Carrying SR-Algorithm in Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Cisco Systems, Inc.Eurovea Central 3.Pribinova 10Bratislava811 09Slovakiassidor@cisco.comCisco Systems, Inc.2300 East President GeorgeRichardsonTX 75082United States of Americaatokar@cisco.comZTE CorporationNo.50 Software AvenueNanjingJiangsu210012Chinapeng.shaofu@zte.com.cnHuawei TechnologiesHuawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.Beijing100095Chinapengshuping@huawei.comNokiaandrew.stone@nokia.comPCE Working GroupThis document specifies extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
to enhance support for Segment Routing (SR) with a focus on the use of Segment Identifiers (SIDs) and SR-Algorithms
in Traffic Engineering (TE). The SR-Algorithm associated with a SID defines the path computation algorithm
used by Interior Gateway Protocols (IGPs). This document introduces extensions in three main areas.Mechanisms for informing PCEP peers about the SR-Algorithm associated with SIDs by encoding this information in Explicit Route
Object (ERO) and Record Route Object (RRO) subobjects. This document updates RFC 8664 and RFC 9603 to allow such extension.The document specifies SR-Algorithm constraint, enabling refined path computations that can leverage IGP algorithm
logic, including Flexible Algorithms, and their associated constraints and optimization metrics.It defines new metric types for the METRIC object required to support SR-Algorithm based path computation,
but also applicable to Label Switched Paths (LSPs) setup using different Path Setup Types. describes the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for communication between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a Path Computation Element (PCE) or between a pair of PCEs. and specify PCEP extensions to support Segment Routing (SR) over MPLS and IPv6 respectively.This document specifies extensions to PCEP to enhance support for SR Traffic Engineering (TE). Specifically, it focuses on the use of Segment Identifiers (SIDs) and SR-Algorithms. An SR-Algorithm associated with a SID defines the path computation algorithm used by Interior Gateway Protocols (IGPs).The PCEP extensions specified in this document:
Mechanisms are introduced for PCEP peers
to exchange information about the SR-Algorithm associated with each SID. This includes
extending SR-ERO, SR-RRO and SRv6-ERO, SRv6-RRO subobjects to carry an Algorithm field.
This document updates and to enable
such encoding. Mechanisms are defined for signaling
a specific SR-Algorithm as a constraint to the PCE for path computation. This includes
a new SR-Algorithm TLV carried in the Label Switched Path Attributes (LSPA) Object.Several new metric types are introduced for the METRIC
Object to support optimization metrics derived from FADs during Flexible Algorithm path
computation, their application is not restricted to Flexible Algorithms and they may be
used with LSPs setup using different Path Setup Types.The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 when,
and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.This document uses the following terms defined in : ERO, LSPA, PCC,
PCE, PCEP, PCEP Peer, PCEP speaker, TED.This document uses the following term defined in : LSP.This document uses the following term defined in and : ASLA.This document uses the following terms defined in : NAI and SR-DB.The following terminologies are used in this document:
Point-to-Multipoint Flexible Algorithm Definition The FAD selected according to the rules described in Note that the base PCEP specification originally defined the use of the PCE architecture for MPLS and GMPLS networks
with LSPs instantiated using the RSVP-TE signaling protocol. Over time, support for additional path setup types, such as
SRv6, has been introduced . The term "LSP" is used extensively in PCEP specifications and, in the
context of this document, refers to a Candidate Path within an SR Policy, which may be an SRv6 path (still represented
using the LSP Object as specified in ).The term extension block is used in this document to identify the additional bytes appended to a PCEP Object, which may exist depending on the inclusion of a flag in that objectExisting PCEP specifications lack the mechanisms to explicitly signal and negotiate SR-Algorithm capabilities and constraints. This limits the ability of PCEs to make informed path computation decisions based on the specific SR-Algorithms supported and desired within the network. The absence of an explicit SR-Algorithm specification in PCEP messages implied no specific constraint on the SR-Algorithm to be used for path computation, effectively allowing the use of SIDs with any SR-algorithm.A primary motivation for these extensions is to enable the PCE to leverage the path computation logic and topological information derived from Interior Gateway Protocols (IGPs), including Flexible Algorithms. Aligning PCE path computation with these IGP algorithms enables network operators to obtain paths that are congruent with the underlying routing behavior, which can result in segment lists with a reduced number of SIDs. The support for SR-Algorithm constraints in PCE path computation simplifies the deployment and management of Flexible Algorithm paths in multi-domain network scenarios.The PCE and the headend router may independently compute SR-TE paths with different SR-Algorithms. This information needs to be exchanged between PCEP peers for purposes such as network monitoring and troubleshooting. In scenarios involving multiple (redundant) PCEs, when a headend receives a path from the primary PCE, it needs to be able to report the complete path information, including the SR-Algorithm, to a backup PCE. This is essential for high availability (HA) scenarios, ensuring that the backup PCE can correctly verify Prefix SIDs.The introduction of an SR-Algorithm TLV within the LSPA object allows operators to specify SR-Algorithm constraints directly, thereby refining path computations to meet specific needs, such as low-latency paths.The ability to specify an SR-Algorithm per SID in ERO and RRO is crucial for multiple reasons, for example:SID types without algorithm specified - Certain SID types, such as Binding SIDs (BSIDs) , may not have an SR-algorithm specified. It may be inaccurate to state that an entire end-to-end path adheres to a specific algorithm if it includes a BSID from another policy. Note: In SRv6, the BSID can be allocated from an algo-specific SRv6 Locator which will result in the path to that BSID headend node following that algo-specific path. However, the implicit algorithm of BSID is independent from SR algorithm used for the SR Policy associated with that BSID.Topologies with two Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) domains, each using the same FAD but with differing algorithm numbers.The SR-PCE-CAPABILITY Sub-TLV is defined in to be included in the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV.This document defines the following flag in the SR-PCE-CAPABILITY Sub-TLV:SR-Algorithm Capability (S): If the S-flag is set, a PCEP speaker indicates support for the Algorithm field and the Subobject Extension Block in the SR-ERO subobject described in and the SR-Algorithm TLV described in for LSPs setup using Path Setup Type 1 (Segment Routing) . It does not indicate support for these extensions for other Path Setup Types.The SRv6-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV is defined in to be included in the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV.This document defines the following flag in the SRv6-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV:SR-Algorithm Capability (S): If the S-flag is set, a PCEP speaker indicates support for the Algorithm field in the SRv6-ERO Subobject described in and the SR-Algorithm TLV described in for LSPs setup using Path Setup Type 3 (SRv6) . It does not indicate support for these extensions for other Path Setup Types.This document updates the SR-ERO subobject format defined in with a new optional Subobject Extension Block field. Further, a new "A" flag in Flags field is as shown in .
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 |A|F|S|C|M|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SID (optional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// NAI (variable, optional) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Subobject Extension Block (optional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+A new bit in the Flags field:
A-flag (SR-Algorithm Flag): If set to '1' by a PCEP speaker, by a PCEP speaker, the Subobject Extension Block MUST be included in the SR-ERO subobject as shown in along with the specified algorithm and the length of the subobject is extended by 4 octets.
If this flag is set to 0, then either:
the Subobject Extension Block is not included and processing described in applies, orthe Subobject Extension Block is included (due to an extension flag in a future document) and the Algorithm field MUST be ignored.This document updates the SR-ERO subobject validation defined in by extending existing validation to include the Algorithm field and A bit as follows.On receiving an SR-ERO, a PCC MUST validate that the Length field, S bit, F bit, A bit, NT field, and Algorithm are consistent, as follows.
If Subobject Extension Block is included
If NT=0, the F bit MUST be 1, the S bit MUST be zero, and the Length MUST be 12.
If NT=1, the F bit MUST be zero. If the S bit is 1, the Length MUST be 12; otherwise, the Length MUST be 16.
If NT=2, the F bit MUST be zero. If the S bit is 1, the Length MUST be 24; otherwise, the Length MUST be 28.
If NT=3, the F bit MUST be zero. If the S bit is 1, the Length MUST be 16; otherwise, the Length MUST be 20.
If NT=4, the F bit MUST be zero. If the S bit is 1, the Length MUST be 40; otherwise, the Length MUST be 44.
If NT=5, the F bit MUST be zero. If the S bit is 1, the Length MUST be 24; otherwise, the Length MUST be 28.
If NT=6, the F bit MUST be zero. If the S bit is 1, the Length MUST be 48; otherwise, the Length MUST be 52.
If A bit is 0, consistency rules defined in applies.
The Subobject Extension Block format is described in .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Algorithm |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+Reserved (24 bits): This field is reserved for future use and MUST be set to zero when sending and ignored when receiving.Algorithm (8 bits): SR-Algorithm value from registry "IGP Algorithm Types" of "Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Parameters" IANA registry.Any future extension that uses the Reserved field in the Subobject Extension Block MUST be accompanied with its own flag (similar to the A flag) in the ERO as well as a capability signaling for its usage.This document updates the SRv6-ERO subobject format defined in with Algorithm field carved out of the Reserved field. Further, a new "A" flag in defined in the existing Flags field as shown in .
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type=40 | Length | NT | Flags |A|V|T|F|S|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Algorithm | Endpoint Behavior |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| SRv6 SID (optional) |
| (128-bit) |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// NAI (variable, optional) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SID Structure (optional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+A new bit in the Flags field:A-flag (SR-Algorithm Flag): If set to '1' by a PCEP speaker, the Algorithm field is included in SRv6-ERO subobject as specified in .
If this flag is set to 0, then the Algorithm field is absent and processing described in applies.
Reserved (8 bits): Reduced from 16 to 8 bits. It MUST be set to zero while sending and ignored on
receipt.Algorithm (8 bits): SR-Algorithm value from registry "IGP Algorithm Types" of "Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Parameters" IANA registry.A new TLV for the LSPA Object is introduced to carry the SR-Algorithm constraint (). This TLV SHOULD only be used when PST (Path Setup type) = 1 or 3 for SR-MPLS and SRv6, respectively. Only the first instance of this TLV MUST be processed, subsequent instances MUST be ignored.The format of the SR-Algorithm TLV is as follows:Type (16 bits): 66.Length (16 bits): 4.The 32-bit value is formatted as follows.
MUST be set to zero by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver. This document defines the following flag bits. The other bits
MUST be set to zero by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.
S (Strict): If set, the path computation at the PCE MUST fail if the specified SR-Algorithm constraint cannot be satisfied. If unset, the PCE MUST try to compute the path with SR-algorithm constraint specified. If the path computation using the specified SR-Algorithm constraint fails, the PCE MUST try to compute a path that does not satisfy the constraint. SR-Algorithm to be used during path computation (see ).The METRIC object is defined in . This document specifies new types for the METRIC object to enable the encoding of optimization metric types derived from the FAD during Flexible Algorithm path computation (see ). While these new metric types are defined to support this specific use case, their use is not restricted to Flexible Algorithm path computation or to any specific Path Setup Type. T=22: Path Min Delay metric () T=23: P2MP Path Min Delay metric () T=24: Path Bandwidth Metric () T=25: P2MP Path Bandwidth Metric () T=128-255: User-defined metric () The following terminology is used and expanded along the way.A network comprises of a set of N links {Li, (i=1...N)}.A path P of a point-to-point (P2P) LSP is a list of K links {Lpi,(i=1...K)}.A P2MP tree T comprises a set of M destinations {Dest_j,(j=1...M)}. and define "Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV" to advertise the link minimum and maximum delay in microseconds in a 24-bit field. defines the METRIC object with a 32-bit metric value encoded in IEEE floating point format (see ).The encoding for the Path Min Delay metric value is quantified in units of microseconds and encoded in IEEE floating point format.The conversion from 24-bit integer to 32-bit IEEE floating point could introduce some loss of precision.The minimum Link Delay metric is defined in and as "Min Unidirectional Link Delay". The Path Min Link Delay metric represents measured minimum link delay value over a configurable interval.The Path Min Delay metric type of the METRIC object in PCEP represents the sum of the Min Link Delay metric of all links along a P2P path. A Min Link Delay metric of link L is denoted D(L).A Path Min Delay metric for the P2P path P = Sum {D(Lpi), (i=1...K)}.The P2MP Path Min Delay metric type of the METRIC object in PCEP encodes the Path Min Delay metric for the destination that observes the worst (i.e., highest value) delay metric among all destinations of the P2MP tree.The P2P Path Min Delay metric of the path to destination Dest_j is denoted by PMDM(Dest_j).The P2MP Path Min Delay metric for the P2MP tree T = Maximum{PMDM(Dest_j), (j=1...M)}.The defines a new metric type "Bandwidth Metric", which may be advertised in their link metric advertisements.When performing Flexible Algorithm path computation as described in , procedures described in sections 4.1 and 5 from MUST be followed with automatic metric calculation.For path computations in contexts other than Flexible Algorithm (including Path Setup Types other than 1 or 3 for SR-MPLS and SRv6), if the Generic Metric sub-TLV with Bandwidth metric type is not advertised for a link, the PCE implementation MAY apply a local policy to derive a metric value (similar to the procedures in Sections 4.1.3 and 4.1.4 of ) or the link MAY be treated as if the metric value is unavailable (e.g. by using a default value). If the Bandwidth metric value is advertised for a link, the PCE MUST use the advertised value to compute the path metric in accordance with and .The Path Bandwidth metric value is encoded in IEEE floating point format.The conversion from 24-bit integer to 32-bit IEEE floating point could introduce some loss of precision.The Path Bandwidth metric type of the METRIC object in PCEP represents the sum of the Bandwidth Metric of all links along a P2P path. Note: the link Bandwidth Metric utilized in the formula may be the original metric advertised on the link, which may have a value inversely proportional to the link capacity.A Bandwidth Metric of link L is denoted B(L).A Path Bandwidth metric for the P2P path P = Sum {B(Lpi), (i=1...K)}.The Bandwidth metric type of the METRIC object in PCEP encodes the Path Bandwidth metric for the destination that observes the worst bandwidth metric among all destinations of the P2MP tree.The P2P Bandwidth metric of the path to destination Dest_j is denoted by BM(Dest_j).The P2MP Path Bandwidth metric for the P2MP tree T = Maximum{BM(Dest_j), (j=1...M)}.The defined a new metric type range for "User defined metric", which may be advertised in their link metric advertisements. These are user defined and can be assigned by an operator for local use.User Defined metric values are encoded using the IEEE floating-point format.The conversion from 24-bit integer to 32-bit IEEE floating point could introduce some loss of precision.The proposed metric type range was chosen to allow mapping with values assigned in the "IGP Metric-Type Registry". For example, the User Defined metric type 130 of the METRIC object in PCEP can represent the sum of the User Defined Metric 130 of all links along a P2P.User Defined Metrics are equally applicable to P2P and P2MP paths.The PCEP extensions defined in , and of this document MUST NOT be used unless both PCEP speakers have indicated support by setting the S flag in the Path Setup Type Sub-TLV corresponding to the PST of the LSP. If this condition is not met, the receiving PCEP speaker MUST respond with a PCErr message with Error-Type 19 (Invalid Operation) and Error-Value TBD3 (Attempted use of SR-Algorithm without advertised capability).The SR-Algorithm used in this document refers to a complete range of SR-Algorithm values (0-255) if a specific section does not specify otherwise. Valid SR-Algorithm values are defined in the registry "IGP Algorithm Types" of "Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Parameters" IANA registry. Refer to and for the definition of SR-Algorithm in Segment Routing. and are describing the use of the SR-Algorithm in IGP. Note that some RFCs are referring to SR-Algorithm with different names, for example "Prefix-SID Algorithm" and "SR Algorithm".If a PCC receives the Algorithm field in the ERO subobject within PCInitiate, PCUpd, or PCRep messages and the path received from those messages is being included in the ERO of PCRpt message, then the PCC MUST include the Algorithm field in the encoded subobjects with the received SR-Algorithm value.As per and , the format of the SR-RRO subobject is the same as that of the SR-ERO subobject, but without the L-Flag, therefore SR-RRO subobject may also carry the A flag and Algorithm field.A PCEP speaker MAY set the A flag and include the Algorithm field as part of Subobject Extension Block in an SR-ERO subobject if the S flag has been advertised in SR-PCE-CAPABILITY Sub-TLV by both PCEP speakers.If the PCEP peer receives an SR-ERO subobject with the A flag set, but the S flag was not advertised in SR-PCE-CAPABILITY Sub-TLV, then it MUST consider the entire ERO as invalid as described in .The Subobject Extension Block field in the SR-ERO subobject MUST be included after the optional SID, NAI, or SID structure and the length of the SR-ERO subobject MUST be increased by an additional 4 bytes for the Reserved and Algorithm field.If the length and the A flag are not consistent as specified in , PCEP peer MUST consider the entire ERO invalid and MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and Error-value = 11 ("Malformed object").If the SID value is absent (S bit is set to 1), the NAI value is present (F bit is set to 0) and the Algorithm field is set (A bit is set to 1), the PCC is responsible for choosing the SRv6-SID value based on values specified in NAI and Algorithm fields. If the PCC cannot find a SID index in the SR-DB, it MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and Error-value = 14 ("Unknown SID").A PCEP speaker MAY set the A flag and include the Algorithm field in an SRv6-ERO subobject if the S flag has been advertised in SRv6-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV by both PCEP speakers.If the PCEP peer receives SRv6-ERO subobject with the A flag set or with the SR-Algorithm included, but the S flag was not advertised in SRv6-PCE-CAPABILITY Sub-TLV, then it MUST consider the entire ERO as invalid as described in .The Algorithm field in the SRv6-ERO subobject MUST be included in the position specified in , the length of the SRv6-ERO subobject is not impacted by the inclusion of the Algorithm field.If the SRv6-SID value is absent (S bit is set to 1), the NAI value is present (F bit is set to 0) and the Algorithm field is set (A bit is set to 1), the PCC is responsible for choosing the SRv6-SID value based on values specified in NAI and Algorithm fields. If the PCC cannot find a SID index in the SR-DB, it MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and Error-value = 14 ("Unknown SID").To signal a specific SR-Algorithm constraint to the PCE, the headend MUST encode the SR-Algorithm TLV inside the LSPA object.If a PCC receives an LSPA object with SR-Algorithm TLV as part of PCInitiate, PCUpd messages, then it MUST include LSPA object with SR-Algorithm TLV in PCRpt message as part of intended-attribute-list.If a PCE receives an LSPA object with SR-Algorithm TLV in PCRpt or PCReq, then it MUST include the LSPA object with SR-Algorithm TLV in PCUpd message, or PCRep message in case of an unsuccessful path computation based on rules described in .A PCEP peer that did not advertise the S flag in the Path Setup Type Sub-TLV corresponding to the LSP's PST, it MUST ignore the SR-Algorithm TLV on receipt.The PCE MUST NOT use Prefix SIDs associated with an SR-Algorithm other than the one specified in the SR-Algorithm constraint. If a protected Adjacency SID is used without an associated SR-Algorithm, there is a risk that the backup path may fail to forward traffic over parts of the topology that are not included in the specified SR-Algorithm. Consequently, it is NOT RECOMMENDED to use protected Adjacency SIDs without an explicitly specified SR-Algorithm. If an Adjacency SID has an associated SR-Algorithm, the PCE MUST ensure that the SR-Algorithm matches the one specified in the SR-Algorithm constraint.Other SID types, such as Binding SIDs, are allowed. Furthermore, the inclusion of a path Binding SID (BSID) from another policy is permitted only if the path associated with that policy fully satisfies all the constraints of the current path computation.The specified SR-Algorithm constraint is applied to the end-to-end SR policy path. Using different SR-Algorithm constraint or using winning FAD with different optimization metric or constraints for same SR-Algorithm in each domain or part of the topology in single path computation is out of the scope of this document.If the PCE is unable to find a path with the given SR-Algorithm constraint, it does not support a combination of specified constraints or if the FAD contains constraints, optimization metric or other attributes, which the PCE does not support or recognize, it MUST use empty ERO in PCInitiate for LSP instantiation or PCUpd message if an update is required or NO-PATH object in PCRep to indicate that it was not able to find the valid path.If the Algorithm field value is in the range 128-255, the PCE MUST perform path computation according to the Flexible Algorithm procedures outlined in . Otherwise, the PCE MUST adhere to the path computation procedures with SID filtering defined in .If the NO-PATH object is included in PCRep, then the PCE MAY include SR-Algorithm TLV to indicate constraint, which cannot be satisfied as described in .SR-Algorithm does not replace the Objective Function defined in .The SR-Algorithm constraint acts as a filter, restricting which SIDs may be used as a result of the path computation function. Path computation is done based on optimization metric type and constraints specified in the PCEP message received from the PCC.The mechanism described in this section is applicable only to SR-Algorithm values in the range 0-127. It is not applicable to Flexible Algorithms (range 128-255), which are handled as described in . Within the 0-127 range, currently defined algorithms are 0 (Shortest Path First (SPF)) and 1 (Strict SPF) as introduced in . Future algorithms defined within this range that do not require explicit PCEP extensions beyond the SR-Algorithm TLV may also utilize this SID filtering approach. If a PCE implementation receives a request with an SR-Algorithm value in the 0-127 range that it does not support for path computation, it MUST reject the PCEP message and send a PCErr message with Error-Type 19 (Invalid Operation) and Error-Value TBD4 (Unsupported SR-Algorithm).This section is applicable only to the Flexible Algorithms range of SR-Algorithm values. The PCE performs Flexible Algorithm path computation based on topology information stored in its TED . The TED is expected to be populated with necessary information, including Flexible Algorithm Definitions (FADs), node participation, and ASLA-specific link attributes, through standard mechanisms such as Interior Gateway Protocols (IGPs) with Traffic Engineering extensions or BGP-LS .The PCE must follow the IGP Flexible Algorithm path computation logic as described in . This includes performing the FAD selection as described in and other sections, determining the topology associated with specific Flexible Algorithm based on the FAD, the node participation , using ASLA-specific link attributes , and applying other rules for Flexible Algorithm path calculation . While defines the base procedures for IGP Flexible Algorithms, these procedures are further extended by other documents such as , a PCE implementation may need support these IGP extensions to allow use of specific constraints in FAD. introduced IANA registry called "IGP Flex-Algorithm Path Computation Rules Registry" within the "Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Parameters" registry group with the ordered set of rules that MUST be used to prune links from the topology during the Flex-Algorithm path computation.[Note to RFC Editor: The URL of the "IGP Flex-Algorithm Path Computation Rules Registry" IANA registry to be inserted once it will get created after approval of .] The PCE must optimize the computed path based on the metric type specified in the FAD. The optimization metric type included in PCEP messages from the PCC MUST be ignored. The PCE MUST use the metric type from the FAD in messages sent to the PCC unless that metric type is not defined in PCEP or not supported by the PCEP peer. It is allowed to use SID types other than Prefix SID (e.g., Adjacency or BSID), but only from nodes participating in the specified SR-Algorithm.There are corresponding metric types in PCEP for IGP and TE metric from FAD introduced in , but there were no corresponding metric types defined for "Min Unidirectional Link Delay" from and "Bandwidth Metric", "User Defined Metric" from . of this document is introducing them. Note that the defined "Path Bandwidth Metric" is accumulative and is different from the Bandwidth Object defined in .The PCE MUST use the constraints specified in the FAD and also constraints (except optimization metric type) directly included in PCEP messages from the PCC. The PCE implementation MAY decide to ignore specific constraints received from the PCC based on existing processing rules for PCEP Objects and TLVs, e.g. P flag described in and processing rules described in . If the PCE does not support a specified combination of constraints, it MUST fail path computation and respond with a PCEP message with PCInitiate or PCUpd message with empty ERO or PCRep with NO-PATH object. PCC MUST NOT include constraints from FAD in PCEP message sent to PCE as it can result in undesired behavior in various cases. PCE SHOULD NOT include constraints from FAD in PCEP messages sent to PCC.The combinations of the constraints specified in the FAD and constraints directly included in PCEP messages from the PCC may decrease the chance that Flex-algo specific Prefix SIDs represent an optimal path while satisfying all specified constraints, as a result a longer SID list may be required for the computed path. Adding more constraints on top of FAD requires complex path computation and may reduce the benefit of this scheme.All the rules of processing the METRIC object as explained in and are applicable to new metric types defined in this document.All manageability requirements and considerations listed in , , , and apply to PCEP extensions defined in this document. In addition, the requirements and considerations listed in this section apply.A PCE or PCC implementation MAY allow the capability of supporting PCEP extensions introduced in this document to be enabled or disabled as part of the global configuration.An implementation SHOULD allow the operator to view the capability defined in this document. Sections 4.1 and 4.1.1 of should be extended to include the capabilities introduced in Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 for PCEP peer.This document does not define any new mechanism that impacts the liveness detection and monitoring of PCEP.An implementation SHOULD also allow the operator to view FADs, which MAY be used in Flexible Algorithm path computation defined in .An implementation SHOULD allow the operator to view nodes participating in the specified SR-Algorithm.This document does not put new requirements but relies on the necessary IGP extensions.This document inherits considerations from documents describing IGP Flexible Algorithm - for example and .This document inherits operational considerations from documents describing IGP Flexible Algorithm - for example and .[Note to the RFC Editor - remove this section before publication, as
well as remove the reference to RFC 7942.]This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in . The description of implementations in this section
is intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing
drafts to RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual
implementation here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore,
no effort has been spent to verify the information presented here that
was supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not
be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
exist.According to , "this will allow reviewers and
working groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the
benefit of running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable
experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented protocols
more mature. It is up to the individual working groups to use this
information as they see fit".Organization: Cisco SystemsImplementation: IOS-XR PCC and PCE.Description: SR-MPLS part with experimental codepoints.Maturity Level: Production.Coverage: Partial.Contact: ssidor@cisco.comOrganization: HuaweiImplementation: NE Series RoutersDescription: SR Policy with SR Algorithm.Maturity Level: Production.Coverage: Partial.Contact: pengshuping@huawei.comThe security considerations described in ,
, , , , and in itself.Note that this specification introduces the possibility of computing paths by the PCE based on Flexible Algorithm related topology attributes and based on the metric type and constraints from FAD. This creates additional vulnerabilities, which are already described for the path computation done by IGP like those described in Security Considerations section of , but which are also applicable to path computation done by PCE. Hence, securing the PCEP session using Transport Layer Security (TLS) is RECOMMENDED.IANA maintains a registry, named "SR Capability Flag Field", within the "Path Computation Element Protocol
(PCEP) Numbers" registry group to manage the Flags field of the SR-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV. IANA is requested to confirm the following early allocation:BitDescription Reference 5SR-Algorithm CapabilityThis documentIANA maintains a registry, named "SRv6 Capability Flag Field", within the "Path Computation Element Protocol
(PCEP) Numbers" registry group to manage the Flags field of SRv6-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV. IANA is requested to
make the following assignment:BitDescription Reference TBD1SR-Algorithm CapabilityThis documentIANA maintains a registry, named "SR-ERO Flag Field", within the "Path Computation Element Protocol
(PCEP) Numbers" registry group to manage the Flags field of the SR-ERO Subobject. IANA is requested to confirm the following early allocation:BitDescription Reference 7SR-Algorithm Flag (A)This documentIANA maintains a registry, named "SRv6-ERO Flag Field", within the "Path Computation Element Protocol
(PCEP) Numbers" registry group to manage the Flags field of the SRv6-ERO subobject. IANA is requested to
make the following assignment:BitDescription Reference TBD2SR-Algorithm Flag (A)This documentIANA maintains a registry, named "PCEP TLV Type Indicators", within the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry group. IANA is requested to confirm the early allocation of a new TLV type for the new LSPA TLV specified in this document.TypeDescription Reference 66SR-AlgorithmThis documentIANA maintains a registry for "METRIC Object T Field" within the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry group. IANA is requested to confirm
the early allocated codepoints as follows:TypeDescription Reference 22Path Min Delay MetricThis document23P2MP Path Min Delay MetricThis document24Path Bandwidth MetricThis document25P2MP Path Bandwidth MetricThis document128-255User Defined Metric This documentIANA is requested to allocate new error types and error values within the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" sub-registry of the PCEP Numbers registry for the following errors.Error-TypeMeaning Error-Value 19Invalid OperationTBD3:Attempted use of SR-Algorithm without advertised capabilityTBD4:Unsupported combination of constraintsStandard for Binary Floating-Point ArithmeticIEEEThanks to for shepherding the document and for his contributions and suggestions.
Would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Aijun Wang, Boris Khasanov, Jie Dong, Ketan Talaulikar, Marina Fizgeer, Nagendra Nainar, Rakesh Gandhi, Russ White, Shraddha Hegde for review and suggestions.
Mike Koldychev
Ciena Corporation
Email: mkoldych@proton.me
Zafar Ali
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: zali@cisco.com
Stephane Litkowski
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: slitkows.ietf@gmail.com
Siva Sivabalan
Ciena
Email: msiva282@gmail.com
Tarek Saad
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: tsaad.net@gmail.com
Mahendra Singh Negi
RtBrick Inc
Email: mahend.ietf@gmail.com
Tom Petch
Email: ietfc@btconnect.com