Network Working Group O. Gonzalez de Dios, Ed. Internet-Draft F. Jimenez Chico Intended status: Standards Track Telefonica I+D Expires: April 18, 2011 R. Casellas CTTC - Centre Tecnologic de Telecomunicacions de Catalunya October 15, 2010 PCEP Extensions for Temporary Reservation of Computed Path Resources and Support for Limited Context State in PCE draft-gonzalezdedios-pce-resv-res-context-state-00 Abstract The Path Computation Element (PCE) provides path computation functions in support of traffic engineering in Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks. A limited form of statefulness is useful to improve PCE functionality in situations in which the local TED might not be up to date, or in the case of concurrent requests where most of the LSPs are computed before the end of the set-up of the LSPs when the TED is updated. The PCE can retain some context from the resources assigned to Path Requests during a certain period of time, so that it avoids suggesting the use of the same resources for subsequent TE LSPs. This document proposes an extension to the PCEP protocol to allow the PCC to request the PCE to block or reserve the resources computed in a path request of a TE LSP for subsequent requests for a certain time. 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 April 18, 2011. Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires April 18, 2011 [Page 1] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for Reserv of Resources in PCE October 2010 Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2010 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 (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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. PCEP Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. PCEP Extensions (Encoding) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1. Requesting a Reservation of Resources . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.2. Replying a reservation status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.3. Cancelling a Reservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.4. RESERVATION object format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.5. RESERVATION_CONF object format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.6. RESERVATION_ID TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4. Protocol procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5. Use cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.1. Multiple LSP restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.2. Domain path selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.3. Multidomain path computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6.4. Verifying Correct Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6.5. Requirements for Other Protocols and Functional Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6.6. Impact on Network Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8.1. RESERVATION object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8.2. RESERVATION_CONF object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8.3. RESERVATION_ID TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8.4. PCEP Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires April 18, 2011 [Page 2] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for Reserv of Resources in PCE October 2010 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires April 18, 2011 [Page 3] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for Reserv of Resources in PCE October 2010 1. Introduction According to [RFC4655], a PCE can be either stateful or stateless. In the former case, there is a strict synchronization between the PCE and not only the network states (in term of topology and resource information), but also the set of computed paths and reserved resources in use in the network. In other words, the PCE utilizes information from the TED as well as information about existing paths (for example, TE LSPs) in the network when processing new requests. However, the maintenance and synchronization of a stateful database can be non-trivial, not only because it should verify the actual establishment of the computed paths, but also because it might not be the unique element to compute paths. Moreover, maintaining such a stateful database is not a function of the PCE, but rather of an NMS. On the other hand, a stateless PCE does not keep track of any computed path, and each set of request(s) is processed independently of each other, typically using a local copy of the TED. Since a stateless PCE typically operates on a graph with computation constraints without tracking the state or history of path computations, independent requests will be processed on the same TED graph, until the graph is updated. With a stateless PCE, there is a 'potential window of TED inaccuracy', where a stateless PCEs may compute paths based on current TED information, which could be out of sync with actual or potential network state changes given other recent PCE-computed paths. For example, some sources for this potential TED inaccuracy are: o Control Plane link latencies, increasing: a) the time required for a PCC to obtain the paths after a successful computation, requiring several Round-Trip-Times (RTT) as per TCP; b) the setup delay and c) the time it takes for the PCE to update the local TED given IGP update times. o IGP (i.e. OSPF-TE) may operate with timers for LSA updates, to avoid excessive control plane overhead. o Concurrent requests that arrive during the time window, between a response is sent and the LSP is setup and the topology changes flooded. Even for very fast networks with low latency, there may be 'batched' requests: several path computation requests within a PCReq message or, in dynamic restoration without pre-planning, several LSPs need to be rerouted avoiding a failed link. Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires April 18, 2011 [Page 4] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for Reserv of Resources in PCE October 2010 o Local PCE contention, where the PCE needs to concurrently serve path computation requests and update the LSA (e.g. parsing OSPF-TE LSA updates). A PCE implementation may need to find a trade-off, when synchronizing access to the local TED: favor OSPF-TE parsing which means that some path computations are slightly delayed to allow an 'update' to be processed, or give strict priority to computation requests. In consequence, a stateless PCE may assign the same (or a subset of the same) resources to several requests, which may result in contention and degraded network performance. The effects are detected late, typically during path signaling, causing path blocking and excessive crank-backs and retries. Note that a PCC may include a set of previously computed paths in its request, in order to take them into account, for instance, to avoid double bandwidth accounting or to try to minimize changes (minimum perturbation problem). Section 6.8 of RFC 4655 [RFC4655] suggests that a limited form of statefulness might be applied within an otherwise stateless PCE. The PCE may retain some context from paths it has recently computed so that it avoids suggesting the use of the same resources for other TE LSPs, using heuristics / forecasting for improved resource (i.e. wavelength) allocation. This document proposes a set of extensions to the PCEP protocol to allow the PCC to request the PCE to block or reserve the resources associated to a path computation for a given path request. By reservation, it is implied that a set of resources which have been associated to such computation are excluded for subsequent path computations for a given time period. Associated resources include (but not limit to): the bandwidth computed for the path in PSC or L2SC layers, a specific time slot (SDH) or tributary slot (OTN ODU-k) in TDM networks or a given wavelength or regenerator (WSON or OTN OCh). This document also presents some illustrative use cases where the PCC would want the PCE to retain some context or state, like multiple LSP restoration, and counterexamples where the PCC does not have the intention to immediately set up the LSP, i.e., multidomain cases where the PCE is probing different paths to decide the sequence of domains. Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires April 18, 2011 [Page 5] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for Reserv of Resources in PCE October 2010 2. PCEP Requirements This section provides the set of requirements, both for PCCs and PCEs, to support context awareness. When requesting a path computation (PCReq) to a PCE, the PCC should be able to indicate: o Whether the resources computed in the request should be blocked for further requests. o The amount of time the resources should be blocked, i.e. not used for subsequent requests. o The type and granularity of the resources to be blocked in the request. The type refers to the actual resources blocked such as path bandwidth or timeslot, wavelength, fiber... The granularity refers to the possibility of not only reserving the resource computed for the path but whether the associated links/nodes/SRLGs may need to be reserved too. The PCE should be able to: o Apply policies whether a reservation request can be applied or not. o Compute one or more paths according to the request parameters and, based on the PCC indications, prevent that (part of) the resources involved in the computed route be used in subsequent computations for a given period. o If the request is allowed, the given reservation period SHOULD be no less than the requested period by the PCC (e.g. for the cases where the PCE is only able to reserve for multiples of a given value). This does not preclude the fact that, if configured by policy, a PCE MAY limit the period to a lower period. Alternatively, a PCE MAY be configured to reply with a PCEP_ERROR stating the cause of the failed computation/reservation. o The PCE MAY decide to apply a different granularity for the reservation request (e.g. block a given Time Slot or wavelength but not the TE links). In this case, the PCE MUST reply with the actual reservation. Note that, the means by which a PCE can perform this are out of the scope of the present document but could include, for example, marking the resources as 'reserved', applying internal exclude objects etc. Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires April 18, 2011 [Page 6] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for Reserv of Resources in PCE October 2010 The PCE should be able to respond (PCRep) to the PCC the following: o If the resources have been effectively blocked, and the final allocated reservation period, which may be different from the requested one. o The granularity of the reservation, which may be different from the requested one. o Provide a means to allow a PCC to request the cancellation of an active reservation (for example an identification of the reservation to allow its cancellation). The PCC should be able to request the cancellation of an active resource reservation. 3. PCEP Extensions (Encoding) 3.1. Requesting a Reservation of Resources A PCC that wants to request a PCE to temporarily reserve or block resources does so by including a RESERVATION object along with a client PCC_ID_REQ in the PCReq message. Analogously to [RFC5886] the PCC-ID-REQ object is used to specify the IP address of the requesting PCC. The PCC-ID-REQ MUST be inserted within a PCReq message to specify the IP address of the requesting PCC. In [RFC5886] two PCC-ID-REQ objects (for IPv4 and IPv6) are defined. A PCE that receives a PCReq message with a RESERVATION object MUST act according to the P-bit in the object header: if the P-bit is set, the object MUST be treated as mandatory and the request must either be processed using the contents of the object or rejected as defined in [RFC5440]. If the P-bit is clear, the object MAY be used by the PCE or MAY be ignored. The RESERVATION object is optional in a PCReq message. Multiple instances of the object MUST NOT be used on a single PCReq message and if a PCE finds multiple instances of the object it MUST use the first one and discard the rest (Editors note: alternatively, it could send a PCErr). The RESERVATION object may appear either at an individual request level or within a SVEC. The latter means that the RESERVATION object applies to all requests involved in the SVEC object. The PCReq ([RFC5440][RFC5541][RFC5557]) message is Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires April 18, 2011 [Page 7] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for Reserv of Resources in PCE October 2010 ::= [svec_list] where ::= [] [] [] [] [ ] [] ::= [] ::= [] ::= [] [] [] [] [ ] [ []] [] Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires April 18, 2011 [Page 8] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for Reserv of Resources in PCE October 2010 [] 3.2. Replying a reservation status If the PCE that receives the request applies the reservation, it indicates so using a RESERVATION_CONF object in the PCRep message. The PCRep message is extended with regard to the one defined in [RFC5440] as follows: ::=[] [] [] [] [] Note that the reservation applies at PATH level, and a RESERVATION_CONF object is included for all paths in a given response. This means distinct reservations for each path, which can be cancelled independently (Editor's Note: TDB, the PCC could indicate whether to have a single reservation or multiple reservation). It is RECOMMENDED that the RESERVATION_CONF object appears the last attribute for a Path (or as an optional object in the attribute-list associated to a NO_PATH object. 3.3. Cancelling a Reservation A PCC that wishes to cancel a reservation may send an unsolicited notification to the PCE, including the identifier of the reservation. The PCNtf message used for one or more cancellations has no RP object. As with [RFC5440], the PCNtf message MUST carry at least one NOTIFICATION object and MAY contain several NOTIFICATION objects should the PCE or the PCC intend to notify of multiple events: Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires April 18, 2011 [Page 9] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for Reserv of Resources in PCE October 2010 ::= ::= [] ::= ::=[] NOTIFICATION objects used for the purposes of cancelling an active reservation MUST include the RESERVATION_ID TLV. It is RECOMMENDED to use dedicated PCNtf messages for the purposes of cancelling reservations. Both the Notification-type and Notification-value are TBD by IANA The following Notification-type and Notification-value values are currently defined: o Notification-type=TBD: Pending Reservation cancelled o Notification-value=TBD (sug 1): PCC cancels a set of reservation requests. 3.4. RESERVATION object format RESERVATION Object-Class is to be assigned by IANA. RESERVATION Object-Type is to be assigned by IANA (recommended value=1) The RESERVATION object indicates the intention of the PCC to set up the requested path and request the PCE to reserve the resources of the computed path to avoid being used by other requests. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Timer | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |S N L| Resource Type | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Optional TLVs | ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires April 18, 2011 [Page 10] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for Reserv of Resources in PCE October 2010 o Timer is the value in ms of the time that the resources should be blocked, encoded as a 32 bit unsigned integer. o Resource Type indicates the type of resource to be reserved. A value of 0 means the default resource type: * Bandwidth (PSC, L2SC, ...) * Time Slot (Sonet/SDH TDM) * Tributary Slot (G709 OTN ODU-k TDM) * Wavelength (G709 OTN OCh or WSON LSC) o Bit L: if set, TE Links should be part of the reservation, and excluded from subsequent request. o Bit N: if set, Nodes should be part of the reservation. o Bit S: if set, the set of SRLG (Shared Risk Link Group) deduced from the associated resources (i.e., the union of SRLGs of the links) should be part of the reservation. Currently no TLVs are defined. 3.5. RESERVATION_CONF object format The RESERVATION_CONF object is optional. The RESERVATION_CONF object indicates that the PCE has reserved the resources of computed path to avoid being used by other requests. The RESERVATION_CONF object is sent in the PCRep. The RESERVATION_CONF Object-Class is to be assigned by IANA. The RESERVATION_CONF Object-Type is to be assigned by IANA (recommended value=1) The format of the RESERVATION_CONF object body is: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Reservation ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Reservation timer | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |S N L| Reservation Type | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires April 18, 2011 [Page 11] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for Reserv of Resources in PCE October 2010 Timer is the value in ms of the time that the resources are blocked. The PCE May decide to apply a different value that the one requested by the PCC. A PCC MUST NOT send a RESERVE_RESPONSE object if the client has not requested a RESERVATION in the PCReq message. A PCE MAY apply reservations as a means of internal policy and/or operation. 3.6. RESERVATION_ID TLV The TLV indicates the reservation ID (Type TBA by IANA). 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Reservation ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 4. Protocol procedures A client that wishes to request a path computation with reservation shall: o Include a PCC_REQ_ID and RESERVATION objects in the involved Request within the PCReq message. o Specify what level of reservation to apply after the request. Upon receiving a PCReq with a Resource Reservation object, the PCE will: o Perform the Path Computation using the local Traffic Engineering Database which has been extended to account for resources that have been marked reserved or blocked and which SHOULD not be used while blocked. This includes both synchronized / dependent path computations via SVEC or individual Path Computations requested in the request_list. o For the successful path computations, and for all paths corresponding to a given Request, determine the type of resources to be blocked (marked as reserved) with the granularity requested by the client once mapped to PCE policies. o It will start a local timer associated with this blocking action. Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires April 18, 2011 [Page 12] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for Reserv of Resources in PCE October 2010 o Send the Responses (successful or not) using PCRep message(s) and, where appropriate, indicate the level of reservation and associated period. o For subsequent requests, perform path computation as detailed above, updating the local TED with potential new reservations. Whenever a timer expires, the PCE will: o Remove the reservation status / blocking that affected the reservation (e.g. add the previously substracted unreserved bandwidth, mark the label, wavelength or time slot as available, etc). o Delete any data related with this blocking action. 5. Use cases This section aims to show the use cases of the proposed possibility to activate the limited context awareness. 5.1. Multiple LSP restoration One of the most challenging scenarios for a PCE-based architecture is the one of PCE-based dynamic multiple LSP restoration without pre- planning. In the event of a network failure affecting a high number of LSPs (e.g. a fibre cut), a PCE could potentially receive a significant amount of restoration requests in a short period of time from different PCCs. One of the various challenges in this scenario is the fact that the PCE needs to sequentially perform multiple independent path computations. In this scenario, a stateless PCE would rely on TED information, which could potentially be up-to-date before the first incoming request (e.g. in case the routing algorithm has disseminated the failure event), but will definitely be outdated for subsequent requests. It might be expected that the paths calculated for different connections would rely on the same nodes, TE links or even labels. It might occur at the signaling phase that multiple connection requests are contending for the same resources. After the eventual failure in the establishment of some of the connections, subsequent requests to the PCE would be triggered. After a number of loops, the PCE-based restoration would be eventually solved, but the potential number of retries could be significantly high. Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires April 18, 2011 [Page 13] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for Reserv of Resources in PCE October 2010 The main issue is that the stateless PCE relied on an outdated TED to perform path computation. As the subsequent connection request is expected to be computed immediately, there is either no time for the routing algorithm to update the TED after a successful signaling or for the signaling process to successfully finish. In this context, the availability of a limited context aware PCE could potentially solve the issue in a graceful fashion. Each of the restoration path requests will have an associated Resource Reservation object, which will state the kind of resources and the amount of time they should be blocked. The PCE will then temporarily 'mark' the resources as blocked, so as not to consider them in subsequent connection requests, and thus avoiding the contention at the signaling phase. The timer should be in line with the LSP set up time and TED time to update. 5.2. Domain path selection When selecting the set of domains of a multidomain path, a PCE may request paths to several PCEs of different domains. Thus, the intention of the request is not to establish a LSP, but to obtain a hint on the domain path. Thus, in this case, no Reservation Object would be sent. 5.3. Multidomain path computation Once the domain path is known, when computing the actual path, the reservation object can be used. Note that multidomain paths may take a long time to be established, as it involves several AS or domains with different behavior and policies. Thus, it is a way to guarantee the availability of resources. 6. Manageability Considerations Standard PCEP [RFC5440] describes various manageability considerations in PCEP, and most of the manageability requirements are already covered there. Specific aspects are detailed in this section. 6.1. Control of Function and Policy In addition to PCE configuration parameters listed in [RFC5440], the following additional parameters might be required: o The ability to enable or disable reservations on the PCE. Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires April 18, 2011 [Page 14] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for Reserv of Resources in PCE October 2010 o The ability to retrieve a list of reservations currently active in the PCE. o The ability to configure which PCCs are allowed to perform reservations and the ability to configure limits on the timer periods requested. This includes, for example, the configuration of IP based access lists for PCCs. o The ability to configure which PCCs are allowed to perform reservations for single-domain and multi-domain scenarios, typically according to pre-defined agreements. o The ability to configure which reservation granularity a given PCC group is able to request, and the associated action (error or downgrade). o TDB: Advertisements of capabilities via IGP and configurability 6.2. Information and Data Models A number of MIB objects have been defined for general PCEP control and monitoring of P2P computations in [PCEP-MIB]. For the time being, no extra models are considered although it could be possible that current means to retrieve information from the PCE be extended to include eventual resource reservations. 6.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring Other than the considerations expressed in [RFC5440], a PCE could provide extensions to [MONITORING] to verify reservation status, and to obtain statistics on the system. 6.4. Verifying Correct Operation There are no additional requirements for verifying the correct operation of the PCEP sessions. Future MIB objects could facilitate verification of correct operation and reporting of reservations and errors. 6.5. Requirements for Other Protocols and Functional Components The method for the PCC to obtain information about a PCE capable of reservation may include extensions to IGP protocols. 6.6. Impact on Network Operation It is expected that the use of PCEP extensions specified in this document will not significantly increase the level of operational Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires April 18, 2011 [Page 15] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for Reserv of Resources in PCE October 2010 traffic. However, mis-configured, excessive reservation requests, excessive reservation periods, or excessive granularity may increase the number of failed requests or cause the PCE to provide sub-optimal routes due to existing reservations. Coarse reservations may also limit the resources that are available for a a PCE in order to serve requests. An excessive number of reservation requests and reservation cancellations may degrade server performance. A PCE SHOULD provide a means to control the rate of messages with reservation, extending the proposed mechanism of [RFC5440]. 7. Security Considerations In the event of an unauthorized path computation request with mandatory resource reservation, or in case of a (distributed) denial of service attack, the subsequent state/context managed within the PCE may be disruptive to the network, resulting in performance degradation or sub-optimal computed routes. Implementations should conform to the relevant security requirements of [RFC5440] that specifically help to control unauthorized requests. These mechanisms include securing the PCEP session requests and responses using TCP security techniques, authenticating the PCEP requests and responses to ensure the message is intact and sent from an authorized node, providing policy control by explicitly defining which PCCs are allowed to perform resource reservations to the PCE and disallowing reservation requests that may block an excessive amount of resources. 8. IANA Considerations IANA maintains a registry of PCEP parameters. A number of IANA considerations have been highlighted in previous sections of this document. 8.1. RESERVATION object 8.2. RESERVATION_CONF object 8.3. RESERVATION_ID TLV 8.4. PCEP Errors For the RESERVATION object, the default error procedures regarding supported unknown objects defined in [RFC5440] apply Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires April 18, 2011 [Page 16] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for Reserv of Resources in PCE October 2010 o Unsupported Reservation Option o Reservation Forbidden by Policy o Unknown Reservation Request 9. Acknowledgements The authors thank Cyril Margaria for the discussions and suggestions in the topic. 10. Normative References [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006. [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP. and JL. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, March 2009. [RFC5541] Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., and Y. Lee, "Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5541, June 2009. [RFC5557] Lee, Y., Le Roux, JL., King, D., and E. Oki, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Requirements and Protocol Extensions in Support of Global Concurrent Optimization", RFC 5557, July 2009. [RFC5886] Vasseur, JP., Le Roux, JL., and Y. Ikejiri, "A Set of Monitoring Tools for Path Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 5886, June 2010. Authors' Addresses Oscar Gonzalez de Dios (editor) Telefonica I+D Emilio Vargas 6 Madrid, 28045 Spain Phone: +34 913374013 Email: ogondio@tid.es Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires April 18, 2011 [Page 17] Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for Reserv of Resources in PCE October 2010 Francisco Javier Jimenez Chico Telefonica I+D Emilio Vargas 6 Madrid, 28043 Spain Phone: +34 91 3379037 Email: fjjc@tid.es Ramon Casellas CTTC - Centre Tecnologic de Telecomunicacions de Catalunya Av. Carl Friedrich Gauss n7 Castelldefels, Barcelona 08860 Spain Phone: Email: ramon.casellas@cttc.es Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires April 18, 2011 [Page 18]