Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-pce-sr-p2mp-policy
draft-ietf-pce-sr-p2mp-policy
Network Working Group H. Bidgoli, Ed.
Internet-Draft Nokia
Intended status: Standards Track V. Voyer
Expires: 10 September 2023 Bell Canada
S. Rajarathinam
Nokia
A. Budhiraja
Cisco System
T. Saad
Juniper Networks
S. Sivabalan
Ciena
9 March 2023
PCEP extensions for p2mp sr policy
draft-ietf-pce-sr-p2mp-policy-03
Abstract
SR P2MP policies are set of policies that enable architecture for
P2MP service delivery. This document specifies extensions to the
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) that allow a
stateful PCE to compute and initiate P2MP paths from a Root to a set
of Leaves.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 10 September 2023.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Bidgoli, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PCEP p2mp sr policy March 2023
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Overview of PCEP Operation in SR P2MP Network . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. High level view of P2MP Policy Objects . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Existing drafts used for defining a P2MP Policy . . . . . 7
3.2.1. Existing Documents used by this draft . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.2. P2MP Policy Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.3. Replication Segment Identification . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.4. PCECC Use in Replication Segment . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3. High Level Procedures for P2MP SR LSP Instantiation . . . 9
3.3.1. PCE-Init Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3.2. PCC-Init Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3.3. Common Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3.4. Global Optimization of the Candidate Path . . . . . . 11
3.3.5. Fast Reroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3.6. Connecting Replication Segment via Segment List . . . 13
3.4. SR P2MP Policy and Replication Segment TLVs and
Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.4.1. SR P2MP Policy Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.4.2. Replication Segment Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.4.3. P2MP Policy and Replication Segment general
considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.4.3.1. Path Attribute Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.4.3.2. PCE as Central Controller . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4. Object Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.1. Open Message and Capability Exchange . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2. PCECC Path Setup Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.3. Association Type Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.4. Symbolic Name in PCInit Message from PCC . . . . . . . . 16
4.5. P2MP Policy Specific Objects and TLVs . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.5.1. P2MP Policy Association Group for P2MP Policy . . . . 16
4.5.1.1. P2MP SR Policy Identifiers TLV . . . . . . . . . 17
4.5.1.2. P2MP SR Policy Name TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.5.1.3. P2MP SR Policy Candidate Path ID TLV . . . . . . 18
4.5.1.4. P2MP SR Policy Candidate Path Name TLV . . . . . 19
4.5.1.5. P2MP SR Policy Candidate Path PREFRENCE Attributes
TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Bidgoli, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PCEP p2mp sr policy March 2023
4.5.2. P2MP-END-POINTS Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.6. P2MP Policy and Replication Segment Identifier Object and
TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.6.1. Extension of the LSP Object, SR-P2MP-LSPID-TLV . . . 22
4.7. Replication Segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.7.1. The format of the replication segment message . . . . 24
4.7.2. PCECC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.7.3. Label action rules in replicating segment . . . . . . 27
4.7.4. SR-ERO Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.7.4.1. SR-ERO subobject changes . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5. Tree Deletion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6. Fragmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7. Some packet examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7.1. Report for Leaf Add . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7.2. P2MP Policy Candidate path Init . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
7.3. Replication segment PCE Initiated on Transit and
LEaves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
8. Example Workflows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
9. IANA Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
12. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
1. Introduction
The draft [draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy] defines a variant of the SR
Policy that uses [RFC9256] for constructing a P2MP segment to support
multicast service delivery.
A Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Policy connects a Root node to a set of
Leaf nodes, optionally through a set of intermediate replication
nodes. A Replication segment
[draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment], corresponds to the state
of a P2MP segment on a particular node and provide forwarding
instructions for the segment.
A P2MP Policy is relevant on the root of the P2MP Tree and it
contains candidate paths. The candidate paths are made of path-
instances and each path-instance is constructed via replication
segments. These replication segments are programmed on the root,
leaves and optionally intermediate replication nodes.
Replication segments MAY be connected to each other directly, or they
MAY be connected or steered via unicast SR segments or a segment
list.
Bidgoli, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PCEP p2mp sr policy March 2023
For a P2MP Tree, a controller may be used to compute paths from a
Root node to a set of Leaf nodes, optionally via a set of replication
nodes. A packet is replicated at the root node and optionally on
Replication nodes towards each Leaf node.
There are two types of a P2MP Tree: Spray and Replication.
A Point-to-Multipoint service delivery could be via Ingress
Replication, known as Spray. The root unicasts individual copies of
traffic to each leaf. The corresponding P2MP Policy consists of
replication segments only for the root and the leaves and they are
connected via a unicast SR Segment.
A Point-to-Multipoint service delivery could also be via Downstream
Replication, known as Replication Tree. The root and some downstream
replication nodes replicate the traffic along the tree as it
traverses closer to the leaves.
The PCE discovers the root and the leaves via different methods. As
an example, the leaves and the root can be explicitly configured on
the PCE or PCC can update the PCE with the identity of the root and
the leaves when it discovers them via multicast protocols like MP-BGP
and MVPN procedures [RFC6513] or PIM. The controller can calculate
the P2MP Policy and any of its associated replication segments from
the root to the leaves with these info and any additional Service
Leave Agreements (SLAs) that is used to construct the tree.
This document defines PCEP objects, TLVs and the procedures to
instantiate a P2MP Policy and Replication Segments.
2. Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
3. Overview of PCEP Operation in SR P2MP Network
After discovering the root and the leaves the PCE programs the PCCs
with relevant information needed to create a P2MP Tree.
As per draft [draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy] a P2MP Policy is defined
by Root-ID, Tree-ID and a set of leaves. A P2MP policy is a variant
of SR policy as such it uses the same concept as draft
[draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp]. A P2MP policy is
composed of a collection of SR P2mp Candidate Paths. Candidate paths
are computed by the PCE and can be used for P2MP Tree redundancy.
Only a single candidate path may be active at each time. Each
Bidgoli, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PCEP p2mp sr policy March 2023
candidate paths can be globally optimized, therefore it is consists
of multiple path-instances. A path-instance can be considered as a
P2MP LSP. If a candidate path needs to be globally optimized two
path-instances can be programmed from the root the leaves and via
make before break procedures the candidate path can be switched from
path-instance 1 to the 2nd path-instance. The forwarding states of
these path-instances are build via replication segments, in short
each path-instance initiated on the root has its own set of
replication segments on the Root, Transit and Leaf nodes.
A replication segment is set of forwarding instructions on a specific
node. Each instruction may be a PUSH or SWAP operation before
forwarding out of an interface, or a POP action on bud and leaf
nodes.
PCE could also calculate and download additional information for the
replication segments, such as protections next-hops for link
protection (FRR).
3.1. High level view of P2MP Policy Objects
* SR P2MP Policy
- Is only relevant on the Root of the P2MP tree and is a policy
on PCE. It is downloaded only on the root node and is
identified via <Root-ID, Tree-ID> It contains the following
information:
o Root node of the P2MP Segment
o Set of Leaf nodes of the P2MP Segment
o Tree-ID, which is a unique identifier of the P2MP tree on
the Root
o A set of Candidate paths belonging to the policy
o Optional Constraints used to build these candidate paths
* Candidate Path:
- Is used for P2MP Tree redundancy where the candidate path with
the highest preference is the active path.
- Each Candidate Path can contain two path-instance for global
optimization procedures (i.e. make before break)
Bidgoli, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PCEP p2mp sr policy March 2023
- Contains information regarding originator, discriminator,
preference, path-instances
* Path-instance:
- Is used for global optimization of the candidate path.
Multiple path-instance can be present under a candidate path
but only a single path instance is active at a time.
- A path instance is identified via <Root-ID, Tree-ID, Instance-
ID>
* Replication Segment:
- Is the forwarding information needed on each replication node
for building the forwarding path for each path-instance of the
P2MP Candidate path.
- Explained further in upcoming sections, there are 2 ways to
identify the replication segment, depending on the type of
replication segment (shared replication segment or non-shared
replication segment)
o It is identified via Tree-ID and Root-ID and path-instance
for non-shared replication segment.
o It is identified via Node-ID, Replication-ID, for shared
replication segment. As per [draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy]
a shared replication segment is not associated to a tree and
is used for constructing by-pass tunnels.
o Contains forwarding instructions, in the form of a list of
outgoing segments each of which may be a segment list or a
single replication segment with next-hop information.
o On the forwarding plane the Replication Segment is
identified via the incoming Replication SID.
o Replication segment information is downloaded on any node
that is replicating the packet on the path of the tree
including the Root, Transit and Leaf nodes respectively.
Bidgoli, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PCEP p2mp sr policy March 2023
3.2. Existing drafts used for defining a P2MP Policy
This document attempts to leverage existing IETF draft and RFC
documents which define PCEP objects, to update the PCE with Root and
Leaves information when PCC Initiated method is used. Similarly,
existing documents are utilized where feasible to update the PCC with
relevant information to build the P2MP Policy and its Replication
Segments. This document introduces new TLVs and Objects specific to
a programing P2MP policy and its replication segment.
3.2.1. Existing Documents used by this draft
* [RFC8231] The bases for a stateful PCE, and reuses the following
objects or a variant of them
- <SRP Object>
- <LSP Object>
- A variation of the LSP identifier TLV is defined in this draft,
to support P2MP LSP Identifier
* [RFC8306] P2MP capabilities advertisement
* [draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp] Candidate paths for
P2MP Policy is used for Tree Redundancy. As an example, a P2MP
Policy can have multiple candidate paths. Each protecting the
primary candidate path. The active path is chosen via the
preference of the candidate path.
* [RFC3209] Defines the instance-ID, instance-ID is used for global
optimization of a candidate path with in a P2MP policy. Each
Candidate path can have 2 path-instances. These path-instances
are equivalent to sub-lsps (instance-IDs). There are used for MBB
and global optimization procedures. instance-ID is equivalent to
LSP ID
* [RFC9256] Segment-list, used for connecting two non-adjacent
replication policy via a unicast binding SID or Segment-list.
* [RFC8306] P2MP End Point objects, used for the PCC to update the
PCE with discovered Leaves.
* [RFC9050] for programming and identifying the Replication Segment.
A new PCE CC Capability sub Tlv is introduced to indicated the
support to handle PCE CC based label download for SR P2MP.
Bidgoli, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft PCEP p2mp sr policy March 2023
* [draft-ietf-pce-multipath] Forwarding instruction for a P2MP LSP
is defined by a set of SR-ERO sub-objects in the ERO object, ERO-
ATTRIBUTES object and MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV as defined in this
draft.
* [RFC8664] SR-ERO Sub Object used in the multipath.
It should be noted that the [draft-hb-spring-sr-p2mp-policy-yang] can
provide further details of the high level P2MP Policy Model.
3.2.2. P2MP Policy Identification
A P2MP Policy and its candidate path can be identified on the root
via the P2MP LSP Object. This Object is a variation of the LSP ID
Object defined in [RFC8231] and is as follow:
* PLSP-ID: [RFC8231], is assigned by PCC and is unique per candidate
path. It is constant for the lifetime of a PCEP session. Stand-
by candidate paths will be assigned a new PLSP-ID by PCC. Stand-
by candidate paths can co-exist with the active candidate path.
* Root-ID: is equivalent to the first node on the P2MP path, as per
[RFC3209], Section 4.6.2.1
* Tree-ID: is equivalent to Tunnel Identifier color which identifies
a unique P2MP Policy at a ROOT and is advertised via the PTA in
the BGP AD route or can be assigned manually on the root. Tree-ID
needs to be unique on the root.
* Instance-ID: LSP ID Identifier as defined in RFC 3209, is the
path-instance identifier and is assigned by the PCC. As it was
mentioned the candidate path can have up to two path-instance for
global optimization. Note that the Root-ID, Tree-ID and Instance-
ID are part of a new SR- P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIER TLV which will be
identified in this draft. Instance-IDs are unique per P2MP
Policy, as such path-instances assigned for each candidate path
with in a P2MP Policy must have unique Instance-IDs.
3.2.3. Replication Segment Identification
The key to identify a replication segment is also a P2MP LSP Object.
With varying encoding rules for the SR-P2MP-LSP- IDENTIFIER TLV which
will be explained in later sections.
Bidgoli, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft PCEP p2mp sr policy March 2023
3.2.4. PCECC Use in Replication Segment
PCECC and a variant of CCI object is used in Replication Segment to
identify a cross connect. A cross connect is a incoming SID and set
of outgoing interfaces and their corresponding SID or SID List. The
CCI objects contains the incoming SID and the outgoing interfaces
which are presented via the ERO objects, which each may contain a
segment list.
3.3. High Level Procedures for P2MP SR LSP Instantiation
A P2MP policy can be instantiated via the PCC or the PCE depending on
how the root and the leaves are discovered. This document describes
two way to discover the root and the leaves:
* They can be configured and identified on the controller and are
considered PCE initiated.
* They can be discovered on the PCC via MVPN procedures [RFC6513] or
legacy multicast protocols like PIM or IGMP etc... and are
considered PCC initiated.
3.3.1. PCE-Init Procedure
* PCE is informed of the P2MP request through its API or
configuration mechanism to instantiate a P2MP tunnel. PCE will be
programmed with the Root and a set of leaf nodes.
* PCE will initiate the P2MP Policy for the request, by sending a
PCInitiate message to the Root.
* Root in response to the PCInitiate message, will generate PLSP-ID
for the candidate paths and an Instance-ID for the Path-Instance
(LSP-ID) contained with in the candidate path. The tree-id for
the P2MP Policy is also filled. PCC will reports back the PLSP-
ID, Instance-ID and tree-id via PCRpt message
- Optionally, the Root can add any additional leaves that were
discovered by multicast procedures in this PCRpt message.
* PCE will send a PCInitiate message to the Root, Transit and the
Leaf nodes to download the Replication Segment information. These
messages will utilize the CCI object to identify the p2mp cross
connect and encode the forwarding instruction information.
* PCE will then send a PCUpdate to the root indicating the
association information (Candidate path) , and implicitly indicate
it to bind to the latest CCI information downloaded.
Bidgoli, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft PCEP p2mp sr policy March 2023
3.3.2. PCC-Init Procedure
Root node (PCC) discovers the leaves (as an example via MVPN
Procedures or other mechanism), the following communication happens
between the PCE and PCCs
* Root sends a PCRpt message for P2MP policy to PCE including the
Root-ID, Tree-ID, PLSP-ID, Instance-ID, symbolic-path-name, and
any leaves discovered until then.
* PCE on receiving of this report, will compute the P2MP Policy and
its replication segments.
- PCE will send a PCInitiate message to the Root, Transit and the
Leaf nodes to download the Replication Segment information.
These messages will utilize the CCI object to encode the
forwarding instruction information.
- PCE will then send a PCUpdate to the root indicating the
association information (Candidate path) , and implicitly
indicate it to bind to the latest CCI information downloaded.
3.3.3. Common Procedure
The following procedures are the same for PCE or PCC Init.
* PCE will download the replication segments for the Candidate-
path's path-instances to all the leaves and transit nodes using
PCInitiate message with PLSP-ID = 0, Instance-ID =0, symbolic path
name, Root-address, Tree-id(assigned by the root an obtained via
P2MP Policy creation). This PCInitiate message includes the EROs
needed for the replication segments. These messages will utilize
the CCI object to encode the forwarding instruction information.
* Any new candidate path for the P2MP Policy is downloaded by PCE to
the Root by sending a PCInitiate message
- it should be noted, PLSP-ID, Path-Instance ID are generated by
the PCC for these new candidate paths and their Path-instances
- Any update to the Candidate Paths or Replication Segments is
done via the PCUpd message. Association object need to be
present for Candidate Path updates and CCI object for the
replication segment updates.
* The PCE will also download the necessary replication segment for
the candidate path and its path-instances to the root, leaves and
the transit nodes via a PCInit message
Bidgoli, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft PCEP p2mp sr policy March 2023
* New leaves can be discovered via Multicast procedures, and new
replication segments can be instantiated or existing one updated
to reach these leaves
- If these leaves reside on routers that are part of the P2MP LSP
path, then PCUpd is sent from PCE to necessary PCCs (LEAVES,
TRANSIT or ROOT) with the correct PLSP-ID, Instance-ID, Tree-ID
and CC-ID.
- If the new leaves are residing on routers that are not part of
the P2MP Tree yet, then a PCInitiate message is sent down with
PLSP- ID=0 and Instance-ID=0 on the corresponding routers.
* The active candidate-path is indicated by the PCC through the
operational bits(Up/Active) of the LSP object in the PCRpt
message. If a candidate path needs to be removed, PCE sends PC
Initiate message, setting the R-flag in the LSP object and R bit
in the SRP-object.
* To remove the entire P2MP-LSP, PCE needs to send PCInitiate remove
messages for every candidate path of the P2MP POLICY to the root
and send PCInitiate remove messages for every Replication Segment
on all the PCCs on the P2MP Tree. The R bit in the LSP Object as
defined in [RFC8231], refers to the removal of the LSP as
identified by the SR-P2MP-POLICY-ID-TLV (defined in this
document). An all zero (SR-P2MP-LSP-ID-TLV defines to remove all
the state of the corresponding PLSP-ID.
* A candidate path is made active based on the preference of the
path. If the Root is programed with multiple candidate paths from
different sources, as an example PCE and CLI, based on its tie-
breaking rules, if it selects the CLI path, it will send a report
to PCE for the PCE path indicating the status of label-download
and sets operational bit of the LSP object to UP and Not Active .
At any instance, only one path will be active
3.3.4. Global Optimization of the Candidate Path
When a P2MP LSP needs to be optimized for any reason (i.e. it is
taking a FRR tunnel or new routers are added to the network) a global
optimization of the candidate path is possible.
Each Candidate Path can contain two Path-Instances. The current
unoptimized Path-Instance is the active instance and its replication
segments are forwarding the multicast PDUs from the root to the
leaves. However the second optimized Path-Instance will be setup
with its own unique replication segments throughout the network, from
the Root to the leaves. These two Path-Instances can co-exist. The
Bidgoli, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft PCEP p2mp sr policy March 2023
two Path-Instances are uniquely identified by their Instance-ID in
the SR-P2MP-POLICY-ID-TLV (defined in this document). After the
optimized LSP has been downloaded successfully PCC MUST send two
reports, reporting UP of the new path indicating the new LSP-ID, and
a second reporting the tear down of the old path with the R bit of
the LSP Object SET with the old Instance-ID in the SR-P2MP-POLICY-ID-
TLV. This MBB procedure will move the multicast PDUs to the
optimized Path-Instance.
The leaf should be able to accept traffic from both Path-Instances to
minimize the traffic outage by the Make Before Break process.
3.3.5. Fast Reroute
Currently this draft identifies the Facility FRR procedures. In
addition, only LINK Protection procedures are defined. How the
Facility Path is built and instantiated is beyond the scope of this
document.
R
| |
T
|
---
| |
L1 L2
Figure 1
R---F1
| |
T---F2
|
---
| |
L1 L2
Figure 2
As an example, in figure 1 both R and T are configured with
replication segments. There are two interface between R and T. One
can be used as primary and second as a bypass in case the primary
interface is down. There can be 2 method to protect the primary
interface.
Bidgoli, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft PCEP p2mp sr policy March 2023
* The two replication segments on R and T can take advantage of
unicast SR to connect to each other. In this case the LFA of
unicast SR can be utilize to protect the primary interface between
R and T.
* The replication segment provides protection nexthop, the
protection nexthop can be programmed to take the alternate
interface between R and T to protect the primary interface.
As a second example, in figure 2, R and T connected directly and via
network F1..F2. In this example as per example 1 unicast SR can be
used to connect the two replication segments and in this case the
unicast SR LFA or R-LFA or TI-LFA can be used to protect the direct
link between R-T via F1. That said if there is no unicast SR
available with in the network, the PCE optionally can setup a shared
replication point on F1 and F2 and protect all path-instances that
are traversing R-T via this shared replication segment.
In addition, PHP procedure and implicit null label on the bypass path
can be implemented to reduce the PCE programming on the MP PCC.
3.3.6. Connecting Replication Segment via Segment List
There could be nodes between two replication segment that do not
support P2MP Policy or Replication segment. It is possible to
connect two non-adjacent Replication segments via a unicast segment
routing path and SID list. The SID list can be comprised of any IGP
supported segment types (ex: Binding, Adjacency, Node). This
information is encoded via the SR-ERO sub-objects and ERO-attributes
objects. The last segment in an encoding SID list MUST be a
replication segment
3.4. SR P2MP Policy and Replication Segment TLVs and Objects
3.4.1. SR P2MP Policy Objects
SR P2MP Policy can be constructed via the following objects
<P2mp Policy> ::= <Common Header>
<SRP>
<P2MP LSP>
<association-list>
optionally a list of end-point can be added.
This is true weather it is PCC initiated or PCE initiated
[<end-point-list>}
Bidgoli, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft PCEP p2mp sr policy March 2023
3.4.2. Replication Segment Objects
Replication segment can be constructed via the following objects
<Replication Segment> ::= <Common Header>
<SRP>
<P2MP LSP>
(<cci-list>|
(<CCI><intended-path>))
<cci-list> ::= <CCI>
[<cci-list>]
<intended-path> ::=
((<PATH-ATTRIB><ERO>)
[<intended-path>])
Path-attribute as per [draft-ietf-pce-multipath]
3.4.3. P2MP Policy and Replication Segment general considerations
The new objects and TLV's defined in this document can be included in
PCRpt, PcInitiate and PcUpd messages.
It should be noted that every PcRpt, PcInitiate and PCUpd messages
will contain full list of the Leaves and segment and forwarding
information that is needed to build the Candidate path and its
Replication segments. They will never send the delta information
related to the new leaves or forwarding information that need to be
added or updated. This is necessary to ensure that PCE or any new
PCE is in sync with the PCC.
3.4.3.1. Path Attribute Object
This draft uses [draft-ietf-pce-multipath] to identify each out-going
interface in the replication segment. In addition each out-going
interface can be protected by a backup path. The Path Attributes
Object is used to provide the relation between the primary path and
its backup path as per draft [draft-ietf-pce-multipath].
When a replication segment is being updated or new out-going
interfaces are added to a specific replication segment, the PCRpt,
PCInitiate and PCUpd messages sent via PCEP maintains the previous
ERO Path IDs and generates new Path IDs for new instructions. The
PATH IDs are maintained for each specific forwarding instructions
until the instructions are deleted. For example: When the first leaf
is added, the PCE will update with Path ID 1 to the PCC. When the
second leaf is added, according to the path calculated, PCE might
just append the existing instruction Path ID 1 with a new Path ID 2
to construct the new PCUpd message.
Bidgoli, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft PCEP p2mp sr policy March 2023
3.4.3.2. PCE as Central Controller
The CCI Object is used to identify the entire cross connect of
incoming segment and the set of outgoing Interfaces and their
corresponding SIDs/SIDList. Any modification to the cross connect
should use this CCI ID to identify the cross connect uniquely.
Leaves and their corresponding Path IDs can be removed from the cross
connect identified via the CCI. The CC-ID is assigned by the PCE.
4. Object Format
4.1. Open Message and Capability Exchange
Format of the open Object:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Ver | Flags | Keepalive | DeadTimer | SID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Optional TLVs //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
All the nodes need to establish a PCEP connection with the PCE.
During PCEP Initialization Phase, PCEP Speakers need to set flags N,
M, P in the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV as defined in
[draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp] section-5.2
This draft extends the PCEP OPEN object by defining an optional TLV
to indicate the PCE's capability to perform SR-P2MP path computations
with a new IANA capability type.
The inclusion of this TLV in an OPEN object indicates that the sender
can perform SR-P2MP path computations. This will be similar to the
P2MP-CAPABILITY defined in [RFC8306] section-3.1.2 and a new value
needs to be defined for SR-P2MP.
4.2. PCECC Path Setup Capability
A Path Setup Type (PST) of PCECC is also added as per [RFC9050].
This document also introduces a new bit S in the SR PCECC capacity
Sub TLV indicating the support to handle PCECC based label download
for Replication segment.
Bidgoli, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft PCEP p2mp sr policy March 2023
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type=1 | Length=4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags |S|M|L|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Also, the N,M,P bits in STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV should be SET.
4.3. Association Type Capability
A Assoc-Type-List TLV as per [RFC8697] section 3.4 should be send via
PCEP open object with following association type
+-------------------+----------------------------+------------------+
| Association Type | Association Name | Reference |
| Value | | |
+-------------------+----------------------------+------------------+
| TBD1 | P2MP SR Policy Association | This document |
+-------------------+----------------------------+------------------+
OP-CONF-Assoc-RANGE (Operator-configured Association Range)should not
be set for this association type and must be ignored.
The open message MUST include the MULTIPATH CAPABILITY TLV as defined
in [draft-ietf-pce-multipath]
4.4. Symbolic Name in PCInit Message from PCC
As per [RFC8231] section 7.3.2. a Symbolic Path Name TLV should
uniquely identify the P2MP path on the PCC. This symbolic path name
is a human-readable string that identifies an P2MP LSP in the
network. It needs to be constant through the lifetime of the P2MP
path.
As an example in the case of P2MP LSP the symbolic name can be p2mp
policy name + candidate path name of the LSP.
4.5. P2MP Policy Specific Objects and TLVs
4.5.1. P2MP Policy Association Group for P2MP Policy
Two ASSOCIATION object types for IPv4 and IPv6 are defined in
[RFC8697]. The ASSOCIATION object includes "Association type"
indicating the type of the association group. This document adds a
new Association type. Association type = TBD1 "P2MP SR Policy
Association Type" for SR Policy Association Group (P2MP SRPAG). In
par with [draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp] section 5.2, Five
new TLVs are identified to carry association information:
Bidgoli, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft PCEP p2mp sr policy March 2023
1. P2MP-SRPOLICY-ID TLV: (mandatory) encodes P2MP SR Policy
Identifier
2. P2MP-SRPOLICY-NAME TLV: (optional) encodes P2MP SR Policy Name
3. P2MP-SRPOLICY-CPATH-ID TLV: (mandatory) encodes P2MP SR Policy
Candidate path Identifier
4. P2MP-SRPOLICY-CPATH-PREFRENCE TLV: (optional) encodes P2MP SR
Policy Candidate path preference value.
5. P2MP-SRPOLICY-CPATH-NAME TLV: (optional) encodes P2MP SR Policy
Candidate path name.
P2MP-SRPAG- POL-ID-TLV, P2MP-SRPAG-CPATH-ID-TLV, P2MP-SRPAG-CPATH-
ATTR-TLV
4.5.1.1. P2MP SR Policy Identifiers TLV
The P2MP-SRPOLICY-ID TLV is a mandatory TLV for the P2MP SR Policy
Association. Only one P2MP-SRPOLICY-ID TLV can be carried and only
the first occurrence is processed and any others MUST be ignored.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Root |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TREE-ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: TBD1 for "P2MP-SRPOLICY-ID" TLV.
Length: 8 or 20, depending on length of End-point (IPv4 or IPv6)
Tunnel Sender Address : Can be either IPv4 or IPv6, this value is the
value of the root loopback IP.
Tree-ID: Tree ID that the replication segment is part of as per
draft-ietf-spring-sr-p2mp-policy
Bidgoli, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft PCEP p2mp sr policy March 2023
4.5.1.2. P2MP SR Policy Name TLV
The P2MP-SRPOLICY-NAME TLV is an optionally TLV for the P2MP SR
Policy Association. Only one P2MP-SRPOLICY-NAME TLV can be carried
and only the first occurrence is processed and any others MUST be
ignored.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ P2MP SR Policy Name ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: TBD2 for "P2MP-SRPOLICY-NAME" TLV.
Length: indicates the length of the value portion of the TLV in
octets and MUST be greater than 0. The TLV MUST be zero-padded so
that the TLV is 4-octet aligned.
P2MP SR POLICY Name : P2MP SR Policy name. It SHOULD be a string of
printable ASCII characters, without a NULL terminator.
4.5.1.3. P2MP SR Policy Candidate Path ID TLV
The P2MP-SRPOLICY-CPATH-ID TLV is a mandatory TLV. Only one P2MP-
SRPOLICY-CPATH-ID TLV can be carried and only the first occurrence is
processed and any others MUST be ignored.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Proto. Origin |Flags |A| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Originator ASN |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Originator Address |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Discriminator |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Bidgoli, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft PCEP p2mp sr policy March 2023
Type: TBD3 for "P2MP-SR-POLICY-CPATH-ID" TLV.
Length: 28.
Protocol Origin: 8-bit value that encodes the protocol origin, as
specified in [RFC9256] Section 2.3.
Flags : A: This candidate path is active. At any instance only one
candidate path can be active. PCC indicates the active candidate
path to PCE through this bit. Reserved: MUST be set to zero on
transmission and ignored on receipt.
Originator ASN: Represented as 4 byte number, part of the originator
identifier, as specified in [RFC9256] Section 2.4.
Originator Address: Represented as 128 bit value where IPv4 address
are encoded in lowest 32 bits, part of the originator identifier, as
specified in [RFC9256] Section 2.4.
Discriminator: 32-bit value that encodes the Discriminator of the
candidate path.
4.5.1.4. P2MP SR Policy Candidate Path Name TLV
The P2MP -SRPOLICY-CPATH-NAME TLV is an optional TLV for the SRPAG
ASSOCIATION. At most one P2MP -SRPOLICY-CPATH-NAME TLV SHOULD be
encoded by the sender and only the first occurrence is processed and
any others MUST be ignored.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ P2MP SR Policy Candidate Path Name ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: TBD4 for "P2MP-SRPOLICY-NAME" TLV.
Length: indicates the length of the value portion of the TLV in
octets and MUST be greater than 0. The TLV MUST be zero-padded so
that the TLV is 4-octet aligned.
P2MP SR POLICY Name : P2MP SR Policy Candidate Path name. It SHOULD
be a string of printable ASCII characters, without a NULL terminator.
Bidgoli, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft PCEP p2mp sr policy March 2023
4.5.1.5. P2MP SR Policy Candidate Path PREFRENCE Attributes TLV
The P2MP-SRPOLICY-CPATH-PREFRENCE TLV is an optional TLV for the
SRPAG Association. Only one P2MP-SRPOLICY-CPATH-PREFRENCE TLV can be
carried and only the first occurrence is processed and any others
MUST be ignored.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Preference |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: TBD5 for "P2MP-SRPOLICY-CPATH-ATTR" TLV.
Length: 4.
Preference: Numerical preference of the candidate path, as specified
in [RFC9256] Section 2.7.
If the TLV is missing, a default preference of 100 as specified in
[RFC9256] is used.
4.5.2. P2MP-END-POINTS Object
In order for the Root to indicate operations of its
leaves(Add/Remove/Modify/DoNotModify), the PC Report message is
extended to include P2MP End Point <P2MP End-points> Object which is
defined in [RFC8306]
The format of the PC Report message is as follow:
<Common Header>
[<SRP>]
<LSP>
[<association-list>]
[<end-points-list>]
Bidgoli, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft PCEP p2mp sr policy March 2023
IPV4-P2MP END-POINTS:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Leaf type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source IPv4 address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Destination IPv4 address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ... ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Destination IPv4 address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
IPV6-P2MP END-POINTS:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Leaf type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Source IPv6 address (16 bytes) |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Destination IPv6 address (16 bytes) |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ... ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Destination IPv6 address (16 bytes) |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Leaf Types (derived from [RFC8306] section 3.3.2) :
1. New leaves to add (leaf type = 1)
2. Old leaves to remove (leaf type = 2)
3. Old leaves whose path can be modified/reoptimized (leaf type =
3), Future reserved not used for tree SID as of now.
4. Old leaves whose path must be left unchanged (leaf type = 4)
Bidgoli, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft PCEP p2mp sr policy March 2023
5. the entire pce leaf list is overwritten and replaced with the new
leaf list (leaf type = 5)
A given P2MP END-POINTS object gathers the leaves of a given type.
Note that a P2MP report can mix the different types of leaves by
including several P2MP END-POINTS objects. The END-POINTS object
body has a variable length. These are multiples of 4 bytes for IPv4,
multiples of 16 bytes, plus 4 bytes, for IPv6.
4.6. P2MP Policy and Replication Segment Identifier Object and TLV
As it was mentioned previously both P2MP Policy and Replication
Segment are identified via the LSP object and more precisely via the
SR-P2MP-LSPID-TLV
The P2MP Policy uses the PLSP-ID to identify the Candidate Paths and
the Instance-ID to identify a Path-Instance with in the Candidate
path.
On other hand the Replication Segment uses the SR-P2MP-LSPID-TLV to
identify and correlate a Replication Segment to a P2MP Policy
As it was noted previously on the Root, the P2MP Policy and the
Replication Segment is downloaded via the same PCUpd message.
4.6.1. Extension of the LSP Object, SR-P2MP-LSPID-TLV
The LSP Object is defined in Section 7.3 of [RFC8231]. It specifies
the PLSP-ID to uniquely identify an LSP that is constant for the life
time of a PCEP session. Similarly, for a P2MP tunnel, the PLSP-ID
identify a Candidate Path uniquely with in the P2MP policy.
The LSP Object MUST include the new SR-P2MP-POLICY-ID-TLV (IPV4/IpV6)
defined in this document below. This is a variation to the P2MP
object defined in [draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp]
Bidgoli, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft PCEP p2mp sr policy March 2023
SR-IPV4-P2MP-POLICY-ID TLV:
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=10 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Root |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tree-ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Instance-ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
SR-IPV6-P2MP-POLICY-ID TLV :
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=22 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| Root |
+ (16 octets) +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tree-ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Instance-ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The type (16-bit) of the TLV is TBD (need allocation by IANA).
Root: Source Router IP Address
Tree-ID: Unique Identifier of this P2MP LSP on the Root.
Instance-ID : Contains 32 Bit instance ID.
Bidgoli, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft PCEP p2mp sr policy March 2023
4.7. Replication Segment
As per [draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment] a replication
segment has a next-hop-group which MAY contain a single outgoing
replication SID or a list of SIDs (sr-policy-sid-list) In either case
there needs to be a replication SID identifying the replication state
on a downstream replication node. This means two replication
segments can be directly connected or connected via a unicast SR
domain.
4.7.1. The format of the replication segment message
The format of a Replication Segment message encoding is similar to
P2MP Policy. However, the P2MP Policy contains the association
object and the replication segment message does not contain the
association object. In addition the replication segment uses the CCI
object to identify a P2MP cross connect. The replication segment is
downloaded individually to the root, transit and leaf nodes without
the P2MP Policy. The P2MP Policy is a Root Concept. The replication
segment uses SR-P2MP-LSPID-TLV as its identifier. The TLV is coded
differently for shared and non-shared case.
* In the case of a replication segment being shared, the Tree-ID in
the SR-P2MP-POLICY Identifier TLV is the replication-id of the
Replication Segment and Root = 0, Instance-Id = 0. When
downloading a shared replication segment from PCE through a
PcInitiate message, the SR-P2MP-POLICY Identifier TLV is all 0,
and on the report back from PCC, PCC generates PLSP-ID,
Replication-id (Tree-id field will be populated with replication-
id). Instance-id will be 0.
4.7.2. PCECC
The CCI Object as defined in [RFC9050] is used to identify a
forwarding instruction in the Replication Segment. A forwarding
instruction is incoming SID and a set of outgoing branches. The CCI
Object-Type of 1 is used for the MPLS Label. The label in the CCI
Object is the incoming SID. The outgoing SIDs are defined by the ERO
Objects.
The CCI Object can be include in Reports, initiate and Update
messages for Replication Segments.
The PCInitiate message defined in [RFC8281] and extended in [RFC9050]
is further extended to support SR-P2MP replication segment based
central control instructions.
Bidgoli, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft PCEP p2mp sr policy March 2023
The format of the extended PCInitiate message is as follows:
<PCInitiate Message> ::= <Common Header>
<PCE-initiated-lsp-list>
Where:
<Common Header> is defined in "RFC5440"
<PCE-initiated-lsp-list> ::= <PCE-initiated-lsp-request>
[<PCE-initiated-lsp-list>]
<PCE-initiated-lsp-request> ::=
(<PCE-initiated-lsp-instantiation>|
<PCE-initiated-lsp-deletion>|
<PCE-initiated-lsp-central-control>)
<PCE-initiated-lsp-central-control> ::= <SRP>
<LSP>
(<cci-list>|
(<CCI><intended-path>))
<cci-list> ::= <CCI>
[<cci-list>]
<intended-path> ::= ((<PATH-ATTRIB><ERO>)
[<intended-path>])
Where:
<PCE-initiated-lsp-instantiation> and
<PCE-initiated-lsp-deletion> are as per
[RFC8281].
The LSP and SRP object is defined in [RFC8231]. The <intended-path>
is as per [RFC8281] [draft-ietf-pce-multipath] (PATH-ATTRIB and ERO).
Bidgoli, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft PCEP p2mp sr policy March 2023
The format of the PCRpt message is as follows:
<PCRpt Message> ::= <Common Header>
<state-report-list>
Where:
<state-report-list> ::= <state-report>[<state-report-list>]
<state-report> ::= (<lsp-state-report>|
<central-control-report>)
<lsp-state-report> ::= [<SRP>]
<LSP>
<path>
<central-control-report> ::= [<SRP>]
<LSP>
(<cci-list>|
(<CCI><intended-path>))
<cci-list> ::= <CCI>
[<cci-list>]
Where:
<path> is as per [RFC8231] and the LSP and SRP object are
also defined in [RFC8231].
The <intended-path> is as per [draft-ietf-pce-multipath] (PATH-ATTRIB
and ERO).
This document extends the use of PCUpd message with SR-P2MP CCI as
follows:
Bidgoli, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft PCEP p2mp sr policy March 2023
<PCUpd Message> ::= <Common Header>
<update-request-list>
Where:
<update-request-list> ::= <update-request>[<update-request-list>]
<update-request> ::= (<lsp-update-request>|
<central-control-update>)
<lsp-update-request> ::= <SRP>
<LSP>
<path>
<central-control-update> ::= <SRP>
<LSP>
(<CCI><intended-path>)
Where:
<path> is as per [RFC8231] and the LSP and SRP object are
also defined in [RFC8231].
The <intended-path> is as per [draft-ietf-pce-multipath] (PATH-ATTRIB
and ERO).
4.7.3. Label action rules in replicating segment
The node action and role of ingress, transit, leaf or bud, is
indicated via a new Node Role TLV. This document introduces a new
SR-P2MP-NODE-ROLE TLV (Type To be assigned by IANA) that will be
present in the PATH-ATTRIB object.
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=4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Role Type | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
* ingress, role type = 1
* transit, role type = 2
* leaf, role type = 3
* bud, role type = 4
Bidgoli, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft PCEP p2mp sr policy March 2023
4.7.4. SR-ERO Rules
Forwarding information of a replication segment can be configured and
steered via many different mechanisms.
As an example a replication SID can be steered via:
1. Replication SID steered with an IPv4/IPv6 directly connected
nexthop
* In this case there will two SR-ERO in the ERO Object, with the
Replication SID SR-ERO at the bottom and the IPv4/IPv6 SR-ERO
on the top.
2. Replication SID steered with an IPv4/IPv6 loopback address that
reside on the directly connected router.
* In this case there will two SR-ERO in the ERO Object, with the
Replication SID SR-ERO at the bottom and the IPv4/IPv6 SR-ERO
on the top.
* In addition a new flag D is added to the SR-ERO to signal that
the Loopback nexthop is connected to the directly attached
router.
3. Replication SID steered with unnumbered IPv4/IPv6 directly
connected Interface
4. Replication SID steered via a SR adjacency or node SID
* In this case even a sid-list can be used to traffic engineer
the path between two Replication Segment
* The Replication SID SR-ERO is at the bottom while the segments
describing the path are on top in order.
4.7.4.1. SR-ERO subobject changes
SR-ERO from RFC 8664 is used to construct the forwarding information
needed for Replication Segment.
A new D flag was added to indicate a loopback nexthop that is
residing on the directly attached router. It should be noted that
this flag should be set only for the loopback case and not for a
local interface as a nexthop.
Bidgoli, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft PCEP p2mp sr policy March 2023
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type=36 | Length | NT | Flags |D|F|S|C|M|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SID (optional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// NAI (variable, optional) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Flags : F, S, C, M are already defined in rfc8664.
This document defines a new flag D: If the next-hop in NAI field is
system IP or loopback, this bit indicates whether the system IP /
loopback is directly connected router or not. If set indicates
directly connected address. When this bit is set, F bit should be 0
(meaning NAI should be present)
5. Tree Deletion
To delete the entire tree (P2MP LSP), Root send a PCRpt message with
the R bit of the LSP object set and all the fields of the SR-P2MP-
LSP-ID TLV set to 0(indicating to remove all state associated with
this P2MP tunnel). The PCE in response sends a PCInitiate message
with R bit in the SRP object SET to all nodes along the path to
indicate deletion of the entries.
6. Fragmentation
The Fragmentation bit in the LSP object (F bit) can be used to
indicate a fragmented PCEP message
7. Some packet examples
7.1. Report for Leaf Add
This is an example of PCC initiated P2MP Policy. The PCC will send a
Report message to the PCE to initiat a P2MP Policy with a set of
leaves that are discovered via Next Generation MVPN procedures as per
[RFC6513].
In addition, since the PCC is initiating the P2MP Policy, it does
populate the PLSP-ID for the candidate path and the instance-id for
the Path Instance.
Bidgoli, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft PCEP p2mp sr policy March 2023
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 = 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SRP-ID-number = 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TLV Type = 28 (PathSetupType)| TLV Len = 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | PST = TBD |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
<LSP OBJECT>
| PLSP-ID = 1 | A:1,D:1,N:1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type=17 | Length=<var> |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| symbolic path name |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type=TBD | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Root = A |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tree-ID = Y |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Instance-ID =L1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
<P2MP END POINT OBJECT>
| Leaf type = 5 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source IPv4 address = A |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Destination IPv4 address = D |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Destination IPv4 address = E |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
7.2. P2MP Policy Candidate path Init
The following packet is the PCE creating the candidate path for the
P2MP Policy and downloading the replication segment with the same
message on the root.
It should be noted combining the P2MP Policy candidate path creation
and replication segment only is possible on the root.
As such this message contains both association object and the CCI
object. The CCI Object contains the incoming Binding SID and wraps
all the Path Attribute messages and their corresponding EROs.
Bidgoli, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft PCEP p2mp sr policy March 2023
The PLSP-ID and Instance-ID are populated with the same ID as the
previous PCC report message.
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 = 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SRP-ID-number = 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TLV Type = 28 (PathSetupType)| TLV Len = 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | PST = TBD |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
<LSP OBJECT>
| PLSP-ID = 1 | A:1,D:1,N:1,C:0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type=17 | Length=<var> |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| symbolic path name |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type=TBD | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Root =A |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tree-ID = Y |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Instance-ID = L1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
<ASSOCIATION OBJECT>
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Flags |0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Association type= SR-P2MP-PAG | Association ID = z |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Association Source = <pce-address> |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type=P2MP SR Policy ID | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Root = A |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TREE-ID = 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type=P2MP SR Policy Name | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ P2MP SR Policy Name ~
| |
Bidgoli, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft PCEP p2mp sr policy March 2023
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Type=P2MP SR Pol Cand-path ID | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|ProtOrigin 10 | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Originator ASN |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Originator Address = <pce-address> |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Discriminator = 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Type=P2MP SR Pol Cand-path Name| Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ P2MP SR Policy Candidate Path Name ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Type=P2MP SR Pol Cand-Path Pre | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Preference = 100 <default> |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
<P2MP END POINT OBJECT>
| Leaf type = 5 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source IPv4 address = A |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Destination IPv4 address = D |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Destination IPv4 address = E |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
<CCI OBJECT>
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| CC-ID = X |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved1 | Flags |0|0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label = 0 | Reserved2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
<PATH-ATTRIBUTES OBJECT>
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags | Oper|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Bidgoli, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft PCEP p2mp sr policy March 2023
| ERO-path Id = 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Backup Path Count = 1 | Flags |0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Backup Path ID 2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type=Node Role | Length=4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Role = ingress | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
<ERO-OBJECT>
<SR-ERO-SUB OBJECT>
|L| Type=36 | Length | NT= 1| Flags |0|0|1|0|0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ipv4-address = NHD1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type=36 | Length | NT= 0| Flags |0|1|0|0|0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SID = d1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
<PATH-ATTRIBUTES OBJECT>
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags | Oper|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ERO-path Id = 2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Backup Path Count = 0 | Flags |1|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type=TBD | Length=4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Role = ingress | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
<ERO-OBJECT>
<SR-ERO-SUB OBJECT>
|L| Type=36 | Length | NT= 1| Flags |0|0|1|0|0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ipv4-address = NHD2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type=36 | Length | NT= 0| Flags |0|1|0|0|0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SID = d2 |
Bidgoli, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft PCEP p2mp sr policy March 2023
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
7.3. Replication segment PCE Initiated on Transit and LEaves
The following packet examples shows the replication segment
initiation via a PCE on transit nodes and/or leaves node.
Note:
1. This packet is generated from PCE to instantiate the replication
segment, as such the PLSP-ID and Instance-ID is set to zero. PCC
will assign these value and report them back to PCE.
2. This is a replication segment instantiation as such there is no
association object.
3. The LSP Object Root A and Tree-ID Y associates this replication
segment to the corresponding Candidate path and path instance on
the root node.
there is no association object present in the packet.
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 = 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SRP-ID-number = 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TLV Type = 28 (PathSetupType)| TLV Len = 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | PST = TBD |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
<LSP OBJECT>
| PLSP-ID = 0 | A:1,D:1,N:1,C:0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type=17 | Length=<var> |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| symbolic path name |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type=TBD | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Root =A |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tree-ID = Y |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Instance-ID = 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Bidgoli, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft PCEP p2mp sr policy March 2023
<CCI OBJECT>
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| CC-ID = X |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved1 | Flags |0|0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label = d1 | Reserved2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
<PATH-ATTRIBUTES OBJECT>
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags | Oper|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ERO-path Id = 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Backup Path Count = 1 | Flags |0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Backup Path ID 2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type=TBD | Length=4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Role | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
<ERO-OBJECT>
<SR-ERO-SUB OBJECT>
|L| Type=36 | Length | NT= 1| Flags |0|0|1|0|0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ipv4-address = NHE1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type=36 | Length | NT= 0| Flags |0|1|0|0|0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SID = e1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
<PATH-ATTRIBUTES OBJECT>
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags | Oper|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ERO-path Id = 2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Backup Path Count = 0 | Flags |1|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type=TBD | Length=4 |
Bidgoli, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft PCEP p2mp sr policy March 2023
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Role | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
<ERO-OBJECT>
<SR-ERO-SUB OBJECT>
|L| Type=36 | Length | NT= 1| Flags |0|0|1|0|0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ipv4-address = NHE2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type=36 | Length | NT= 0| Flags |0|1|0|0|0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SID = e2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
8. Example Workflows
+-------+ +-------+
|PCC | | PCE |
|Root | +-------+
+------| | |
| PCC +-------+ |
| Transit| | |
+------| | |---PCRpt,PLSP-ID=1,SRP-ID=1--------->| PCECC LSP
|PCC +--------+ | N=1,root-addr,tree-id=a, | SR-Policy
| | | | instance-id =b, | Report to
|Leaf | | | p2mp-end-points(LeafType=5) | PCE
+--------+ | | |
| | | |
| | |<--PCUpdate,PLSP-ID=1, SRP-ID =1, | Update
| | | root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,| CP
| | | p2mp-end-points, association-obj |
| | | |
| | |-------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=1, SRP-ID = 1,->|
| | | root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,|
| | | p2mp-end-points(LeafType=5) |
| | | association-object |
| | | |
|<---------------PCInitiate,PLSP-ID=0, -------------| Download
| | | root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=0,| Leaf
| | | CC-ID=Z,C=0, | Replication
| | | O=0,L=z,path-attribute,ERO,SR-ERO | Segment(RS)
| | | |
|---------------------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=1-------------->|
| | | root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,|
| | | CC-ID=Z,Label=z,O=0, |
| | | path-attribute,ERO,SR-ERO |
| | | |
Bidgoli, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft PCEP p2mp sr policy March 2023
| |<-------PCInitiate,PLSP-ID=0, -------------| Download
| | | root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=0,| Transit
| | | CC-ID=Y,C=0, | RS
| | | O=0,L=y,path-attribute,ERO,SR-ERO |
| | | |
| |-------------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=2-------------->|
| | | root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=c,|
| | | CC-ID=Y,Label=y,O=0, |
| | | path-attribute,ERO,SR-ERO |
| | | |
| | |<--PCInitiate,PLSP-ID=1, | Download
| | | root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,| Root
| | | CC-ID=X,C=0, | RS
| | | O=0,L=x,p2mp-end- |
| | | points(LeafType=5),path-attribute,|
| | | ERO,SR-ERO |
| | | |
| | |-------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=1-------------->|
| | | root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,|
| | | CC-ID=X,Label=x,O=0, |
| | | p2mp-end-points(LeafType=5) |
| | | path-attriute,ERO,SR-ERO |
| | | |
| | |<--PCUpdate,PLSP-ID=1, SRP-ID =2, |
| | | root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,| Activate
| | | p2mp-end-points | CP to last
| | | | RS
| | |-------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=1, SRP-ID =2, ->|
| | | root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,|
| | | p2mp-end-points(LeafType=5) |
| | | |
Note that on transit / leaf Initiate is with PLSP-ID = 0. Therefore
PLSP-ID is locally unique to a node. It should be noted that the CC-
ID does not need to be constant across all nodes that make up the
path.
PCE-Initiated workflow
+-------+ +-------+
|PCC | | PCE |
|Root | +-------+
+------| | |
| PCC +-------+ |
| Transit| | |
+------| | | | PCECC LSP
|PCC +--------+ | |
| | | | |
Bidgoli, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft PCEP p2mp sr policy March 2023
|Leaf | | | |
+--------+ | | |
|<---------------PCInitiate,PLSP-ID=0, -------------| Download
| | | root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=0,| Leaf RS
| | | CC-ID=Z,C=0, |
| | | O=0,L=z,path-attribute,ERO,SR-ERO |
| | | |
|---------------------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=1-------------->|
| | | root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,|
| | | CC-ID=Z,Label=z,O=0, |
| | | path-attribute,ERO,SR-ERO |
| | | |
| |<-------PCInitiate,PLSP-ID=0, -------------| Download
| | | root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=0,| Transit RS
| | | CC-ID=Y,C=0, |
| | | O=0,L=y,path-attribute,ERO,SR-ERO |
| | | |
| |-------------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=2-------------->|
| | | root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=c,|
| | | CC-ID=Y,Label=y,O=0, |
| | | path-attribute,ERO,SR-ERO |
| | | |
| | |<--PCInitiate,PLSP-ID=0, | Initiate
| | | root-addr,tree-id=0,instance-id=0,| CP
| | | p2mp-end-points, association-obj |
| | | |
| | |-------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=1,------------->|
| | | root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,|
| | | p2mp-end-points(LeafType=5) |
| | | association-object, |
| | | |
| | |<--PCInitiate,PLSP-ID=1, | Download
| | | root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,| Root RS
| | | CC-ID=X,C=0, |
| | | O=0,L=x,p2mp-end- |
| | | points(LeafType=5),path-attribute,|
| | | ERO,SR-ERO |
| | | |
| | |-------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=1-------------->|
| | | root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,|
| | | CC-ID=X,Label=x,O=0, |
| | | p2mp-end-points(LeafType=5) |
| | | path-attriute,ERO,SR-ERO |
| | | |
| |<-------PCInitiate,PLSP-ID=0, -------------|
| | | root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=0,|
| | | CC-ID=Y,C=0, |
| | | O=0,L=y,path-attribute,ERO,SR-ERO |
Bidgoli, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft PCEP p2mp sr policy March 2023
| | | |
| |-------------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=2-------------->|
| | | root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=c,|
| | | CC-ID=Y,Label=y,O=0, |
| | | path-attribute,ERO,SR-ERO |
| | | |
| | |<--PCUpdate,PLSP-ID=1, SRP-ID =1, | Bind and
| | | root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,| Activate
| | | p2mp-end-points, | CP to last
| | | | RS
| | |-------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=1, SRP-ID = 1,->|
| | | root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,|
| | | p2mp-end-points(LeafType=5) |
MBB Workflow:
Common (PCE-INIT, PCC-INIT) MBB
+-------+ +-------+
|PCC | | PCE |
|Root | +-------+
+------| | |
| PCC +-------+ |
| Transit| | |
+------| | | | PCECC LSP
|PCC +--------+ | |
| | | | |
|Leaf | | | |
+--------+ | | |
|<---------------PCInitiate,PLSP-ID=1, -------------| Download
| | | root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,| new RS on
| | | CC-ID=Z1,C=0, | Leaf
| | | O=0,L=z1,path-attribute,ERO,SR-ERO |
| | | |
|---------------------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=1-------------->|
| | | root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,|
| | | CC-ID=Z1,Label=z1,O=0, |
| | | path-attribute,ERO,SR-ERO |
| | | |
| |<-------PCInitiate,PLSP-ID=2, -------------| Download
| | | root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=c,| new RS on
| | | CC-ID=Y1,C=0, | Transit
| | | O=0,L=y1,path-attribute,ERO,SR-ERO |
| | | |
| |-------------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=2-------------->|
| | | root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=c,|
| | | CC-ID=Y1,Label=y1,O=0, |
| | | path-attribute,ERO,SR-ERO |
Bidgoli, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft PCEP p2mp sr policy March 2023
| | | |
| | |<--PCInitiate,PLSP-ID=1, | Download
| | | root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,| new RS on
| | | CC-ID=X1,C=0, | Root
| | | O=0,L=x1,p2mp-end- |
| | | points(LeafType=5),path-attribute,|
| | | ERO,SR-ERO |
| | | |
| | |-------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=1-------------->|
| | | root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,|
| | | CC-ID=X1,Label=x1,O=0, |
| | | p2mp-end-points(LeafType=5) |
| | | path-attriute,ERO,SR-ERO |
| | | |
| | |<--PCUpdate,PLSP-ID=1, SRP-ID =1, | Bind and
| | | root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,| Activate
, | | | p2mp-end-points, | CP to last
| | | | RS
| | |-------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=1, SRP-ID = 1,->|
| | | root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,|
| | | p2mp-end-points(LeafType=5) |
| | | |
| | |<--PCInitiate,PLSP-ID=1,R=1 | Remove
| | | root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,| the old RS
| | | CC-ID=X1,C=0 | from Leaf
| | | O=0,L=x1,p2mp-end- |
| | | points(LeafType=5),path-attribute,|
| | | ERO,SR-ERO |
| | | |
| | |-------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=1, R=1--------->|
| | | root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,|
| | | CC-ID=X1,Label=x1,O=0, |
| | | p2mp-end-points(LeafType=5) |
| | | path-attriute,ERO,SR-ERO |
| | | |
| |<-------PCInitiate,PLSP-ID=2, R=1----------| Remove the
| | | root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=c,| old RS from
| | | CC-ID=Y1,C=0, | Transit
| | | O=0,L=y1,path-attribute,ERO,SR-ERO |
| | | |
| |-------------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=2, R=1--------->|
| | | root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=c,|
| | | CC-ID=Y1,Label=y1,O=0, |
| | | path-attribute,ERO,SR-ERO |
| | | |
|<---------------PCInitiate,PLSP-ID=1,R=1-----------| Remove the
| | | root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,| old RS from
| | | CC-ID=Z1,C=0, | Root
Bidgoli, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft PCEP p2mp sr policy March 2023
| | | O=0,L=z1,path-attribute,ERO,SR-ERO |
| | | |
|---------------------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=1,R=1---------->|
| | | root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,|
| | | CC-ID=Z1,Label=z1,O=0, |
| | | path-attribute,ERO,SR-ERO |
9. IANA Consideration
1. This draft extends the PCEP OPEN object by defining an optional
TLV to indicate the PCE's capability to perform SR-P2MP path
computations with a new IANA capability type (TBD).
2. PCEP open object with a new association type " P2MP SR Policy
Association " value (TBD).
3. A new Association type. Association type = TBD1 "P2MP SR Policy
Association Type" for SR Policy Association Group (P2MP SRPAG)
1. Five new TLVs are identified to carry association
information: P2MP-SRPOLICY-ID TLV, P2MP-SRPOLICY-NAME TLV,
P2MP-SRPOLICY-CPATH-ID TLV, P2MP-SRPOLICY-CPATH-PREFRENCE
TLV, P2MP-SRPOLICY-CPATH-NAME TLV
4. Two new TLVs for Identifying the P2MP Policy and the Replication
segment SR-IPV4-P2MP-POLICY-ID TLV and SR-IPV6-P2MP-POLICY-ID TLV
5. A new SR-P2MP-NODE-ROLE TLV (Type To be assigned by IANA) that
will be present in the PATH-ATTRIB object
10. Security Considerations
TBD
11. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Tanmoy Kundu and Stone Andrew at
Nokia for their feedback and major contribution to this draft.
12. Informative References
[draft-hb-spring-sr-p2mp-policy-yang]
"H.Bidgoli, D. Yoyer, R. Parekh, T.Saad, T.kundu "YANG
Data Model for p2mp sr policy"", October 2020.
Bidgoli, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft PCEP p2mp sr policy March 2023
[draft-ietf-pce-multipath]
"M. Koldychev, S. Sivabalan, T. Saad, H. Bidgoli, B.
Yadav, S. Peng, G. Mishra "PCEP Extensions for Signaling
Multipath Information"", November 2022.
[draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp]
"M. Koldychev, S. Sivabalan, C. Barth, S. Peng, H. Bidgoli
"PCEP extension to support Segment Routing Policy
Candidate Paths", October 2022.
[draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp]
"U. Palle, D. Dhody, Y.Tanaka, V. Beeram "Protocol
Extensions for Stateful PCE usage for Point-to-Multipoint
Traffic Engineering Label"", April 2019.
[draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy]
"D. Yoyer, C. Filsfils, R.Prekh, H.bidgoli, Z. Zhang,
"Segment Routing Point-to-Multipoint Policy"", October
2019.
[draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment]
"D. Yoyer, C. Filsfils, R.Prekh, H.bidgoli, Z. Zhang, "SR
Replication Segment for Multi-point Service Delivery"",
July 2020.
[RFC2119] ""Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels"", March 1997.
[RFC3209] "D. Awduche, L. Berger, T. Li, V. Srinivasan, G. Swallow
"RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels"", December
2001.
[RFC5440] "JP. Vasseur,JL. Le Roux "Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol"", March 2009.
[RFC6513] "E. Rosen, R. Aggerwal "Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP VPNs"",
February 2012.
[RFC8231] "E. Crabbe, I. Minei, J. Medved, R. Varga "PCEP Extensions
for Stateful PCE"", September 2017.
[RFC8281] "E. Crabbe, I. Minei, S. Sivabalan, R. Varga "PCEP
Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
Model"", December 2017.
[RFC8306] "Q. Zhao, D. Dhody, R. Palleti, D.King "PCEP for Point-to-
Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths"",
November 2017.
Bidgoli, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft PCEP p2mp sr policy March 2023
[RFC8664] "S. Sivabalan, C. Filsfils, J. Tantsura, W. Henderickx, J.
Hardwick "PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing"", December
2019.
[RFC8697] "I. Minei, E. Crabbe, S. Sivabalan, H. Ananthakrishnan, D.
Dhody, Y. Tanaka "PCEP Extensions for Establishing
Relationships between Sets of LSPs"", January 2020.
[RFC9050] "Z. Li, S. Peng, M. Negi, Q. Zhao, C. Zhou "PCEP
Procedures and Extensions for Using the PCECC"", July
2021.
[RFC9256] "C. Filsfils, K. Talaulikar, D. Voyer, A. Bogdanov, P.
Mattes "Segment Routing Policy Architecture"", July 2022.
Authors' Addresses
Hooman Bidgoli (editor)
Nokia
Ottawa
Canada
Email: hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com
Daniel Voyer
Bell Canada
Montreal
Canada
Email: daniel.voyer@bell.ca
Saranya Rajarathinam
Nokia
Mountain View,
United States of America
Email: saranya.Rajarathinam@nokia.com
Anuj Budhiraja
Cisco System
San Jose,
United States of America
Email: abudhira@cisco.com
Bidgoli, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft PCEP p2mp sr policy March 2023
Tarek Saad
Juniper Networks
Ottawa
Canada
Email: tsaad@juniper.com
Siva Sivabalan
Ciena
Ottawa
Canada
Email: ssivabal@ciena.com
Bidgoli, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 44]
