following error conditions: Error-Type Meaning 6 Mandatory Object missing Error-value=TBD: S2LS object missing Error-value=TBD: P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIER TLV missing 18 P2MP Fragmentation Error Error-value= TBD. Fragmented Report failure Error-value= TBD. Fragmented Update failure Error-value= TBD. Fragmented Instantiation failure 19 Invalid Operation Error-value= TBD. Attempted LSP State Report for P2MP if stateful PCE capability for P2MP was not advertised Error-value= TBD. Attempted LSP Update Request for P2MP if active stateful PCE capability for P2MP was not advertised Error-value= TBD. Attempted LSP Instantiation Request for P2MP if stateful PCE instantiation capability for P2MP was not advertised Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to make the assignment of a new error value for the existing "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-error-object. 11.5. PCEP TLV Type Indicators Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to make the assignment of a new value for the existing "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/ pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type-indicators. This document defines the following new PCEP TLVs: Value Meaning Reference TBD P2MP-IPV4-LSP-IDENTIFIERS This.I-D TBD P2MP-IPV6-LSP-IDENTIFIERS This.I-D Palle, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 27] Internet-Draft STATEFUL-P2MP July 2016 12. Security Considerations The stateful operations on P2MP TE LSP are more CPU-intensive and also utilize more link bandwidth. In the event of an unauthorized stateful P2MP operations, or a denial of service attack, the subsequent PCEP operations may be disruptive to the network. Consequently, it is important that implementations conform to the relevant security requirements of [RFC5440], [RFC6006] and [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce], and [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]. Further [I-D.ietf-pce-pceps] discusses an experimental approach to provide secure transport for PCEP. 13. Acknowledgments Thanks to Quintin Zhao, Avantika and Venugopal Reddy for his comments. 14. References 14.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [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, . [RFC5088] Le Roux, JL., Ed., Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R. Zhang, "OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5088, DOI 10.17487/RFC5088, January 2008, . [RFC5089] Le Roux, JL., Ed., Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R. Zhang, "IS-IS Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5089, DOI 10.17487/RFC5089, January 2008, . [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, . Palle, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 28] Internet-Draft STATEFUL-P2MP July 2016 [RFC6006] Zhao, Q., Ed., King, D., Ed., Verhaeghe, F., Takeda, T., Ali, Z., and J. Meuric, "Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths", RFC 6006, DOI 10.17487/RFC6006, September 2010, . [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE", draft-ietf-pce-stateful- pce-14 (work in progress), March 2016. [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., Varga, R., Zhang, X., and D. Dhody, "Optimizations of Label Switched Path State Synchronization Procedures for a Stateful PCE", draft- ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-05 (work in progress), April 2016. [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "PCEP Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Model", draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-06 (work in progress), July 2016. 14.2. Informative References [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006, . [RFC4857] Fogelstroem, E., Jonsson, A., and C. Perkins, "Mobile IPv4 Regional Registration", RFC 4857, DOI 10.17487/RFC4857, June 2007, . [RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Ed., and S. Yasukawa, Ed., "Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to- Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875, DOI 10.17487/RFC4875, May 2007, . [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, . Palle, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 29] Internet-Draft STATEFUL-P2MP July 2016 [RFC5671] Yasukawa, S. and A. Farrel, Ed., "Applicability of the Path Computation Element (PCE) to Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 5671, DOI 10.17487/RFC5671, October 2009, . [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app] Zhang, X. and I. Minei, "Applicability of a Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)", draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce- app-06 (work in progress), July 2016. [I-D.ietf-pce-pceps] Lopez, D., Dios, O., Wu, W., and D. Dhody, "Secure Transport for PCEP", draft-ietf-pce-pceps-10 (work in progress), July 2016. Palle, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 30] Internet-Draft STATEFUL-P2MP July 2016 Appendix A. Contributor Addresses Yuji Kamite NTT Communications Corporation Granpark Tower 3-4-1 Shibaura, Minato-ku Tokyo 108-8118 Japan EMail: y.kamite@ntt.com Authors' Addresses Udayasree Palle Huawei Technologies Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield Bangalore, Karnataka 560066 India EMail: udayasree.palle@huawei.com Dhruv Dhody Huawei Technologies Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield Bangalore, Karnataka 560066 India EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com Yosuke Tanaka NTT Communications Corporation Granpark Tower 3-4-1 Shibaura, Minato-ku Tokyo 108-8118 Japan EMail: yosuke.tanaka@ntt.com Zafar Ali Cisco Systems EMail: zali@cisco.com Palle, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 31] Internet-Draft STATEFUL-P2MP July 2016 Vishnu Pavan Beeram Juniper Networks EMail: vbeeram@juniper.net Palle, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 32]